port; and, if it is seriously believed, must lead those who have passed through the ceremony, when they arrive at years of consideration, to a very mistaken apprehension of their own state.

Another part of this ceremony, and which results from administering it to infants, appears to me to be very objectionable. That to which I allude is, the engagement which those enter into, who become sureties for baptized children. In performing this ceremony, the priest says: "This infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself,) that he will renounce the devil and all his. works, and constantly believe God's Holy Word, and obediently keep his commandments. I demand, therefore, Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all the covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou will not follow nor be led by them? Answer, I renounce them all." Now I appeal to those who are well acquainted with this practice, whether they, who thus engage, do really perform their engagement. Does it clearly appear (as it certainly ought) that they

always intend so to do when they make it? Is their own conduct such as corresponds with the engagement into which they have entered? And do they afterwards follow up this engagement by means adapted to the end? Or, is not this solemn covenant, which is attended with the most solemn circumstance, often lightly entered into, and as lightly violated? Let those who are promoting a practice, involving in it a conduct so repugnant both to religion and morality, seriously consider what they are doing; and then I believe they will see this practice in an awful point of view; and not be very censorious on us, for laying aside a ceremony, which, we think we have good reason to believe, is not an essential part of Christianity; and of which their own practice abundantly convinces us, that the abuse greatly exceeds the use.

We are, however, sensible, that the abuse of any thing, in itself good and necessary, is not a sufficient reason for its disuse; nor do we rest our arguments upon it. It is now left to the serious consideration of the reader, whether Water Baptism can be considered as an essential of Christianity, or, whether it may not be regarded as one of those "divers wash

ings," which were imposed for a time only; and which were gradually to vanish away and cease: "Christ being come, a High Priest of good things to come,-by his own blood entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us;"* thus "blotting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross."+

After what has been said on the subject of religious ceremonies in general, and on Baptism in particular, it may not be necessary to add much on what is called the Lord's Supper. We admit that a ceremony, under this name, was in use in the primitive church; and most probably arose from the circumstances which occurred when our blessed Lord ate the last passover with his disciples; but we do not think that, thence, an obligation arises upon Christians in general, to retain this ceremony. It was, like Baptism, derived from a Jewish custom; and when this dispensation was about to be superseded by that of the Gospel, it appears, as has already been observed, that this change was gradual, and the former dispensation was not wholly laid aside at once.

Heb. ix. 11, 12.

+ Col. ii. 14.

Admitting therefore, as we do, all the circumstances related on this subject; we cannot conceive, that a recommendation by Christ, to his most intimate friends and immediate followers, that in future, when they kept the passover, they should have their dear Lord and Master particularly in remembrance, does constitute an obligation upon all those, who should hereafter believe on his name. To desire them to eat that bread and drink that cup in remembrance of Him, with this addition, "as oft as ye drink it,"* is, we believe, a very insufficient foundation for the superstructure which has been raised upon it.

It has already been remarked, that the washing of one another's feet was strongly recommended by our blessed Lord; and might, with at least equal propriety, be now enjoined as a religious obligation on Christians. It may be remembered, that our Lord, having washed the feet of his disciples, afterwards addressed them in this manner: "Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me Master and Lord, and so I am. If I, then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you

* 1 Cor. xi. 25.

an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Can any thing so clear, or so positive, be produced in favour of the Lord's Supper, or even of Water Baptism? Nevertheless, we do not hear of this practice, thus plainly enjoined, being recommended at this day, at least by Protestants, as a Christian duty. And why? Because it is considered, as .we consider the others, of a local or temporary nature. If a church, or a congregation of Christians, can, in one case, dispense with the use of a religious ceremony, it certainly has the same right to do so in another.

The washing of the feet was a mark of humility, as the supper was of love; and where the thing signified is felt and acted upon, the emblem may, in our apprehension, be either used or disused, as Christians may consider most conducive to the real advantage of the church. We believe, however, that retaining these ceremonies has, in general, a tendency to settle the minds of the professors of Christianity in unnecessary forms; and to prevent their aspiring sufficiently after the practice of real and vital Christianity. The importance attached to this ceremony, we conceive, justi

* John xiii. 12–15,