Christ's words, as embodying substantially, the views of this subject which we have advocated. "You have represented me as a wine-bibber, and as a friend of publicans and sinners, and as one who casts out devils by Beelzebub; and you will still go on, after all the miracles which I have done among you, to represent me as a false prophet and a deceiver of the people, but, notwithstanding, all these grievous sins shall be forgiven you, if that last dispensation of the Holy Ghost, which I shall, after my ascension, send among you, shall prevail with you to believe in me. But if, when I have sent the Holy Ghost to testify the truth of my mission, and of my resurrection, you shall continue in your unbelief, and shall blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and represent him also as an evil spirit, your sin shall never be forgiven, nor shall there anything be farther done to call you to repentance."

ARTICLE III.

STRICTURES ON WILSON ON THE MODE OF
BAPTISM.

By REV. EDWARD BEECHER, D.D., Boston.

THE title page of this work* informs us that in addition to a discussion of Infant Baptism, the Mode of Baptism is also to be considered. This, however, is in fact the main part of the work; 334 pages out 534 being devoted to it. We propose in our remarks to consider only the discussion of the Mode of Baptism.

We are encouraged to hope that it is the purpose of God to produce by the present deeply interesting discussions a final decision of this important question. The investigations of Dr. Carson, Prof. Stuart, Prof. Goodwin, Dr. Halley and others, have accumulated a vast mass of evidence from the Greek classics, and much evidence from the Fathers has of late been added. The usages of the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha, have been long before the church. All needed evidence seems thus to have been produced. For this reason it would seem Prof. Wilson has not so much labored to add new testimony to this mass of evidence, as to classify it, and subject parts of it to a critical scrutiny. He has in fact selected and commented on a relatively small part of the testimony that others had already adduced.

* Infant Baptism, a Scriptural Service, and Dipping unnecessary to its Right Administration. By the Rev. Robert Wilson, Professor of Sacred Literature for the General Assembly, Royal College, Belfast. London and Belfast, 1848.

He appears as a decided opponent of Dr. Carson, and he avows his purpose not only to refute his main position that dipping or immersion is essential to Baptism, but also to expose so many of his gross errors in criticism and translation, as may be necessary in in order to rebuke his dogmatism, and to reduce the undue authority of his mere name over the minds of his admiring and spell-bound disciples. Thoroughly has he performed this work. He has also manfully rebuked what he does not hesitate to call the abuse of Dr. Carson towards his antagonists. At the same time, however, he bears a decided testimony to his own conviction of the general excellence of his Christian character, and to his unquestionable abilities as a critic. The spirit of Prof. Wilson himself is excellent, and his style of thought manly and dignified. We have read his work with pleasure and profit, although compelled to dissent from some of his conclusions. Although, as we have stated, Prof. Wilson employs himself for the most part in criticising the evidence adduced by others, yet he has on some points added important evidence from his own researches, especially in his reply to Dr. Carson's dissertation on λovo. Dr. Carson had argued that since Baptism was called louroór, a bathing, it was in fact an immersion, since the common mode of bathing was by immersion. Prof. Wilson has thoroughly investigated the evidence on this point, and clearly proved that the common mode of bathing, in Greece and Egypt, was not by immersion, but that the bathers stood naked by a lourie and washed themselves, and had water poured or dashed on them by a nugazóns. He also points out the manner in which this practice must have influenced the sense of Loco in the Septuagint, and the New Testament, in such a way that all logical arguments from love and lovtgór in favor of dipping or immersion, are clearly at an end.

Some of his discussions of passages which have been much canvassed in this controversy, are very able. This is especially true of the celebrated passage in Dan. 4: 30, in which it is said of Nebuchadnezzar τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐβάφη ἀπὸ τῆς δρόσου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ "his body was wet with the dew of heaven." With great learning and philological acumen he exposes the errors of Dr. Gale and Dr. Carson, and completely dissipates into airy nothing, Dr. Carson's theory that here "one mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting by the liveliness of the imagination."

As opposed to Dr. Carson's demand for exclusive dipping, we consider his argument decisive. By this we mean, that he suc'ceeds in showing "that sufficient grounds have been laid for refusing to be fettered by the modal exclusiveness of our Baptist friends." He proves that dipping and immersion are not essential to baptism, because decisive instances can be produced of the use of Bazigo where there is and can be no immersion.

But in attempting to fix upon the real import of Bantigo in the THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1.

4

ordinance, he is not successful. He has rejected the sense, to pu[Jan. rify, and vainly tried to fix upon a universal sense that denotes neither to dip, nor to immerse, nor to pour, nor to sprinkle, but some external state more generic than any of these.

We should, however, do him injustice did we not add, that he has, without seeming to be aware of it, effectually refuted his own false theory and sustained ours. But this, cannot alter the fact that he repudiates the sense to purify. This, in its place, we shall show. In one point of view we rejoice that the Prof. has taken this ground. A universal and instantaneous reception of the sense, to purify, without dissent or opposition by the anti-Baptists, might create an apprehension that party bias had produced too ready an acquiescence in arguments that appeared favorable to sectarian interests, and not allowed them to be subjected to a thorough scrutiny. The dissent of some of the opponents of the Baptists from our views, will give cheering evidence that a spirit of free and independent thought exists, and remove all such apprehensions. Indeed, so far are we from deprecating such opposition, that we earnestly request that any one who can, Baptist, or anti-Baptist, will thoroughly expose the insuffiiency of our arguments. The more thoroughly this is done, if it can be done, the better. One thing only do we deprecate-an effort to destroy the lawful power of argument by invidious personal attacks, and by the authority of names. The only tendency of such a course, is to produce a contempt of truth without enquiry. To effect this purpose it has been said, that no really respectable scholars believe our views, and other arguments equally highminded and logical have been employed.

Indeed, a review of the leading Baptist arguments against the doctrine in question which this country has thus far produced, is truly edifying. One learned scholar seemed to regard the fact that the writer of the articles in the Biblical Repository resided in the West, as having great weight to evince the falsehood of the doctrine advanced by him. Another found a powerful argument in the fact that Prof. Stuart, a much older man than the author, had, in his article in the Biblical Repository, previously advanced an opposite doctrine. We are now told' that it will be a great waste of precious time for the Baptists to answer our arguments till we have convinced such men as Profs. Stuart and Schmuker that we are correct in our views. It would have been a happy thing if Dr. Carson, confessedly the most able Baptist writer of the age, had discovered this compendious mode of reasoning in season to save so great a waste of his own time as has been made in his fruitless efforts to reply to our facts and arguments. We will. also, add, that the actual opinions of Prof. Stuart and Prof. Schmuker we do not know, but we do know what the facts and By the Editor of the Christian Watchman and Reflector, Boston.

arguments are. Again, we will say that the principles and practice of Prof. Stuart, in other cases, sustain our positions, so that he cannot condemn us without condemning himself, as will manifestly appear in the course of our remarks.

It seems, then, that the argument against the sense purification from names, ages, and places, has been, in this country, the only reliance of the Baptists. We, therefore, regret it the more that Prof. Wilson has done nothing better for them than to add another name to their list, for he has not attempted to furnish an answer to a solitary argument advanced by us.

In this state of the case we cannot better express our views than by quoting the following manly remarks of his own, which we heartily endorse, as of the highest importance. "The investigation. and defence of truth universally appear to us to demand that mere names and authorities be placed upon their proper level. **** Far be it from us to trifle with the rights and immunities of a well earned reputation, or in any department, civil, ecclesiastical, or literary, to refuse honor to whom honor is due; but when lofty character in the walks of authorship, instead of merely commending certain views to respectful consideration, is employed for the purpose of rendering further discussion superfluous or hopeless, **** where a name, however great and good, is put forward to lay an arresting hand on the spirit of free enquiry, it becomes a solemn duty to employ all legitimate means for breaking the spell of mere authority and subordinating the influence of names to the supremacy of truth," pp. 66, 67. "Now we hold it incumbent on every friend of truth to resist this summary mode of determining controversies, on all subjects which fall under discussion, and this course we maintain to be especially indispensable in the present crisis of the Baptist controversy. Again and again are we tauntingly informed by our opponents that the giants of literature have settled the dispute in their favor, and the ghosts of these giants are called up, as if to put us in bodily

fear."

In accordance with these views he deems it his duty to prove by a searching exposure of his errors, that Dr. Gale "may be safely matched on the score of false criticisms and humiliating errors in translation, against any learned advocate of infant baptism, living or dead." He pursues the same course towards Dr. Carson.

He thus concludes his remarks on this point, "We are not, then, to be overawed by names, however distinguished, nor to permit authorities, however numerous or weighty, to interpose between us and the thorough and fearless investigation of the subject. Conducted in this spirit, the discussion occupies a prominent place in our regards, and is calculated to realize important results.

We may safely take little interest in the mere contest of

party-the battle of man against man-Podo-baptist against AntiPædo-baptist; but in the noble strife of solid facts and sound reasonings, it should be our ambition to come off victorious," pp. 68, 69.

Inasmuch, then, as the learned Professor has, not very consistently, arrayed the mere authority of his own name against our doctrine, refraining entirely from "the noble strife of solid facts and sound reasonings," "we hold it incumbent on every friend of truth to resist this summary mode of determining controversies -and this course, we maintain, to be especially indispensable in the present crisis of the Baptist controversy."

The learned Professor, then, will, we are sure, take no offence if, in defending the great and sacred cause of truth, we undertake, in imitation of his own example, to place the authority of his name also "upon its proper level.'

In order to do this, it is necessary to produce from his own work, internal evidence that he had not thoroughly studied either the doctrine against which he has arrayed himself, or that which he professes to defend; that he is not consistent with himself in his assertions against our doctrine; that he is bound to reject his own principles and proceedings, or else to confess that the doctrine is rational, and has been fully proved; that the position which he has assumed in place of our doctrine, is inconsistent with facts admitted or proved by himself; and that it involves the cause he has undertaken to defend in inextricable difficulties.

Let no one suppose that we intend to call in question the real and distinguished abilities of the Professor. He avows, and no doubt with the utmost sincerity, a very high opinion of the learning and acumen of Dr. Carson; yet, in speaking of one of his expositions, he says, "it bristles with inconsistencies which we defy mortal ingenuity to reconcile;" again, he pronounces his main position false and proves it so, and with great assiduity he has labored to expose his other numerous and great errors in fact and argument. In like manner, while we admit the distinguished learning and abilities of Prof. Wilson, inasmuch as he has chosen to throw the authority of his name against what we deem one of the most important doctrines of the age, an imperious sense of duty calls on us, in like manner, to expose his inconsistencies, unsound reasonings, and errors.

The main and controlling considerations by which the learned Professor was induced to reject the doctrine that Bantico means to purify, were two. 1. That he had not seen any proof of the existence of that sense, and 2d that to adopt it would involve an absurdity.

The last of these reasons is obviously the most weighty, and deserves our first consideration; for if it be well founded, it is of