treated by a warm advocate for such study, in a manner not conformable to just rules of interpretation. They have thought, that an intelligent infidel could not but be confirmed by this article, viewed as a whole, in his hostility against the Bible, as a book explained by its friends, not on just and rational principles, but according to their own purposes.

A use, not justified by sacred philology and correct rules of interpretation, has been made of a passage, which I know is a favorite one with many, particularly the uninformed, in their defence of sprinkling ; viz. Ezek. 36: 25, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. Concerning this text, the remark is made, that "the prophet Ezekiel speaks of water to be sprinkled, under the new dispensation."* Was the prophet, I ask, speaking, of any particular outward observance to be performed, or did he simply convey the idea that God would purify his people from their iniquity? And did he not represent this moral purifying by the emblem of sprinkling, to which their ritual had accustomed them as significant of purification? To me this

is so evident from reading the whole connection, that I need no argument to sustain it; and it has always seemed sufficiently strange to me, that any should resort to this prophecy, to ascertain how a Christian ordinance should be performed. They surely must be attracted solely by the word which occurs in the verse employed, without regarding the idea. Besides, this verse, in like manner as the connected ones, informed the Jews what GOD would do, not what the ministers of religion would be required to do.

* P. 371.

This same passage is referred to, in connection with Isa. 12:3. 44: 3. Zech. 13:1, as unfolding the sources whence the Jews might have derived "the opinion, that the Messiah would baptize his disciples."* But how

human ingenuity could derive from these passages such an opinion, it is difficult to conceive. If the Jews, at any period of their history, could justly make such a discovery from these passages, they must either have had a very different sort of light from that which is now enjoyed, or else the study of sacred interpretation is a hopeless undertaking, and the opposers of revelation may well call in question the propriety of the apostle Peter's remark, that prophecy is a light shining in a dark place.'

I am unable to determine from the language of Prof. Stuart respecting these passages, whether he means to express it as his own belief that the passages, properly interpreted, would lead the Jews to "the opinion that the Messiah would baptize his disciples;" or whether he means only to say, that the Jews of our Saviour's time might, in some way or other, have drawn from them such an opinion. If the latter be his meaning, he does not, of course, make himself responsible for such an interpretation of the passages. This construction of his language is not, however, the obvious one. And yet, though he certainly seems to say so, can it be that Prof. Stuart himself really understands Isa. 12: 3, Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation, as adapted to raise an expectation among the Jews "that the Messiah would baptize his disciples?" Or can it be that he considers Isa. 44: 3, For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I

* P. 354.

will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring, as a prophecy of Christian baptism? or that he regards Zech. 13: 1, In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness, as a prophecy of Christian baptism?

Importance of this Examination.-Infant Baptism.

I may appear to some to have shown a very needless solicitude about modes and forms. In my own judgment, however, it is not a solicitude about a mode or a form, but about an ordinance of the gospel. Now an ordinance of the gospel ought not to be displaced, and an unrequired ceremony substituted in its room; especially when, as in the present circumstances of the religious world, this unrequired ceremony is connected with the additional and the greater error in respect to the recipients of a Christian ordinance. It is not, however, my design to enlarge respecting the proper subjects of baptism; this, I trust, will, in due time, be executed by abler hands. I will just say, that the topics suggested by Prof. Stuart as justifying infant baptism, are far from affording a satisfactory vindication. I here present them, "Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, do I need them. If the subject had respect to what is fundamental or essential in Christianity, then I must find either the one or the other, in order to justify adopting or practising it. But as the case now is, and the rite itself is but an external rite; the general analogy of the ancient dispensation; the enlargement of privilege under the Gospel; the silence of the New Testament on the subject of receiving children

into a special relation to the church by the baptismal rite, which shows, at least, that there was no dispute in early ages relative to this matter; the certainty that in Tertullian's day the practice was general; all these considerations put together-united with the conviction that baptism is symbol and dedication, and may be so in the case of infants as well as adults; and that it brings parents and children into a peculiar relation to the church, and under peculiarly recognized obligation-serve to satisfy me fully, that the practice may be, and should be, continued.”*

Why ought we not to be guided by the New Testament, and to be satisfied with its guidance, on the question, to whom is Christian baptism to be administered? as well as on the question, to whom is the Lord's Supper to be administered? And why might not infant communion, if it had obtained as firm footing and had been continued as generally in the church as infant baptism, be defended by some of these same considerations? In truth, the one practice as a religious ordinance, is quite as improper as the other; the one is quite as incongruous with the nature and design of Christian ordinances as the other. Is there such a peculiarity about baptism, as places it quite out of the range of other scriptural subjects? Is not the question, whether infants are proper subjects of baptism, to be decided by a direct appeal to those parts of the Bible which give information in regard to baptism? While on other questions relating to religious faith and religious duty, plain and clear expressions of the divine will are required, on this, it would seem, they are not needed. subjects, pertaining to religious doctrine

* P. 385.

On all other

and duty, a

Christian man would ascertain the right path by a simple reference to the word of God; why is not the question of duty in respect to baptism to be decided in the same manner? Why is not the Bible a sufficient, and a sufficiently lucid, directory on this? Ought any man's "views" of the ordinance to regulate his conclusion without recurring to "commands, or plain and certain examples;" or ought the word of God to regulate both his views and his conclusion? Is a man who has hitherto been ignorant of Christianity, and who has no views respecting it, but who has now received the whole Bible and is left to its guidance alone, is he not in a capacity fully to decide the question of duty as to the scriptural subjects of baptism? Does the great Protestant principle of the sufficiency and the supremacy of the Bible, fail in respect to baptism, and in respect to baptism only? And where, in the whole Bible, is the passage, or the combination of passages, that would suggest to such a man, as I have above supposed, the duty of infant baptism? What one passage in the whole word of God, demands for its fair and full explication, the practice of infant baptism? Let the passage be produced, and the church of Christ will be at rest on this point. Let the passage be produced, and divine authority be exhibited; and then the advocates of infant baptism will no longer justly expose themselves to the responsibility of keeping the family of Christ in agitation. But I must not enlarge. Let me state my honest conviction and turn to another matter. On the ground, then, which Prof. Stuart has exhibited, as sustaining infant baptism, and with the scriptural representations of baptism full in my view, I could not, with a good conscience, as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, adopt the practice; I see not how I could continue it,