kindest feelings towards Dr. Beecher. It is not, however, without regret and astonishment, that we have noticed his repeated attacks on the moral integrity of his reviewer, in cases where there is no sufficient evidence even of unintentional mistake; and, what adds to the injustice, not unfrequently where the misrepresentation is in reality his own. Such carelessness, or recklessness in treating of the statements, and especially of the moral character of an author, would seem to be utterly inexcusable.

We are far from endorsing every thing which Dr. Carson has seen fit to suggest in the advocacy of his main positions, either in his original work, or in his reply to Dr. Beecher. We hesitate not to say, however, that those positions have been successfully and triumphantly maintained. No impression can be more erroneous than the one which Dr. Beecher labors to create, and which some of his Pedobaptist friends have endeavored to extend, that the citadel of his opponent is demolished. Indeed, we may say more, his attempt at a reply has, in our opinion, served only to exhibit still more clearly the utter weakness and falsity of his theory. We are certain the only effect his investigations will have upon the distinctive positions in the Baptist argument, will be, as our subsequent

attempt to show that this is not a proper and natural sense in the case in hand, he has retained without modification, in the revised edition of his work, his original argument, and left it to have its full force on the mind of the reader, founded entirely on his first assumption, to wit, that any such sense in the case is positively excluded;-an assumption which, as he virtually admits, Dr. Carson had shown to be groundless. We do not say,-as Dr. Beecher has frequently said, in the case of his reviewer, and that, too, we believe, on vastly slighter grounds, that this is proof of a want of "magnanimity" and "candor." We are happy that we can account for it on other grounds. We should suppose, however, that such a case would be the last of all selected for making a deliberate, and, as might, were it in place, be easily shown by a comparison of the facts,an utterly groundless attack upon the "scholarship" and "candor" of his reviewer; and more than all, upon his moral and religious integrity.

We will simply add, that Dr. Beecher, notwithstanding the note of triumph with which he closes his review of Dr. Carson's strictures, and his insinuation that "whatever Dr. Carson's talents, they cannot enable his character as an accurate scholar long to survive such criticisms," he has failed, with all his pains and apparent research, to meet Dr. Carson's demand for a "single example" to "justity his criticism," or the position which he had assumed, to wit, that the word in question properly denotes a washing or bathing by friction, in distinction from a washing or bathing in general. To adduce examples in which it has the general sense to bathe, even though it may be rendered probable from the circumstances, that friction was in some cases actually employed, is nothing to his purpose. And it is surprising,-we will not say with Dr. Carson that it indicates an amazing want of discrimination," that he should have failed so completely to perceive what was really demanded in the case.

66

examination will develop, to furnish additional facts in its support.

66

2. Another prominent characteristic of the work is seen in the boldness and extravagance of its statements. The soundness of its positions, and the conclusiveness of its arguments, are usually asserted in the strongest language; and that, too, in most cases upon the slightest possible grounds. Such terms as "decisive," "unanswerable," unquestionable," "irresistible," "unequivocal," "absolute," "demonstrative," as applied to the arguments adduced, or the reasoning pursued, occur on almost every page; and yet, as we shall endeavor hereafter fully to illustrate, the facts in the case, and frequently the very facts adduced by Mr. Beecher himself, are, almost without exception, not merely entirely insufficient to awaken conviction in a discerning mind, but of a nature to lead to conclusions directly the opposite. We might cite hundreds of examples in illustration of our remarks. Such a style of writing, although it may, at certain points, produce its intended effect, will with most minds betray a failure, and apparent inability in the case, to appreciate evidence according to its real value, which will create beforehand an irresistible suspicion as to the soundness of the final conclusions.

3. But, perhaps the most distinguishing feature of the work is, that it furnishes at every point the materials for its own refutation. It has never been our fortune to examine a production which could be so completely and so manifestly refuted in all its parts, on the ground of principles acknowledged, and facts adduced, by the author, as the one under consideration. The propriety of this remark will appear as we proceed.

With these observations respecting the general character of the work, we pass to a more particular examination of its several parts. And, for the sake of convenience, we call attention first to the remarks on Rom. 6: 3, 4, and Col. 2: 12;-passages, it will be recollected, which relate to burial with Christ in baptism.*

* Dr. Beecher seems directly to invite an examination of his views of these passages, in the following note appended to his work. "Exposition of Rom. 6: 3, 4, and Col. 2: 12.-Dr. Carson has gloried so greatly in the passages here interpreted, that it is remarkable that he makes no reference at all to this chapter. Perhaps he did not see it. At all events, the argument is as yet unanswered."

66

In his examination of these passages, he takes the position that reference is made to spiritual baptism or purification, without the least allusion to an external rite." And this, he contends, is the only ground on which the arguments drawn from the passages in support of Baptist views, can be refuted. It might be expected that in advancing a position so directly at variance with the obvious sense of the language, and the opinion of the Christian church in every age, he would be able to urge in its behalf some consideration recommended, to say the least, by its speciousness. The amount of his arguments, however, from Rom. 6: 3, 4, to which he chiefly confines his attention, is simply this: that the apostle, in proving that the gospel does not tend to the practice of sin, appeals to the fact that its subjects, by being united to Christ, are spiritually dead to sin, and alive to holiness. His arguments, whether drawn from "the exigencies of the passage," "the congruity of the interpretation with the general system of truth," "the moral tendencies and effects of the interpretation," or reference to other passages, depend for all their force and all their appositeness upon the establishment of this single fact-a fact which has never, as we are aware, been called in question by any writer, Baptist or Pedobaptist. He supposes the argument of the apostle in verses 1-11, may be thus stated.

"Objection. The system of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ tends to embolden men in sin.

66

Reply. It does not; for all who are truly forgiven are dead to sin, and cannot live in it any longer. This is the natural and necessary consequence of the system.

"Proof. All who are forgiven are united by it to Christ, and it is the inevitable consequence of this union to cause death unto sin and life unto God."

Now the argument thus stated, so far from proving that there is no allusion in the passage to the ordinance of baptism, is of a nature to prepare the way for such an allusion, as also to show its peculiar appropriateness and force. According to Dr. Beecher's representation, the apostle leaves the objector with the simple assertion or statement, that the subjects of the gospel are united to Christ, and that the effect of this union is "death unto sin and life unto God." According to the true view of

VOL. XIII.NO. LII.

53

the passage, however, in addition to making the statement, he confirms it by appealing to the design and import of the divinely appointed rite, by which an interest in the gospel is publicly professed,-thus showing that a union or fellowship with Christ in respect to death and resurrection, is not merely a fact, but is recognized and acknowledged as belonging to the gospel system, and that Christians have actually and voluntarily avowed themselves the subjects of it.

Such being the real nature of the apostle's argument, the only way in which Dr. Beecher has been able to give even the semblance of appositeness to his arguments, is by creating an entirely false issue; by undertaking to refute a position wholly irrelevant to his purpose, to wit, that the argument of the apostle, on condition the passage refers, as is generally believed, to the rite of Christian baptism, is drawn merely from "the influence of professions and promises connected with an external rite," or from "its influence in presenting truth to the mind ;* and not from the facts professed in baptism. His labor is accordingly entirely lost. He does not even touch the real argument which the apostle's allusion to baptism involves. All his force is expended in refuting a position which no one, within our knowledge, has ever defended; and in establishing a fact which the common interpretation, so far from setting aside, not only admits in all its force, but necessarily involves; on which, in fact, it supposes the argument of the apostle to be directly placed.

There is one fact which Dr. Beecher urges in support of his position which we will particularly notice; and which would seem to be sufficient in itself with an unprejudiced mind to show its utter falsity. He refers to several passages not relating to baptism, in which spiritual death and resurrection are brought to view, and in which there is no allusion to burial. These he compares with Rom. 6: 3, 4; Col. 2: 12, in which baptism is mentioned, and in connection with it a burial by baptism; and he infers on the ground of this comparison that the burial can in no way be connected with the rite of baptism, but must, with the baptism, be spiritual!

*This certainly is far from being the position, either of Dr. Carson or of Dr. Chase, to whom Dr. Beecher refers.

One can hardly restrain a smile at the evident sincerity and earnestness with which Dr. Beecher remarks, "Not only is it true that external baptism is not meant in Rom. 6: 3, 4, and Col. 2: 12, but it is also true that there is no reason to think that any part of the language is taken from that rite." "The passage does not refer to the external rite at all, nor derive any of its language from it." "This is what Paul does, without the least allusion to an external rite." All such remarks, together with all arguments which may be urged in their defence, we consider, as far as any conviction on the mind of Baptists or Pedobaptists is concerned, entirely harmless. The sense of Rom. 6; 3, 4, is so obvious, and the evidence by which it is presented to the mind so irresistible, that we doubt whether Dr. Beecher's "exposition" will convince a score of minds in as many generations, that there is no allusion in the passage to the ordinance of Christian baptism.

On the other hand, it is worthy of notice, that Dr. Beecher boldly maintains that the position which he has taken is the only one, on which the Baptist argument from the passage can be consistently opposed. He fully admits that on condition the passage refers to the rite of baptism, the main positions, in support of which the Baptists have always appealed to it, are correct.

seems

1. He admits that "as is the baptism, so is the burial: that is, if the baptism is external, so is the burial.” “It is on this ground," he adds, "that Prof. Ripley reasons, and I think conclusively, against Prof. Stuart, 'This opinion,' (that the burial is internal,) he says, effectually opposed by the circumstance that the burying is performed by baptism, an external rite.' p. 86. And all who admit that the external rite is here spoken of must, it seems to me, be inevitably driven to Prof. Ripley's ground."

2. He admits that were it established that the passage refers to the ordinance of baptism, although it would not prove that the word baptism means immersion, it would prove that immersion was in fact the practice of the primitive Christians. p. 86.

3. He admits that the passage, in case it refers to the rite of baptism, represents the ordinance as being significant of death and resurrection. He says, "Our Baptist