men. There are, however, weighty reasons why this practice should be discontinued. Some of these have already been noticed; we shall now mention one or two more as deserving serious attention.

It cannot be expected, that institutions established for seamen, will have their desired and full effect, until fewer vessels sail on the sabbath. Merchants may be officers of Marine Bible Societies; and captains may be subscribers; but if they show no veneration for the sabbath, if they evidently make it a part of their calculations for their vessels to sail on that day, the impressions made on their seamen will be manifestly injurious. It would be strange if they should reverence a day, which is openly disregarded by men or whom they are accustomed to look with respect. If merchants and captains are all life and activity on the sabbath--if the former are busy in the preparation of packages and letters

and the latter in giving commands for getting under weigh-how natural for common seamen to ask, why should we poor sailors care any thing for the "Mariners meeting;" or the observance of religious worship?

But the evil consequences of sailing on the sabbath are far from being confined to this class of men. It has a bad effect on the conduct of persons on shore. When a vessel departs on the sabbath, it is frequently the case, that the wharves are thronged with spectators. Some are there from motives of idle curiosity; others to bid a parting adieu to their friends; and others are looking out for an individual by whom they can forward communications on business. Perhaps most of these persons would have been at some place of worship, had they not been informed of the expected departure of a vessel. With minds dissipated by the scenes of the morning, they have no disposition to visit the house of God in the af

ternoon; and hence the day is entirely lost as to all moral and reli gious purposes.

It would be easy to enlarge on other unhappy consequences which arise from this common and improper practice. But it is hoped, sufficient has been said to awaken the attention of the best friends of seamen to this subject. Let no one fold his arms in despondency, and say nothing can be done. The motto of Christians in their career of philanthrophy, should be, "never despair." Nor are there any formidable reasons for despair in this particular case. If some of the most respectable merchants, both in England and the United States, have formed themselves into associations, to promote the moral and religious interests of seamen; it may confidently be expected they will proceed in this good work, until they determine, that their vessels shall not be sent out of port on the Lord's day.

We trust that Christian ministers will embrace opportunities of conversing with their hearers on this subject. Their judicious remonstrances against a practice, which cannot be considered scriptural, may have a happy effect.

Christian merchants should think seriously ofthe responsibility of their. situation. Their example in this case may do much. It may expose them at first to the charge of singularity, and of being overmuch righteous. But by men of reflection,their conduct will be respected, and we may hope eventually imitated.

It is believed that Christians generally may contribute in abolishing this irreligious practice. When they have occasion to journey by water, let them be careful to take passage in a vessel that is not likely to sail on the sabbath. And if, as is often the case, there are several professing Christians about to embark together, let them engage to sail with the captain, on the express condition, that they shall not be re

BIBLICAL.

CRITICISM ON 1 COR. vii. 14.

For the unbelieving husband is made holy in relation to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy in relation to the husband; else your children are unclean: but now they are holy.

In the controversy about infant baptism, it is agreed, on both sides, that none should be baptized but those who have a scriptural right to the ordinance. It is, moreover, agreed that all believers have a scriptural right. The issue of the controversy depends, therefore, upon the decision of this point-Do the holy scriptures any where allow the right of being baptized to some who cannot claim it as believers, viz. the unbelieving infant children of a believer? In conducting the controversy to its issue, the pedobaptists, who affirm that such in fants have this right from scripture, are bound to prove their affirma⚫tion. By no rule of fair reasoning are the Baptists bound to prove the negative. Nevertheless, the negative can be proved; and strange as it may seem, it can be proved by the very text quoted above, which has been so frequent ly and so confidently urged in support of the Pedobaptist cause. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, with which truth may, at all times, successfully defend herself; but awkward error commits suicide when essaying to use this potent weapon.

Pedobaptists have remarked, when reasoning from this text, that the word agioi, saints, or holy ones, is applied, in the scriptures, to church members, as separated or consecrated to God.-Keeping this remark in view, it clearly appears that persons who are in no sense agioi, holy, cannot be church members. It appears, with equal clearness, that persons who are agioi, holy, only in one particular sense, cannot be church members, unless,

in that very sense, their holiness amount to and include church memeither designed to mislead, or wordbership. Now, unless the apostle ed his sentence very incautiously, the holiness predicated of the children is the same with that predicated of the unbelieving husband or wife, and does not amount to church membership. But the apostle declares expressly, that, with the exception of this holiness, the children are unclean. Therefore, the only holiness which the children possess does not amount to church membership.

The conclusion which has just been drawn, will appear the clearer, and therefore decisive against infant baptism, the more critically we attend to the apostle's words.

The verb esti, is erroneously translated in our version, as if it were the imperfect tense. In such sentences, whenever the imperfect tense is used, it conveys the idea of present time, and implies a negative; and the entire sentence, by means of this implication, expresses a certain conclusion drawn from known premises: but when the present tense is used, the sentence barely affirms that a certain conclusion may be drawn from the premises, provided the premises be first ascertained. For example; when we say, if the sun were risen, he would shine; we imply that the sun does not shine, and from these implied premises we draw the implied conclusion, that the sun is not risen: but when we say, if the sun is risen he shines; we leave it to be ascertained whether the sun shines, before the conclusion can be drawn whether he is risen.For these reasons, when we observe that the present tense is used in drawing a conclusion, in a sentence which, if the ellipsis were supplied, would read, "if the unbelieving husband and wife are not sanctified, your children are not holy," we may gather that the premises are regarded as not alrea

dy known, but as yet to be ascertained. But if, by the holiness of the children, their church membership had been meant, it would have been referred to as a well known and familiar fact: consequently, the very use of the present tense goes far in proof that the holiness does not mean church membership.

The pronoun umon is correctly translated your; but it has been common to explain it erroneously, as if it were their. The apostle designs what he says, see v. 17, to be an ordinance for the church; and from verse 8 to verse 15, he gives information and advice to the church, for the direction of particular members of their body. He speaks with regard severally to the unmarried and widows, to the married, &c.; and throughout, in bis reference to them, he uses the third person, them, they, him, her, &c. It is much more natural and consistent, therefore, to understand the word your as referring, not to the husband and wife unequally yoked with unbelievers, but to the whole church; that is, to as many of the church as had children, as ver. 5, refers to as many of the church as were married. If the word your understood in this sense, every shadow of plausibility in the Pedobaptist exposition vanishes; while, on the contrary, it appears (since these children, whosoever they were, have been proved not to have had the holiness of church membership) that infant church membership did not exist in the church at Corinth.

be

In all the above reasoning on this passage, let it be observed, that no attempt has been made to determine positively what the holiness is: wherefore, the conclusion will not be at all invalidated, even if this should be determined incorrectly in the further explanation of the text.

As the unbelieving husband is holy in relation to the believing

wife, and the unbelieving wife is holy to the believing husband; so the children of believers are holy to their parents. Neither the unbelieving spouse, nor the infant unbelieving children, have any intrin sic holiness: it is altogether relative. To be intrinsically holy, is to be undefiled: to be relatively holy, is to communicate no defile.

ment.

The apostle in this verse is but applying to particular case the general principle which he has established in the latter part of the fifth chapter, viz. that it is not required of Christians, for the preservation of their purity, to break off their intercourse with, or destroy their natural relations to those who are without. If any members of the church had supposed that it was inconsistent with Christian purity for a brother to retain and love and cherish as his wife, one who was an unbeliever and out of the church; the apostle puts it into the power of the church to remind such members that their children stood in a relation to them similar to that in which the unbelieving wife stood to the unfortunate brother. If his wife were unclean to him, their children, being as much unbelievers and out of the church as she was, were unclean to them.

This explanation, which is simple, clear, and consistent, makes the apostle's argument to be drawn from the very fact, that the children were not church members. But it was established before, that infant church membership did not exist in the church at Corinth. Now, since all the primitive churches were similarly organized, we have the clear conclusion that infant church membership was unknown in the time of the apostles: and, therefore, infants have not a scriptural right to the ordinance of baptism. D. [Luminary

Elements of Interpretation, translated from the Latin of J. A. Ernesti, and accompanied by Notes; with an Appendix, containing extracts from Morus Beck, and Keil. By Moses Stuart, Associate Prof. of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. Flagg & Gould, 1822. pp. 124.

Is the present state of theolog. ical controversy, it is pleasing to observe the increasing attention which is directed to the study of interpretation. So long as all parties allow that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," the great question must be, What do the scriptures teach? And this question can only be determined by a reference to what are mutually allowed to be the principles of interpretation. When men shall generally understand and faithfully apply these principles to the study of the word of God, not only will error gradually recede, but those minor differences which separate the real followers of Christ, will vanish before the light of increasing knowledge. For the work which we are about to notice, we are indebted to the labours of one, who has probably done more for the science of sacred criticism, than any other individual in our country. Besides the present work, he has within a year pub. lished an interesting pamphlet on the study of the original languages, and an Hebrew grammar, by far the most valuable of any with which we are acquainted From the indefatigable perseverance and acknowledged ability of professor Stuart, we are inclined to hope that what he has done, is but the commencement of his labours. We trust that he will not discontinue them, until he has furnished the li

brary of our theological students with all the necessary apparatus for investigating the word of God.

The design of the work of Ernesti, is, first, to develop the principles on which certainty of interpretation rests; and secondly, to give the practical directions necessary for the interpretation of scripture.

It was our intention to have given a brief abstract of the work in nearly the words of the author. This, from the peculiar nature of the book, we found impracticable. We shall, therefore, endeavour to pursue the train of thought which Ernesti suggests, without pretending to follow bis order, or make him in all respects responsible for our opinions. Let us first consider the question, How may we be certain that we understand a passage in an ancient author? In other words, how may we know that we attach the meaning to a particular sentence which the author meant to convey?

In considering this question, let us commence with the statement of a well known fact. There is scarcely a word in our language (proper names excepted) which is not susceptible of several significations. In opening Johnson's dictionary almost at random, we find twenty-three meanings assigned to the word "break," when used as a verb active, twelve as a verb neutet, and three as a substantive. The word cast has 37 meanings as a verb active, three as a verb neuter, and sixteen as a substantive. A multitude of instances might be selected of words which exhibit a much greater variety of significations than those we have mentioned.

When we consider that every verb is liable to various changes by mood, tense, &c. in which its form