has collected from the classics many examples of the use of the words βαπτω, and βαπτίζω, and has displayed great zeal in so interpreting them as to make them subserve the baptist cause. But we are constrained to say that his learning is perverted and rendered to a great extent useless by his arbitrary canons of criticism. Dr. Carson had indeed a herculean task to perform. It did not suit his views to admit that βαπτω or βαπτίζω had in any case the meaning, sprinkle, pour or purify. If the pedobaptist could prove that, in any case, where a religious ordinance is intended, Barriga signifies any other mode of administering this rite than immersion, he has gained his cause, for this would prove, that some other mode besides immersion is lawful. But the Baptist must prove that no mode was ever practised except immersion, or his cause is undone. We would not intimate that, in our opinion, Barrigw, when used to denote a religious ordinance, means in any case to plunge the whole body under water. We do not propose however to discuss this question, because it is not necessary.

Dr. Carson's canon of criticism is this: "When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted, except they involve an impossibility." We are persuaded that our readers will regard this canon as extravagant and arbitrary. It leaves no room for mere probabilities, however strong. The only escape from any acknowledged interpretation of a word is a positive impossibility. In the hands of Dr. Carson, it means, that if Barriw signifies immersion in some cases, no other meaning of this word can be admitted, unless immersion is impossible. Nearly akin to this is another canon often repeated: "That a word is never to be taken arbitrarily, in a sense which it cannot be shown incontestibly to have, in some passage." We do not profess to know what is meant by "arbitrarily" here, especially when we consider the application which is made of this rule in the work under consideration. No word is to be arbitrarily taken to mean a given thing, in any circumstances. Its meaning must be settled by evidence in all

cases.

We are not the advocates of arbitrary criticism in any case whatever.

These two rules constitute the radical error of Dr. Carson's whole book. They appear every where. With this potent wand he dissolves at a touch the whole fabric of pedobaptism,

mode, subjects, and all arguments, hitherto deemed solid, become under the spell of these rules no better than the "baseless fabric of a vision." We proceed to test Dr. Carson's two rules chiefly by cases of his own selection. In the Septuagint translation of Daniel iv. 30, where our version very properly renders the passage, Nebuchadnezzar "was wet with the dews of heaven" we find sẞap, he was baptised, &c. Now if immersion is not plainly impossible here, the passage, according to Dr. Carson's canon, must be translated, He was immersed in the dew of heaven. After discoursing for some time on the copious dews of the east, and not finding dew in sufficient quantity for immersion, he concludes that this was a case of figurative immersion. This he regarded as possible. Here then, we have the element of water, and a human being, the ordinary subject of Christian baptism, and a plain statement of a historical fact, and yet it is all a mere figure of speech. If this is figurative, when may we expect to find literal baptism? In the historical narratives of the New Testament, when baptism takes place at the river Jordan, might we not, with as much reason, suppose a figurative immersion, and a literal pouring or sprinkling. The literal part of the transaction recorded in Daniel, was certainly sprinkling or wetting, even if it was immersion in the figurative sense. Again, when Josephus uses one of the forms of Barriga to denote one overwhelmed with a burden, Dr. Carson does not hesitate to say that the idea of the burden sinking into the man's shoulder is the prominent one in the passage. The man, who can immerse a burden in the human shoulder, need not despair of finding immersion any where. This is Dr. Carson's practical application of his doctrine of possibility. When Barricada is used by the Greek historian to denote the act of making Alexander drunk, our author without ceremony, immerses the conqueror of the world in wine, and this is done not in poetry, but in veritable history. When aroßarra is used to denote the operation of moistening warm loaves of bread with wine, with ex before ovou, Dr. Carson without hesitation makes it mean dipping the bread out of the wine, thus destroying the sense, and violating the plainest principles of the Greek language at the same time. In the gospel of Mark, it is said, that the pharisees wash (BarrGura) when they come from the market, and in Luke, it is said, that a pharisee marvelled that Christ has not washed (Barrion)

before dinner. We maintain, that the washing here spoken of is explained by Mark when he says these same pharisees, according to the tradition of the elders, eat not except they wash their hands. In the Talmuds, those vast receptacles of the puerile and frivolous customs and canons of the Jews, not a word is found about immersing the body under such circumstances, but very minute rules as to washing the hands, even specifying how high up the hand or arm the water is to be put, and in what position the hand is to be held. What avails all this before this potent rule. Immersion is not impossible, and therefore the Jews immersed themselves, says our author. This rule is a perfect bed of Procrustes. If a sentence means too much, it is cut off, if too little, it is stretched to the proper length.

We will suppose that the Greek word ang can be proved to mean a man, a human being. But the angels that appeared to the Apostles on the mount of Olives, at the time of our Saviour's ascension, were called avdges, men. Nothing is ascribed to them which it was not possible for men to do. They were clothed in white, and spoke of Christ's second coming; and therefore according to our author's rule, they were men, and not angels. The mob that rushed into the theatre at Ephesus, when a tumult was raised against Paul, is called xxλna. Is this word always to be understood as meaning a mob, except when this meaning is impossible? Two meanings can often be proved to belong to a word by evidence equally strong. What would our author do in such a case?

We will now briefly pay our respects to Dr. Carson's second rule, we remark first, that, if no word is to have a meaning which cannot be incontestably proved by some passage, then all discussion is at an end; for what word in the New Testament of any importance, has not been contested? It is of importance, however, to ascertain the use that is made of this canon, in the book before us. If an attempt is made to prove affusion by the baptism of the Philippian jailer, an answer is ready; it must be proved by some other incontestable case, that affusion was sometimes practised, before this can be used as an argument. The pedobaptist is thus made to resemble a man, that has a suit in a court of justice. He introduces a witness, and the defendant cries out, that his witness cannot be heard, until he proves the point in dispute by other testimony. The plaintiff replies, that

the witness introduced is expected to prove the very point in litigation, at least in part; and that upon the same principle all his witnesses might be rejected. Strange as it may seem to our readers, this argument or rule or whatever else it may be called, is continually recurring in Dr. Carson's book. On this principle he might proceed to dispatch the arguments of his opponents ad infinitum, by pleading, as he does, that a clear case of affusion has not been made out. Unfortunately, however, for Dr. Carson's logical acumen, this rule assumes that Barr means to immerse, and all the reasoning on it is nothing less than a begging of the question in dispute. The pedobaptist might assume that to sprinkle or pour is the proper meaning of the word in dispute. Then all Dr. Carson's arguments would be easily answered. No case must be admitted as proving immersion until it is proved by some incontestable passage, that the word has this meaning. But Dr. Carson can violate all his own canons, when the exigency of his cause requires it. When John baptizes at the river Jordan, it is a clear case of immersion. But when he baptizes in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, as immersion might be impossible here, he makes it mean Jordan-dale, the edge of Jordan, although the preposition ev, which is used in Greek before Bethabara, is that on which so much stress is laid when it happens to be found governing the word Jordan.

Thus have we given our readers, somewhat at large our views as to the true canons which are the ground-work of the book under consideration. We might continue our remarks to an indefinite extent, by exhibiting the sad perplexities under which Dr. Carson labours when he encounters a difficulty, and the many forced and harsh interpretations to which he resorts. For example, when he speaks of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he at first, in a bold and confident manner, asserts "that there is no likeness to the Spirit or the mode of his operation in baptism; and that baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner of conveying the Spirit, or his operation on the soul;" and two or three pages afterwards, he says, "The disciples were immersed in the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts, and when there is no literal immersion the word never drops its characteristic meaning." But the teaching of the Bible is, that the Spirit is shed down and poured out, and that

the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, which last seems nearer the idea of the Holy Spirit being immersed in them, than their being immersed in the Spirit, though both phrases would be abhorrent to our feelings. There is not, so far as we know, a single description of the work of the divine Spirit, in the New Testament, which looks like an allusion to immersion. But Dr. Carson can set at defiance all the rules of interpreting language, when his cause requires it. He seems, however, to think that he has produced a sort of mathematical demonstration on the subject of baptism. This is evident from the fact, that he states, in so many words, that if he has not "settled the controversy as to Barrigw there is no truth in axioms." He also charges Dr. Miller with uttering "what is contrary to self-evidence," when he ascribes several meanings to this word. If the words axiom and self-evidence are to be taken in their ordinary sense, then surely he takes very high ground upon this subject. We confess that all this is quite new to us, as it doubtless will be to our readers. No such impression, as to Dr. Carson's work, was made upon our minds by a very attentive perusal of it. There is an air of confidence displayed by our author in the prosecution of his argument which is not justified by any soberness of judgment or logical acumen, or profound and philosophical views of the laws of language exhibited in the work. He seems unwilling to leave it to the judgment of his readers, to decide on the strength or weakness of his argument. He ever and anon gives them information on this point himself. Superficial readers, who are disposed to believe every thing an author says of himself, or his cause, may consider such declarations as evidences of triumph; but for our part, we think they are frequently made in Dr. Carson's book when there is least reason for them.

Language is conventional; words mean precisely what the persons using them agree that they shall mean. They are mere arbitrary signs of our ideas. People who speak the same language sometimes use the same words and phrases in different senses, and thus misunderstand one another. But if the language be a dead one, the difficulty of understanding it is greatly increased. The learner in this case begins in perfect ignorance of the signification of words. To talk of self-evidence in such a case seems to us absurd. The inquirer after truth balances probabilities as to the different meanings of doubtful and diffi