One of the principal advantages, indeed one of the grand reasons, of the formation of churches, is discipline and instruction-discipline and instruction brought to bear on the youngest members of the Christian family, who are capable subjects. But if the membership of children is not recognized, but denied, by their professing parents, how shall the church gain access to them. Will they not find an insurmountable obstruction in their way? On this principle, will not one great argument for parental care and fidelity in their education, be removed and lost? Will not the families of professors cease to be nurseries for the church, and for heaven?

One of the most imposing arguments in favour of the practice in view, is, that it is liberal and kind; that it disinterestedly seeks the good of its objects; that it makes sacrifices to promote it; that it cordially receives them while in material errour, in the hope of gradually removing that errour. But what if the very first step in this enlightening process, is one which goes to confirm and radicate the very errour to be cured? Is there no danger lest, by this practice, we lead our Baptist friends to conclude, that we consider their mistake in denying the right of infants to baptism, a mistake of little importance? Is there no danger lest they view us, in maintaining this right, either half convinced, or little in earnest, or even positively insincere ? And may not the same view be taken by others?

Before introducing a new practice into the church of God, it is indispensable to inquire: What is its tendency? Whither will it lead? What evils may naturally, perhaps necessarily, follow in its train?-In the present case, it is proposed to dispense, in admission to our churches, with a law of Christ, because it is a positive, and not a moral law; and of course, a noncompliance with it may consist with a pious heart? But the Sabbath is, in part at least, a positive, rather than a moral institution. And would it be right, or expedient, to admit to one of our churches, a good man who should be found indissolubly wedded to the Jewish Sabbath, and invincibly prejudiced against the Sabbath of Christians? Would it be right, or expedient, to admit a good man imbued with the Quaker prejudice, both against baptism and the Lord's supper? The fact is, that the dispensing power is a power doubtful, at best, in its nature; dangerous in its exercise; tremendous in its consequences. Its beginning is

like the letting out of water. Its end may too probably be an overflow of incalculable and destructive evils.

To some, perhaps, it may appear, that in refusing to admit to our churches, persons of the description mentioned we shall give the sanction of our example to those very views and measures of the antipedobaptists, of which we have been in the habit of complaining, as too narrow and exclusive. But this apprehension, we conceive, is altogether unfounded. The grand errour of the antipedobaptists lies, if we do not mistake, in their denying the church membership of those who do not agree in their peculiar opinions and practices, and likewise in refusing to them even occasional communion. But to neither of these measures do we propose to give any countenance. So long, indeed, as our brethren of that class maintain that immersion, and that in adult years, is of the essence of baptism, so long will they probably plead, and with some plausibility, that consistency requires them to exclude from their churches, all who do not receive baptism agreeably to their views. And is it not at least questionable whether pedobaptist churches can consistently admit to their bosom, in other words, receive as co-partners in building the church of God, those who differ from them in regard to the very materials of which the church is to be built? The errours of those persons may not endanger the final salvation of others, or their own. But may they not go to mar the order, and undermine the very foundations of the church?

How the practice in view, were it introduced, would affect the great body of Baptist ministers and church members, we undertake not to divine. That it would tend to conciliate their candour and kind feelings, and thus promote mutual harmony between them and us, we are far from anticipating. Should it ever be viewed by them as an attempt on our part, to take possession of a portion of their property, we should be very little disappointed. Indeed, if even now, it puts their charity to the torture, to believe that we can be honest in maintaining the divine appointment of infant baptism, what will they think of us, when we shall have formally dispensed with this rite, in the case of a portion of our own members?

If the influence of the proposed measure on the mutual harmony of pedobaptist and antipedobaptist churches, is at best doubtful, there is another point which admits less

doubt. The former class of churches would too probably find their internal peace interrupted; perhaps effectually and finally destroyed. One subject of disagreement between their members would always exist. One topic of debate would be always at hand; a topic, it is confessed, not of radical importance. Yet who can be ignorant that such are the very topics which have ordinarily given birth to the most unpleasant and interminable discussions? It is a melancholy truth, but still a truth, that even among Christians, debates have usually been prolonged and acrimonious, in an inverse proportion to the real importance of their subjects. We should not do justice to the subject, did we not connect with its discussion a momentary glance at the signs and apparent tendencies of the present time. The spirit of the age is essentially and obviously revolutionary. In government and laws, in science and art, astonishing changes and, in many instances, astonishing improvements have taken place. If religion were a matter of human invention, and not of divine revelation, correspondent improvements might perhaps be expected in this also. But here, we have had a perfect, infallible standard, from the first. By this standard, every thing which comes in the guise of improvement should be scrutinized with eagle eye, before it is adopted. Innovations on first principles are, from the very nature of the case, to be strongly suspected. That the change to which the question under discussion refers, is a change of this character, we would be far from averring. Yet it embraces, as we honestly think, on the maturest reflection, more than at first meets the eye. We apprehend there is real danger that, if introduced, its first effect would be, to impair the sacredness and importance of infant baptism; the second, to bring it into disrepute; the third, to banish it altogether from our churches. How long, it may be asked, will a usage be likely to maintain its ground, whose opponents sternly maintain that it is of no authority, and whose very friends concede that it is of little importance?

Our readers will now perceive that we are utterly unprepared to approve the measure brought to view. But though we dare not propose or sanction the introduction of pious persons not believing in infant baptism into our churches, as regular members, we are equally decided in the opinion that every degree of kindness and charity should VOL. IV.

22

be extended to individuals of this description. Indeed, we see not how persons baptized in infancy, and yet questioning the validity of infant baptism, can, consistently with their own views, come into our churches but by a second baptism; which is plainly inadmissible. But they should be treated with the utmost candour and kindness; and every prudent and Christian method should be employed to remove their perplexities, and increase their piety. Nor do we see any valid reason why members of Baptist churches, who are scattered among us, should not be cordially welcomed, not only to sit with us at the table of the Lord, but to unite with our churches in all their meetings for Christian instruction and edification.

On the whole, we cannot but apprehend that there are strong and decisive reasons which oppose the expression of an opinion on the part of any ecclesiastical body, formally recommending or sanctioning the adoption by our churches, of a new usage in the point under consideration. Cases, no doubt, frequently arise, in which a church may feel itself strongly tempted to meet the scruples of a tender conscience, by a relaxation of its rules. But facts of this kind are extremely apt to erect themselves into precedents. And surely all will admit that the comfort, and even the edification of the individual are less important than the order and peace of the churches. Should a case present itself to a particular church so strongly marked, as apparently to demand and to justify a relaxation, it were better, even here, that the church should proceed purely on its own responsibility. And it should apply to every such case, a distinct and most deliberate action. On this supposition, its procedure will appear, what it really is, an exception to a general rule. But let it not be forgotten that whenever a reception of this character shall become frequent, the rule will too probably be displaced and destroyed by the exception.

ART. IV. INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH 7: 14—16.

By Rev. N. S. FOLSOM, Francestown, N. H.

14. Wherefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign.
Behold! the virgin conceiveth,

And beareth a son,

And calleth his name Immanuel.

15. Butter and honey shall he eat,

Until he shall know how to refuse the evil,

And choose the good.

16. For before the child shall know how to refuse the evil, And choose the good,

The land shall be desolate,

Whose two kings thou dost dread.

THE interpretations of this passage are principally three: (1) that it is directly and solely prophetic of the virgin Mary and our Lord Jesus Christ; (2) that it is prophetic of a child born of a virgin within three years after the prophecy was uttered, and that this event is symbolical of the birth of our Saviour; (3) that the prophet speaks of a child born either of his own wife, or of a young woman just married, and that this child has no reference to the Messiah.

It is the object of this article to state objections to the last two methods of exegesis, answer objections to the first, and show reasons why the first should be preferred.

1. The third hypothesis has found an advocate not only in Gesenius, but also in Dr. John Pye Smith, who defends it in his "Scripture testimony to the Messiah." According to his opinion, the word translated "virgin," designates the young wife of king Ahaz, and the birth of her son was the confirmation of the predicted deliverance. "It appears probable," (I quote his language) "that the word virgin is also applied to a young woman of high rank, very recently married." It is certainly an objection outweighing such a probability, that the word 3 (almâh) is elsewhere found in the Bible with one uniform signification-a woman that has not known man. It occurs in the following places:Gen. 24: 43, Ex. 2:8, Ps. 68: 25, Song of Sol. 1: 3, and 6: 8, Prov. 30: 19, besides Is. 7: 14. An exception