physician, a close reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr. Carson can stand the ground against any rivalship." It is also stated in the papers, that in England the Baptist convention or general association has requested Dr. Carson to prepare a work on the Ecclesiastical Tradition of Baptism.

Mr. Hague, also, in his reply to Messrs. Cooke and Towne, speaks of Dr. Carson's acute mind in a manner adapted to convey high praise entirely unmingled with censure.

I have not the least disposition to depreciate the original powers of Dr. Carson. On the other hand, I think he does possess uncommon powers, of a certain kind. I would only remark, that the greater his powers, the greater his responsibility to use them aright, and the greater the danger to the Christian community if he employs them to disseminate false opinions and malignant emotions; and this, I am fully satisfied, he has done.

Notwithstanding, therefore, the bad spirit of his works, and the extreme weakness of his arguments, I think there are sufficient reasons for a further notice of his reply. Indeed, to treat it with contempt is virtually to treat with contempt the Baptist denomination itself.

Not that I suppose that there are not in that denomination many Christian brethren, whose spirit is entirely unlike Dr. Carson's, and not that I hold my Baptist brethren individually responsible for all that Dr. Carson has said and done; but after all that has been so publicly said by leading organs of the Baptist denomination, giving him a prominence as the advocate of their cause such as is given to no other man, and uttering no word of censure, I am authorized to regard him as the leading representative and expounder of Baptist principles in the present age. And he plainly writes as if this were his own view of the case.

Besides this there are other reasons for still more thoroughly examining Dr. Carson's grounds. He is so perfectly confident of his own correctness, that his statements are made in a bold, palpable, and definite form. He seems to be deterred by no fear, from making assertions the most rash and unlimited, if they are

needed to carry out his principles logically to what he deems the true results. Indeed his great power as a leader lies mainly in this, taken in connexion with the fact that he really does know more than those whom he leads.

In his works there is a great show of learning, and as we have seen he has, at least among his own denomination, the highest reputation as a learned man, and his assertions are made with an energy designed to be overwhelming and annihilating, and on his own partisans they have certainly exerted and still exert vast power. Thus it is that he carries his party with him. Now although this characteristic of Dr. Carson is productive of much evil, still it is not without its beneficial results; it tends to place the real points at issue in the clearest possible light, and to concentrate the whole energy of the mind on them. They become focal points of illumination, and burning points of discussion.

His universal affirmations as to the use of the word Barligw in the whole range and history of the Greek language, we have already noticed § 46 near the close. No less definite and remarkable are his specific assertions as to the use of the word in the Fathers. I shall proceed to notice these, and then consider more in detail, his reply to my argument from Scripture, and from the Fathers.

§ 60.

Dr. Carson's Remarks on the Patristic Argument.

These relate to two points, their accurate knowledge of the scriptural usus loquendi of Barrigw, and the sense in which they actually understood and used it.

On the first point he states explicitly, that they could not be mistaken as to the apostolic usus loquendi. His words are these: p. 472, "They knew the meaning of the language which they spoke." P. 473, "To suppose that persons who spoke the Greek language might understand their (i. e. the apostles') words in a sense different from that in which they used them, would be to charge the Scripture as not being a revelation. Whatever was

the sense of the word must have been known to all who heard them or read their writings." The truth of this position I freely admit. It is clear that Patristic Greek is based upon the Septuagint and the writings of the New Testament, and it is no less plain that they had minutely studied everything in the Greek Scriptures that seemed to have any relation to the subject of baptism, so that nothing could be more interesting or instructive than a philosophical analysis of the formation of all parts of the language of the Fathers on the subject of baptism, from various passages in the word of God, supposed by them to allude to it, but which to us convey no such allusion. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Scriptures were written in the living language of the Greek Fathers, and all their idioms were by them so carefully studied, there can be no doubt that they used the word in its true and apostolic sense. Still further, the Latin Fathers who understood and read Greek, must also have used it in the same sense; and therefore the Latin Fathers, if any such there were, who did not understand the Greek well enough to judge originally and independently, must also have received it in the same sense, for the usus loquendi would be fixed by those who did understand it. Still further, all writings composed in the Patristic age, and ascribed to the leading Fathers, in order to gain authority by their names, must have used it in the same sense, for it was their aim both to be understood, and not to be detected by those for whom they wrote, and of course they must have used the word in its current and usual sense. For example, though the list of seven baptisms ascribed to Athanasius is probably not his, yet as it was written in his age and name, it truly represents the usus loquendi of that and also of preceding ages. Indeed, all of it can be found in substance in the authentic works of preceding Fathers, and in later days it re-appears in the authentic writings of John of Damascus. So, also, whether the commentary on some of the first chapters of Isaiah, found in the works of Basil, is the real work of Basil, or whether it was written, as Garnier judges, by

some Cappadocian ecclesiastic in the name of Basil soon after his death, and was taken chiefly from the works of Eusebius of Cesarea and of Basil; still, as it was written in the name of Basil, and in the age of Basil, and was universally regarded as the work of Basil, and quoted as such, it must have correctly exhibited the usus loquendi of that age on the subject of baptism. In quoting it, I follow the universal ancient usage in speaking of it as Basil's work, though in truth the opinion of Garnier seems to me very likely to be correct. Still, however this question is decided, the worth of the testimony of the work as to the usus loquendi of Barri2w is not at all affected. Indeed, as is the case in the work ascribed to Athanasius, it but represents and embodies the usage of previous writers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Basil, if the writer was not Basil himself.

Hence, if these views are correct, and of their correctness there can be no reasonable doubt, the materials are ample for settling the apostolic usage of the word in question: they include all the Greek and Latin Fathers, and all the works written in their name in their age. My only wonder is that Dr. Carson did not resort to them first of all, instead of laboriously examining the writings of authors who knew nothing of the rite in question, and had, so far as appears, never seen or read the Greek, either of the Old Testament or of the New.

Let us now consider Dr. Carson's statement as to the sense in which the Fathers understood and used the word βαπτίζω. After attempting to answer my biblical argument, he thus proceeds: p. 466, "Mr. Beecher next professes to find proof in the Fathers. Proof from the Fathers that Barril signifies to purify! As well might he profess to find in them proof for the existence of railroads and steam-coaches. There is no such proof. There is not an instance in all the Fathers in which the word or any of its derivations are so used. Without exception, they use the word always for immersion." This surely is sufficiently definite and explicit, but it is not all, for he afterwards teaches that to assert

otherwise is not only false, but also an act of presumptuous hardihood: p. 470, "What is the hardihood of men who can presume to allege the Fathers on the other side?"

Those who have carefully examined the evidence which I have already adduced on this point, might be amused by the extreme ridiculousness of these assertions, if the subject were not too serious for ridicule. But assertions of this kind have a moral as well as an intellectual character, in the sight of God. Can any one believe that Dr. Carson had ever made the investigations necessary to qualify him to make such assertions? And is this the

way in which he is wont to make statements on subjects so momentous ? An extended circle of minds rely on him for information on topics beyond their reach. Over them his opinions and unlimited assertions have a sway almost absolute. And is this the way in which he uses his intellectual powers, and repays their confidence ? I hesitate not to say, that he could not more totally mislead all who rely upon him. Instead of that iron uniformity of use which he claims, there are few words which have in the Fathers a usage more diversified and various. I have hitherto aimed simply at one point, to prove that it has the usage that I claim. To exhibit all the Patristic uses of the word I have not attempted. And yet, perhaps, the time has come in which it ought to be done, for it will give a more elevated point of vision from which to survey the whole subject, and to study its symmetry and proportions. After adducing, therefore, some further evidence on the main point, I shall attempt to give a general view of the Patristic uses of the word.

§ 61. Additional Facts.

Compare, then, with Dr. Carson's contemptuous denial of my position, and his unlimited and overbearing assertions, the following passage from Ambrose, a Father who was not only a student of the works of Basil, but drew the materials of many of his own works from them. Apol. David, § 59, " Per hyssopi fasciculum