raised, because immersion, Messiah, Christ, and Jesus, have not been translated, like that which is made about not translating baptize? And shall we translate scandalize and characterize?

But it may be said that in the case of these words the association of ideas has done its work, and that their meaning is so fixed that they have become a part of our language. True, and what hinders the same result as to baptism and baptize? Not the fact that they are transferred words, but that a controversy exists as to their meaning in the original, so that the natural operation of the association of ideas has been, and still is, interrupted. Let the controversy cease, let all think correctly as to the import of the Greek words, and baptize and baptism will soon become as significant as catechize and catechism, or exorcise and exorcism, or even as immerse and immersion.

And

All will know that BAPTISM means A SACRED PURIFICATION or CLEANSING, and that BAPTIZE means TO PURIFY or CLEANSE. there are certainly advantages in not translating, but in transferring this word. Sacred purification will then have, in all languages, one and the same sacred name. This, like Jesus, and Christ, will be known and read of all men, in all languages, as denoting either an external sacred purification, or that one sacred purification of the Spirit which it symbolizes, and which is by the apostle associated with one Lord and one faith.

But if the word Barrie is to be translated and not transferred, it should by all means be translated PURIFY and not IMMERSE. To translate it immerse, is but to perpetuate error and sectarianism, by a false translation of the word of God.

§ 42. Commandments of Men.

As to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, this is plain, that if God has commanded only the genus, no one has a right to limit the command to the species. If he says, go preach, no one has a right to limit us to one specific mode of going. If he says, cultivate the earth, no one has a right to limit us ex

clusively to digging, or to ploughing. So if he commands "purify," no one has a right to limit us to immersion, as the only mode. It is not indeed wrong to immerse, but to insist on this as the only mode, is wrong. And to yield to such a demand, is to sanction a groundless usurpation over the consciences of men. This is our answer to the inquiry of our Baptist brethren, "Why not join us and be on the safe side, and thus unite the church? for you all admit that immersion is baptism." We reply, we might not in certain cases object to immersion, if it involved no concession of principle; but if it does, we will not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel may continue with us. All who come to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they may bring us into bondage, we shall fearlessly resist, relying on the Spirit of God for his guidance and aid. Such are the opposing systems and their consequences.

§ 43. State of the Controversy. Dr. Carson's Reply.

It is an entire anomaly in the history of controversy, that consequences so vast should depend upon the meaning of a single word, yet such is the fact. All of these consequences hinge upon the meaning of the single word Barriw. And as to this word, βαπτίζω. the whole question turns upon the simple inquiry was there a transition in Barri(w from its primary sense to immerse, to the secondary sense to purify, irrespective of mode, and is that the sense in the command?

Now the possibility of such a transition cannot be denied. For, as I have shown, nothing is more common than such changes. And of the fact that the change did take place, I have alleged what seems to me unanswerable proof.

If, therefore, my premises cannot be overthrown, the conclusions above stated of necessity follow. I had supposed that a position so serious in its bearings, would be at once and severely scrutinized in this country, but it has not been. A short time since, however, I heard, on coming from the west to the east, that

Dr. Carson, of Edinburgh, had published a reply, and hoped soon to see it republished in this country. At last, I read in the Christian Watchman, a notice taken from an English Baptist magazine, stating in substance that Dr. Carson, the celebrated Greek scholar, had totally annihilated my arguments. That they were both dead and buried, and that no one dared to appear in their defence. The editor of the Watchman also remarked that this might be necessary in England, and that Dr. Carson, with his vast stores of learning, was just the man to do it, but that in this country it was needless. My pieces are very harmless here, and would not probably have been noticed but for the respectability of the periodical in which they were published. As, therefore, our American Baptists are, in the judgment of this editor of one of their leading papers, so superior in intellectual acumen to those of Great Britain, I concluded that Dr. Carson's reply would not be republished in this country at all, and after vain efforts to obtain a copy of it, I at last was obliged to send for it across the Atlantic. I did not see it till I had finished the whole preceding discussion, and hence I lost the advantage of certain lessons in rhetoric and logic, which, as I discover, Dr. Carson prepared expressly for my benefit.

I am glad, however, to receive it even at this late hour. Dr. Carson writes evidently under great excitement, but puts forth all his energy to defend his positions. And in reviewing his reply we shall be called to try the solidity of the foundation on which my whole argument rests. Dr. Carson, if any one, can destroy them, and if he fails, his cause is lost.

As Dr. Carson's reply has not been republished here, I must needs give some account of it to my readers. It is a pamphlet of 74 pages, devoted entirely to the examination of my first two numbers. These, it seems, were republished in England under a mistaken impression that the discussion was completed, and Dr. Carson answered them as if they were a full exhibition of all the evidence I had to produce. Hence, he answered an incomplete work; and yet his reply considers all the principles involved in a

thorough discussion of the subject. It may be viewed in two lights as a specimen of Rhetoric, or of logic.-In both lights I shall consider it.

Much of it has nothing to do with logic at all. All this I shall put under the head of rhetoric. And, as this is the most striking part of the performance, and that in which its greatest power lies, I think it well to bestow on it particular attention.

§ 44. Dr. Carson's Rhetoric. Its Influence.

In this part of the work, Dr. Carson makes a very strong appeal for sympathy to his readers, in the unparalleled trials in which my work has involved him.

His own view of the case is this.

His gentle spirit shrinks from the use of severe language towards others, even in exposing their errors, but an imperious sense of duty urges him on to discharge the painful task. "I have no wish," he says, "to be severe," p. 437. "It is painful for me to use the knife so freely; but I must, for the sake of the Christian public, find out the disease under which my patient labors. It is better that one delinquent should suffer, than that a multitude should be drawn into error by his example," p. 435. "It grieves me to be obliged to write in this manner, but I cannot avoid it," p. 469. The passages, to utter which, caused such grief to his gentle spirit, are these:

66

'Ignorant persons, in reading Mr. Beecher's work, will think that he is a deep philosopher, and that he is a profound philologist. But the smallest degree of perspicacity will enable any one to see that his philosophy is very shallow sophistry. No man ought with impunity to be allowed to trifle so egregiously with the disciples of Christ, and with the awful commandments of the eternal Jehovah, p. 437." "Is it not astonishing that gentlemen in eminent situations, will risk the character of their understanding, by pouring forth such crudities?" p. 435. "The author's philosophy is false, absurdly and extravagantly false. He gives us eight

lines of philosophy. I will give a premium to any one who will produce me a greater quantity of absurdity in the same compass, under the appearance of wisdom. The only merit this nonsense can claim, is, that it is original nonsense," p. 469. To be compelled to utter such language as this, concerning a Christian brother, must indeed be painful to a tender spirit, like Dr. Carson, especially, as it is so liable to be misunderstood and ascribed to an entirely different frame of mind-for it is not obviously and upon the surface, the language of grief. And if it is so painful to be compelled to utter a little of such language, what must be the suf fering involved in the necessity of using it almost from the begin. ning to the end of a pamphlet of 74 pages; especially as he is called to the painful duty of charging upon a Christian brother, or upon his opinions, not only folly, stupidity, and nonsense, but also dishonesty, obstinacy, fanaticism, heresy, infidelity, and blasphemy? Indeed, there are cases in which, according to his own account, his trials exceed in severity those of the patriarch Job, and even exhaust his patience, great as it is." It requires," says he, more than the patience of Job, to be able to mention such an argument without expressing strong feelings,” p. 434. "Am I to war eternally against nonsense?" p. 438. "I am weary with replying to childish trifling," p. 463. "It is sickening to be obliged to notice such arguments," p. 464.

66

66

His trials, indeed, must be severe, especially when we consider how far he is removed from all such intellectual and moral defects. I had spoken of a certain mode of reasoning, and said, 'It assumes a violent improbability of the meaning in question, and resorts to all manner of shifts to prove the possibility of immersion, as though that were all that the case required.” This is quite too much for Dr. Carson. "What shall I say of this?" he exclaims. "Is it calumny, or is it want of perspicacity? Assume! I assume nothing, Mr. President Beecher, but selfevident truth. My reasoning does not rest at all on assumptions. . . . All manner of shifts! I repel the charge with indignation. I never used a shift in all the controversy I ever wrote,"