have done something very much to his purpose. As it is, he has virtually confessed that it is utterly beyond his power to do any such thing. This is very much to my purpose, but very little

to his.

As a fair answer then, to my argument, Dr. Carson's last reply is unworthy of notice. It needs none. It is a mere confession of defeat.

§ 72. Real Philosophy of Dr. Carson's Reply.

Yet for certain purposes, it has its merits. There is in England and Ireland a large circle over whom Dr. Carson exerts immense influence, and who have never read my argument, and are never likely to read it. He is also eulogised in some of the British Reviews as well known in Scotland, England, and America, as "a first rate scholar, a sound philosopher, an irresistible reasoner, and a profound theologian, and with the strictest propriety designated as one of the first Biblical critics of the nineteenth century." At the end of the American edition of his work on Baptism, published by the American Baptist Publication Society, is quite a collection of such eulogies, by writers of different denominations, in which he is spoken of as in advance of his age in the philosophy of language, impartial, candid, honest, habituated to deep and searching thought, and with respect to metaphysical acuteness, the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth century.

In such circumstances, and with such a reputation, it would be easy for Dr. Carson entirely to destroy the influence of my argument on a large class of minds, and that without assuming the responsibility of answering it. This he could do by attacks on my capacity as a scholar, and bold and contemptuous assertions, without a particle of proof. And although nine pages would hardly furnish room even to begin to answer my argument in a manly and scholar-like way, still they would furnish abundant room for all the unproved assertions of which Dr. Carson or any one else happened to be in need.

Moreover, the very brevity of the reply, taken in connexion with its tone of supercilious contempt, would in many minds, marvellously augment the conviction that my argument was a very light affair, and scarcely deserved notice. So feeble would they regard it that a blow or two of Dr. Carson's club would easily finish it. Viewed, then, as a mere controversial manœuvre, and without any regard to a candid inquiry after the truth, Dr. Carson's reply has decided merits. In this view I do not at all despise it. It was obviously written for effect, and has exerted, and will, no doubt, continue to exert a great partisan influence through the whole Baptist denomination—most of whom will read Dr. Carson, and never see my argument.

§ 73. American Baptist Publication Society.

This effect may be anticipated with the more confidence from the fact that so respectable a religious body as the American Baptist Publication Society, have endorsed and republished his work, with the highest eulogies of it, and of its author.

His work, they tell us, is "not a local or temporary production, but one calculated for any latitude, and destined to live throughout all time," p. xlvi. Again they say, p. xliii., "His mission is accomplished. His literary career has now terminated; but not before his great task was done. Death could not touch him, until he had put the finishing hand to this masterly production, in which his name and his memory shall live through all future time. He who, like Dr. Carson, has vindicated and rendered prominent an ordinance of Jesus Christ, by disentangling it from the web of human sophistry and perversion, has done better for the world than if he had founded a kingdom, and has reared for himself a monument more lasting than pillars of marble."

These eulogists seem to be nearly as well satisfied with Dr. Carson's spirit, as with his logic. Many, they inform us, have formed erroneous conceptions of his whole character, from the apparent harshness of his criticisms.

They assure us that such

mistake the true origin of what may be called the Attic salt in writing. It proceeds, they inform us, from good temper, selfcontrol, and coolness. "Anger and wrath evaporate in abuse. But no one will find this applied by Dr. Carson to his opponents. True, he will not allow impertinent quibblers, who, to support the system of their own party, continue still to argue against the clearest declarations of Scripture, to pass without rebuke. And where is the ardent lover of truth, who will not say that such ought to be rebuked and made to retire ashamed that the public mind may be no more darkened by their perversions ?"

These honied words are not designed merely for my benefit. Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Miller, Dr. Dwight, Prof. Goodwin, Mr. Hall, Mr. Bickersteth, and others, come in for their full share. And that this may not be left to inference, they say, "We frankly confess that the more we read on the Baptismal controversy, the more our charity compels us to struggle against the conviction that forces itself on us, that on this subject it is not light that is most wanted, but religious honesty." The italics are theirs.

Who does not admire the combined wisdom and charity of this remarkable passage? Surely the true way to convert men to the opinions of Baptists, is kindly to inform them, that it requires a special effort of Christian charity to resist the conviction that they are such dishonest knaves, that argument is not what they need, but honesty. Not light, but to be rebuked as impertinent quibblers who ought to retire ashamed, that the public mind may be no more darkened by their perversions.

No wonder, that the authors of such an exquisite specimen of "Attic salt," should find little or nothing to censure in the spirit of Dr. Carson.

But my main object in making these quotations is, to show that all has been done by way of reply to me, that is to be expected. Dr. Carson read my argument, and replied as he saw fit; and his admirers in this country have endorsed his reply as sufficient, and more than sufficient. The great work of defending the

cause of immersion is done, and so done, that he who is not satisfied and convinced, does not need argument but honesty.

§ 74. Motives to reply to Dr. Carson.

In this state of the case, Dr. Carson's few pages of reply deserve more notice than is demanded by their intrinsic merit. True, they consist chiefly of assertions, which it belonged to him to prove, before a reply could be demanded of me. But as the Baptists have adopted and sanctioned them, as indicating their line of march if peradventure they should undertake a campaign, I shall take occasion still further to test my arguments in view of Dr. Carson's assertions as to the ways in which they might have been met, had it not been "totally unsuitable to the object of his work" thus to meet them.

I had anticipated with a natural interest, the results of the scrutiny of one who is considered by so many, the great master in the philosophy of language, the leader of his age, the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth century. But I was entirely disappointed. I had not conceived that anything so weak could proceed from him. I long said, can a reply be needed? But since not only the oracle has spoken, but the listeners, also, are re-echoing his reply, as the fitting close of his glorious defence of the great cause of immersion, I deem it proper to subject at least some of his oracular dicta to a thorough scrutiny.

I shall not, however, confine myself to Dr. Carson's last brief reply to me, but shall take occasion to review other statements in his whole work of nearly five hundred pages, and to introduce many facts which I had reserved, on the natural supposition that it might not be "totally unsuitable" to Dr. Carson's great defence of immersion to examine at length the testimony of those infallible witnesses, the Fathers, on that subject. But as no such examination is regarded as suitable to a defence of immersion, I shall continue to adduce from the Fathers new arguments in defence of purification. It is entirely suitable to my work, to prove at great

length, that the Fathers did understand Barrigw in the ordinance as meaning to purify.

§75. Outline of Dr. Carson's Reply.

I will first give a brief sketch of the contents of his reply. He begins by reiterating and trying to justify his charges of incompetency against me, and that on grounds exceedingly frivolous. He then informs us that nothing alleged by me at all affects his view of the testimony of the Fathers. He next insinuates, but does not affirm, much less prove, that the testimony adduced from them does not prove the meaning of the word at the time of the institution or commencement of the rite-an assertion directly at war with the facts just stated, from the Fathers.

He then asserts, with his usual courtesy towards all who happen to differ from him, " That the Fathers understood the word as immersion in reference to the institution of baptism, no scholar ever questioned." If Dr. Carson had said this after fairly answering my arguments from the Fathers, it would have been less rude and indecorous. But to leave such abundant testimony of the Fathers totally unanswered, and yet to make such an assertion, is a course of proceeding which I am perfectly willing to leave to all candid and honorable persons, to characterize for themselves.

He then informs us, that to prove at any length that the Fathers understood the word as immersion, would be totally unsuitable to his present work. Dr. Carson, however, seems to think it quite suitable to his work, to go at great length into the testimony of men who never saw or read the Septuagint, or the New Testament. But when I bring proof from Greek authors, who compared the language of the Septuagint and the Greek Testament together, and stated what words in the Septuagint are synonymous with Barril in the New Testament, he then discovers that it is totally unsuitable to his work to prove at any length what they thought on the matter! Unsuitable to his work! If Dr. Carson's great end was to defend, at all hazards, the false position he