admitted freely to operate upon the heart; whether in purifying it from sin, through the blood of our adorable Redeemer; or in subjecting the natural will, and propensities, and activity of the creature, to the simple, unmixed "obedience of Christ." And this state is to be obtained, not by one immersion, nor by water, neither by any other means than by many of those repeated administrations of the one saving baptism, which the Apostle Paul describes, as already shown (see p. 348.); which, in its commencement, is as "the washing of regeneration ;" and whose future progress and operation is "by the renewing of the HOLY GHOST;" in order to effect that purification which is represented by "FIRE."

WATER Baptism, I trust, it has been shown, was adapted and designed for a people emerging from the manifold exterior rites of Judaism; and was alike calculated for those who were forsaking the multitudinous and various rites of polytheism. Hence it is possible, that, in the present low and imbecile state of the militant church, it may, to similar characters, be alike allowable; and be harmless if adopted only in its own proper and legitimate use; that of a sign of repentance, or of professing belief in the name of Jesus. But for any to attach to water baptism in any respect, or in any degree, the idea of essentiallity, as conferring or promoting the cleansing virtue of the Holy Spirit, is, I reverently believe, alike unscriptural and highly dangerous. *

* Since writing the above remarks, the "Regulations for the Duties of Registrars, 1838," under the recent Act of Parliament, were put into the author's hands; and in the course of looking over the extracts they contain, of The Evidence taken before "the Select Committee on Parochial Registrars, in 1833," the following passage attracted his attention. It occurs in p. 59, and appears to be the Testimony of a tender and conscientious mind, in favour of a civil registry of BIRTHS; a point which is introduced merely to prevent any misunderstanding of the occasion; when it is stated that the Testimony, though given under these circumstances, is conceived to be in itself a strong incidental evidence of the injurious tendency of mixing

When Water baptism is administered with attendant declarations, implying that by the performance of this rite, the subjects of it have undergone regeneration, how greatly is the danger increased of attaching to water that which belongs alone to "CHRIST, the POWER of GOD." That this is not an ideal danger might be abundantly proved by facts. But when any, contrary to the express evidence of Scripture, venture to address the Throne on High, in the name or on behalf of those present, with Thanksgiving, to the import, that this person or this child, who has just been baptized with water, is become regenerate, or an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven; does not such language approach too near to solemn mockery?

pecuniary benefit with religious duties. The whole extract, with the words printed in italics, the same as in this transcript, is from the mouth of a Rector of the Church of England, and is as follows:

"I am afraid that, under the present system, a great many, without any religious impressions, are induced to bring their children to be baptized, merely that they may have a copy of the registér :- that is a very painful thing. Feeling as I do the importance of Christian Baptism, I am deprived of using the strong and various arguments I could use, to induce parents to bring their children to be baptized, from the fact, that if they come I have a fee; and, therefore, it would appear I am advocating my own pecuniary advantage. This is a very great drawback on the satisfaction I should feel, in seeing that sacrament more generally celebrated and reverenced."

Whilst I give this conscientious individual full credit for all he says, it clearly shows that money has a tendency to deter from the discharge of apprehended duty; and it is scarcely needful to point out the case as one of those in which satisfaction may arise from doing what is believed to be right, even when that belief is more or less the offspring of a wrong bias; for to bring "strong and various arguments" from SCRIPTURE, the only admitted test of doctrine, "to induce parents to bring their children to be baptized," would, I conceive, be utterly impossible; since the baptism of infants is not once noticed in the Sacred Volume; and because also, this practice is totally at variance with what I trust has been shown to be, the only legitimate use of water baptism; that of acknowledging repentance, or a belief in Christ; which no one can do for another; any more than he "Can by any means redeem his brother; or give to God a ransom for him."

Whilst Christian charity induces me to conceive and to believe, that many pious minds, through the bias of education, or for want of duly considering the subject in all its scriptural bearings, may have conscientiously received or administered this rite in such a form; yet it would not be just to so important a subject, not to speak very plainly upon it. In short, I apprehend that both he that so administers, and he that so receives water baptism, being of an age to form his own judgment, must utterly pervert the design of water baptism; and would do well very seriously to consider if he is not trifling with Omnipotence. And where pecuniary consideration passes for such an administration of Baptism, if both do not trifle with the Omnipotent Jehovah, because of their really entertaining a belief that the blessed influence of the Holy Ghost is THUS imparted, then is there not great danger of both the donor and the receiver, each subjecting himself to the reproof of Peter: "Thy money perish with thee; because thou hast thought that the GIFT of GOD may be purchased with money.”

In whatever point of view water baptism is regarded, it involves awful considerations. If it is deemed only an outward sign of inward and spiritual grace, then if we reflect that two thousand years are fast hastening to a close, since this sign was divinely authorized, is it not high time for the professing Church of Christ, to allow the shadow to decline, the sign to "decrease" and vanish away; and for her to seek and pray for this issue, through the substantial blessing being imparted of the immediate rays of the Sun of Righteousness.

If, on the other hand, water baptism should be viewed as essential to salvation, it must surely stand in opposition to the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; for as the apostle declares, to the believers in Christ: "There is one Lord, one Faith, ONE BAPTISM."

SECT. II.

The Lord's Supper.

J. W., in p. 272, thus introduces the subject, "In the course of what has been said respecting the flesh and blood of Christ, it is hinted that, with the views the Society of Friends entertain on that great subject, it is no wonder they discard the observance of the Lord's Supper. After adverting to the three opinions into which Barclay says-the professors of Christianity do chiefly divide in this matter,' viz., those of the Papists, the Lutherans, and the Calvanists, we find him saying: (Prop. 13, Sect. 4, p. 456:) 'Now all those uncertain and absurd opinions, and the contentions therefrom arising, have proceeded from their all agreeing in two general errors concerning this thing; which being denied and receded from as they are by us, there would be an easy way made for reconciliation; and we should all meet in one spiritual and true understanding of this mystery and as the contentions, so would also the absurdities which follow from the three forementioned opinions, cease and fall to the ground.""

J. W. goes on with the quotation; but, as there ends Barclay's paragraph, in two editions now before me, and as it may, independently of this circumstance, be more brief and perspicuous, before giving the rest of J. W.'s quotation from Barclay, to introduce R. B.'s three opinions to which J. W. refers, I now present to the reader the substance of them. The first opinion is that of the Papists, which it is enough to say embraces

Transubstantiation, or changing the elementary bread and wine," into the very substance of that same body; flesh and blood of Christ, which was born of the virgin Mary, and crucified by the Jews.' Apology, p. 454.

Second. Lutherans who say: "The substance of the bread remains," but that likewise the outward body of Christ "is in, and with, and under the bread."

Third. Calvinists who, "denying both these, do affirm That the body of Christ is not there corporally or substantially; but yet that it is really and sacramentally received by the faithful, in the use of bread and wine; but how or what way it is there they know not."

Will any considerate and pious mind, on deep reflection, admit that from the mere participation of bread and wine can arise any one of these three effects? If the bread and wine cannot of themselves produce either of these three effects, a previous question arises: By what authority does any man, or any set of men, communicate to mere bread and wine, the virtue ascribed to them by what is termed "consecration ?" Produce Scripture authority for such an AWFUL PRETENSION; and then the subject may be worthy of being further considered.

J. W. thus proceeds in his extract from Barclay, concerning the two general errors, p. 273 :

"The first of these errors is in making the communion or participation of the body, flesh and blood of Christ to relate to that outward body, vessel, or temple that was born of the virgin Mary, and walked and suffered in Judea; whereas it should relate to the spiritual body, flesh, and blood of Christ, even that heavenly and celestial, light and life, which was the food and nourishment of the regenerate in all ages; as we have already proved.

"The second error is in tying this participation of the body and blood of Christ to that ceremony used by Him with his disciples, in the breaking of bread, &c., as if it had only a relation thereto, or were only enjoyed in the use of that ceremony, which it neither hath nor is."