a date, if I mistake not, antecedent to his coming to the academy. There was also found a kind of diary, which I have not yet seen, but which it seems contains some very curious and useful hints.

I heartily wish that this narrative may be of service towards strengthening your faith, and awaking your desires after that glorious world, whither this excellent brother is gone.

Let us endeavour to express our friendship by such offices as may fit us to meet him, and each other, where nothing shall separate us, or prove an alloy to the enjoyment of our mutual conversation.

I am your most affectionate Friend,

PHILIP DODDRIDGE.*

It may not be uninteresting to remark, that the funeral sermon which Dr. Doddridge preached at Harborough for Mr. David Some and Mr. Ragg was the discourse which he had composed, jointly with Mr. Ragg, for that purpose. It is entitled "The Presence of God an Encouragement to Good People under the Loss of Friends. Joshua, i. 1, 2, 5, 6.”—The notice taken of his deceased companions is, as may be supposed, tender and pathetic in a high degree; and the argumentative portion is written with that direct force and simplicity, which so happily characterizes his early productions, and may, indeed, be generally remarked, as pervading the four volumes of his posthumous Sermons recently published.

TO THE REV. MR. SAUNDERS.

Harborough, June 27, 1727.

It is ever most joyfully that I write to my dear and excellent friend Mr. Saunders. I know few men in the world so capable of making a correspondence entertaining and improving even to a stranger, and there is so much of the sweetness of friendship existing between us, as gives it a peculiar relish to me.

The distribution of your sacramental discourse I like very well, and had it been my business only to make an encomium upon it, I could have done it with a great deal of ease and pleasure. But I am not so well pleased with the latter part of your letter, because you have there invaded my province! It is my way to send queries-not to answer them,-and here you have imposed the laborious part upon me, without considering how incapable I am of managing it to advantage. I desire therefore, for the time to come, that the form may be changed, and I am ready to imagine that the best way to prevent your sending me any queries for the future, will be to answer those you have already sent me! For when you come to compare my solution of the difficulty with that which arose in your own mind, you will easily perceive that asking me questions will turn to very little account.

Your first query seems to me to consist of two distinct parts,-1st, whether there be more than two sacraments under the New Testament dispensation?

---and 2ndly, whether washing the disciples' feet be not an ordinance of continual obligation, and may not therefore be called a sacrament?

In answer to the first part of the proposition, it plainly appears to be a dispute about the signification of a word, and can be decided only by defining it. Every one has a right to define it as he pleases, and different definitions may reconcile two propositions, which seem directly contradictory. Were I to consider the original etymology, or the common use of the word, I should define it thus: "A sacrament is an external rite, instituted by Christ for the use of his church in all succeeding ages, as a seal of the mutual engagements existing between himself and his people."

That baptism and the Lord's supper are such sacraments may easily be proved; but if it be asserted with success that the washing of feet be another, then it must be proved, not only that Christ has instituted it as a rite of perpetual obligation, but likewise that he has made it a seal of the mutual engagement between himself and his people.

Now I do not apprehend that John xiii. will afford any plausible argument to prove that the washing of the brethren's feet is a seal of such a mutual engage ment. The most that can be pretended from ver. 14 is, that Christ appointed it, as a token of our readiness to serve our brethren, and as an imitation of him, in the condescension and benevolence of his temper. Now this comprehends but a small part of that idea which we affix to the word sacrament.

And here I am so happy as to have the church of Rome on my side! which, besides her infallibility, may be supposed to understand the meaning of a Latin word, which she herself first applied to a Christian institution. Now it is well known, that she still retains the ceremony of washing feet, without giving it the name of a sacrament. The King of England's almoner also performs the rite on Maundy Thursday, although the church of England holds but two sacraments, and excludes this from the number.

But I may go farther, and add, that I do not imagine it can easily be proved that Christ intended this custom to be of lasting use in his church. The only argument that is urged for it, is to be found in John, xiii. 14. Now I think these words may fairly be explained as a general exhortation for us to evince in all proper instances a most condescending benevolence to our Christian brethren. And I have several objections against the other interpretation, which makes it an institution of an expressive ceremony to be used by Christians at all times and in all places. 1. It does not seem, in its own nature, to be calculated for universal use. In Judea it was an agreeable expression of kindness, being very refreshing on account of the heat of the climate, and the manner in which they commonly travelled and shod their feet; in England it would be reckoned impertinent and troublesome, and in some northern countries it would be still more disagreeable, in proportion to the degree of cold which prevails in them. And

should the water be warmed, the trouble of undressing the feet, (which in those countries have several coverings, strongly fastened on,) and exposing them naked to the cold air while the ceremony was performing, would more than counterbalance any refreshment which could be received by it. Now who could suppose our Lord would appoint his disciples to express their kindness to their brethren by an action which the person to whom it might be rendered would account it greater kindness for them to omit. 2. Our Lord, in the pretended words of the institution, or elsewhere, does not give those directions which seem necessary in order to insure a convenient performance of the ceremony, v. g. By whom, to whom, or at what seasons it must be done, &c. 3. The apostles give us no advice nor exhortation on this head. 4. We do not find by the New Testament or the primitive traditions of antiquity, so far as I remember, that such a ceremony was retained in the Christian churches.

Your next query is the reverse of this, "whether there be any sacrament in the Christian dispensation or not?" This you divide into two parts, the former relating to Baptism, the latter to the Eucharist.

With regard to BAPTISM, I affirm it to be a sacrament; and think I could easily prove that each branch of my definition would support me. However, as you desire me only to consider, whether the ordinance was intended for perpetual use, I shall not advert to the curious inquiry as to the purposes for which it was appointed. That Christ instituted the baptism