much as they are incompetent to receive instruction, or to believe, or to enter into a covenant, or to promise or answer for themselves, or even to hear the word. For how can infants, who understand not the word, be purified thereby, any more than adults can receive edification by hearing an unknown language? For it is not that outward baptism, which purifies only the filth of the flesh, which saves us, but the answer of a good conscience, as Peter testifies; of which infants are incapable. Besides, baptism is not merely a covenant, containing a certain stipulation on one side, with a corresponding engagement on the other, which in the case of an infant is impossible; but it is also a vow, and as such can neither be pronounced by infants, nor required of them. It is remarkable to what futile arguments those divines have recourse who maintain the contrary opinions."

"IMMERSION. It is in vain alleged by those who, on the authority of Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38, have introduced the practice of affusion in baptism, instead of immersion, that to dip and sprinkle mean the same thing; since in washing we do not sprinkle the hands, but immerse them.'

The opinions of MILTON in regard to the capital doctrine of the TRINITY, as contained in this manuscript, are so utterly at variance with those on the same subject in the works published by

himself, that it is difficult to conceive how both could have proceeded from the same pen. Admitting, however, that the "Treatise of Christian Doctrine," which is without any date, was dictated by him, (and for that conclusion there are certainly very strong reasons,) at what period of his life could it have been written? It should seem it must have been subsequent to the publication of his Paradise Lost in 1666; for were it written sooner, surely that work could not have contained the sublime sentiments which are applied to the Son of God, and to the Holy Spirit. And yet, upon that supposition, it must consequently have been during the last eight years of his life, but then how can we account for his having asserted in 1674, in his last work, that "the doctrine of the Trinity is a plain doctrine in Scripture?" In fact, this manuscript is involved in mystery; but supposing the possibility of its genuineness, I am inclined to adopt a remark applied to the seraphic and pious Dr. Watts, in reference to the gigantic MILTON, that "he had studied the doctrine of the Trinity, as some Indian devotees are said to have contemplated the sun, till their own sight was darkened." Affecting instances these, of the errors into which the most powerful minds might be led, if they are not satisfied to receive the mysteries of the gospel, as matters to be believed upon

the authority of divine inspiration, and not to be explained by the feeble and darkened reason of fallen nature. Happy would it have been for these two great men, had they been influenced in all their reasonings on the nature and perfections of Jehovah, by the sentiment and spirit of the following most admirable couplet:-

Where reason fails, with all her powers,
There faith prevails, and love adores."*

WATTS.

It is a very remarkable feature in the history of some of the most eminent men whom God has raised up for usefulness in his church, that they should have lived long enough to have exhibited in their old age such remarkable proofs of imbecility, as to prove that the best of men are not perfect, either in grace or in knowledge; and that “no man should glory in men." Such men as Cranmer, and Watts, and Milton, might have been supposed to be a kind of super-human beings, not partaking of the weaknesses and infirmities of men in general; but who that are acquainted with the aberrations and folly which they manifested, but will unite in the truth of

* As to the history of the finding of this manuscript in the State Paper Office, I must refer the reader to the Preface to the translation, and to Todd's Account of MILTON, published in 1826.

66

that trite maxim, "The best of men are but men at the best;" or of this, "All is not good that good men do, nor wise that wise men say." Such things, whether recorded by the pen of inspiration, or of common history, are written for our learning, not for our imitation, but for our admonition, to the intent we should "trust in the Lord with all our heart," and not to "lean to our own understanding," as they evidently did. In regard to matters of faith, we are taught in various ways "not to call any man master, because one is our master, even Christ."

Such was my veneration for the character of MILTON, before I read this "Treatise of Christian Doctrine," that I had placed him, as a theologian, in the first rank of uninspired men: I acknowledge my high opinion of him has been greatly lowered, and I could weep over him on account of his having ventured to use his pen to lower the dignity of my Divine Lord, of whom it is written, "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father;" but how can that be done, without attributing to the Son the same divine attributes, honours, and worship, which we pay to the Father? No one, who has paid any serious attention to these subjects, but ought to confess there are as great, or greater, difficulties connected with every scheme which has been adopted to make them plain to human

reason, as with that which implicitly believes them. That the Son and Spirit, as well as the Father, have divine and personal perfections, and works, ascribed to them in Scripture, cannot be doubted that the Unity of Jehovah is also plainly stated in the oracles of truth is incontrovertible-but the manner in which these three equal persons make one Jehovah, is not revealed. I consider, however, that revealed doctrines, though mysteries, are to be received, because they are revealed; and because, if they are rejected on the account of their being irreconcilable to reason, the Bible is invalidated as the sole umpire in matters of religion; and consequently, that we are left without a standard by which to judge between truth and error. I certainly should be pleased, could any one furnish irrefragable evidence that the manuscript entitled, "Treatise of Christian Doctrine," was not written by the eminent man whose "superscription," but not whose "image," is stamped upon it.

My opinion respecting the unimpeachable integrity of MILTON's character, and the unequalled powers of his mind, remains unaltered: as a stern patriot, an ardent lover of his country-as an enlightened Christian, contending for the inalienable birthright of conscience in matters of reli

is not.

* It deserves remark, the name of MILTON prefixed, nor is the manuscript in his own hand-writing.