3. Our interpretation is sustained by the analogy of Scripture teaching. Not only did Christ labor and pray for the salvation of all His enemies, even after He uttered this declaration, but He promised to send the Comforter to strive with all. He commanded His disciples to preach to all, commencing on the very spot where He had been blasphemed and murdered. This they did, and with glorious success. It was not until the Jews had rejected the Saviour, under the ministration of the Spirit, "contradicting and blaspheming" (Acts 13: 45), that their case is spoken of as desperate. Then Paul warns them: Beware lest that come upon you which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." Then, "Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you, but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.' (Acts 13: 45, 46.)

It is evident from numerous other passages in the New Testament, that peculiar guilt attaches to the sin of resisting the gracions strivings of the Holy Spirit. When Paul compares the guilt of despising Moses' law with that of treading under foot the Son of God, he mentions, as that which gives to the latter its peculiar turpitude, the fact that it is "doing despite to the Spirit of grace. The same thing is implied in His repeated warnings against the sin of grieving the Holy Ghost.

II. The declaration of our Saviour concerning this sin deserves a brief consideration, "It shail not be forgiven him."

The blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is usually termed the unpardonable sin; and the prevailing idea respecting it undoubtedly is, that pardon for it cannot be obtained, even though it be sought in penitence and faith. But the term "unpardonable" is not employed in the Scriptures, and in the sense above referred to, is not properly applied to this or any other sin. Great as the guilt of this sin undoubtedly is, it does not transcend God's infinite mercy. "Thy mercy is great above the heavens." Nor is it beyond the cleansing power of Christ's blood. "He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." Nor does it destroy the power of repentance and faith, in him who commits it, for "God now commands all men everywhere to repent." And were it penitently confessed and forsaken, God would not fail to blot it from His book (Acts 2: 38). In the want of such repentance, we must find the only reason why it hath no forgiveness. It indicates a height of rebellion from which the sinner is never brought down to the foot of the cross. The wilfulness, malignity, and obduracy which it involves place him beyond the power of all converting influences, and, therefore, beyond the reach of pardon. He has trodden under foot the Son of God; he has done despite to the Spirit of grace; and the heavenly dove has taken

His final flight. How can there be forgiveness in such a case? "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." God has no other Son to make another and greater atonement. There is no other Spirit to strive more powerfully in the heart. It has withstood all the means which Infinite Wisdom has provided, and nothing more remains to be done. Hope turns back her weary pinion, and despair settles upon the soul. It hath no repentance, and therefore no forgiveness.

To this it may be objected, that in the same sense, not only blasphemy, but every other sort of sin which procures the final withdrawal of the Spirit, is alike unpardonable; whereas Christ asserts that "all manner of sin," except this, shall be forgiven. It is true that Christ affirms, (Matt. 12: 31), that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." The following verse is explanatory of this: "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man," &c., showing that by the foregoing phrase," all manner of sin and blasphemy," He meant such as was committed peculiarly against the Son of Man. His design, therefore, was not to make a distinction between blasphemy and other forms of sin; but between "all manner of sin" committed against Himself personally, and that committed under the approaching dispensation of the Spirit. Blasphemy alone is specified, because this was the sin of which His hearers had just been guilty, and which gave occasion for these remarks, but that this is unpardonable, in any sense that applies to no other sin, is neither expressed nor implied. To any other aggravated form of sin, or obstinate persistence in it, which resists all the measures of God's converting grace, and procures the final withdrawal of the Spirit's influence, the same language is equally applicable. It is not of blasphemers that the apostle says, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance," nor is it to blasphemers that he says, "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation;" yet these are manifestly cases in which there is no forgiveness.

But does not John allude to one sin, as being alone "unto death?" (I John 5: 16). Admitting what is by no means certain, that the phrase "unto death," is equivalent to the phrase, "it shall not be forgiven him," it does not follow that John refers to one particular form of sin, and that form blasphemy. The language is equally descriptive of a peculiar degree of obduracy, as Jeremy Taylor says, "a state and grandeur of impiety that is desperate, "such a pitch of hardened opposition as constitutes the sin unto death,-a sin for which no intercession will avail, no prayer of weeping relatives be lifted with efficacy to heaven."

We conclude our remarks by quoting Whitby's paraphrase upon

Chalmers on the nature of the sin unto death.

Christ's words, as embodying substantially, the views of this subject which we have advocated. "You have represented me as a wine-bibber, and as a friend of publicans and sinners, and as one who casts out devils by Beelzebub; and you will still go on, after all the miracles which I have done among you, to represent me as a false prophet and a deceiver of the people, but, notwithstanding, all these grievous sins shall be forgiven you, if that last dispensation of the Holy Ghost, which I shall, after my ascension, send among you, shall prevail with you to believe in me. But if, when I have sent the Holy Ghost to testify the truth of my mission, and of my resurrection, you shall continue in your unbelief, and shall blaspheme the Holy Ghost, and represent him also as an evil spirit, your sin shall never be forgiven, nor shall there anything be farther done to call you to repentance."

ARTICLE III.

STRICTURES ON WILSON ON THE MODE OF
BAPTISM.

By REV. EDWARD BEECHER, D.D., Boston.

THE title page of this work* informs us that in addition to a discussion of Infant Baptism, the Mode of Baptism is also to be considered. This, however, is in fact the main part of the work; 334 pages out 534 being devoted to it. We propose in our remarks to consider only the discussion of the Mode of Baptism.

We are encouraged to hope that it is the purpose of God to produce by the present deeply interesting discussions a final decision of this important question. The investigations of Dr. Carson, Prof. Stuart, Prof. Goodwin, Dr. Halley and others, have accumulated a vast mass of evidence from the Greek classics, and much evidence from the Fathers has of late been added. The usages of the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha, have been long before the church. All needed evidence seems thus to have been produced. For this reason it would seem Prof. Wilson has not so much labored to add new testimony to this mass of evidence, as to classify it, and subject parts of it to a critical scrutiny. He has in fact selected and commented on a relatively small part of the testimony that others had already adduced.

* Infant Baptism, a Scriptural Service, and Dipping unnecessary to its Right Administration. By the Rev. Robert Wilson, Professor of Sacred Literature for the General Assembly, Royal College, Belfast. London and Belfast, 1848.

He appears as a decided opponent of Dr. Carson, and he avows his purpose not only to refute his main position that dipping or immersion is essential to Baptism, but also to expose so many of his gross errors in criticism and translation, as may be necessary in in order to rebuke his dogmatism, and to reduce the undue authority of his mere name over the minds of his admiring and spell-bound disciples. Thoroughly has he performed this work. He has also manfully rebuked what he does not hesitate to call the abuse of Dr. Carson towards his antagonists. At the same time, however, he bears a decided testimony to his own conviction of the general excellence of his Christian character, and to his unquestionable abilities as a critic. The spirit of Prof. Wilson himself is excellent, and his style of thought manly and dignified. We have read his work with pleasure and profit, although compelled to dissent from some of his conclusions. Although, as we have stated, Prof. Wilson employs himself for the most part in criticising the evidence adduced by others, yet he has on some points added important evidence from his own researches, especially in his reply to Dr. Carson's dissertation on λov. Dr. Carson had argued that since Baptism was called hourgó, a bathing, it was in fact an immersion, since the common mode of bathing was by immersion. Prof. Wilson has thoroughly investigated the evidence on this point, and clearly proved that the common mode of bathing, in Greece and Egypt, was not by immersion, but that the bathers. stood naked by a loving and washed themselves, and had water poured or dashed on them by a лagazóns. He also points out the manner in which this practice must have influenced the sense of Lot in the Septuagint, and the New Testament, in such a way that all logical arguments from loo and hovrgov in favor of dipping or immersion, are clearly at an end.

Some of his discussions of passages which have been much canvassed in this controversy, are very able. This is especially true of the celebrated passage in Dan. 4: 30, in which it is said of Nebuchadnezzar τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐβάφη ἀπὸ τῆς δρόσου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ "his body was wet with the dew of heaven." With great learning and philological acumen he exposes the errors of Dr. Gale and Dr. Carson, and completely dissipates into airy nothing, Dr. Carson's theory that here" one mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting by the liveliness of the imagination."

As opposed to Dr. Carson's demand for exclusive dipping, we consider his argument decisive. By this we mean, that he succeeds in showing "that sufficient grounds have been laid for refusing to be fettered by the modal exclusiveness of our Baptist friends." He proves that dipping and immersion are not essential to baptism, because decisive instances can be produced of the use of Bago where there is and can be no immersion.

But in attempting to fix upon the real import of Bantito in the THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. NO. 1.

4

ordinance, he is not successful. He has rejected the sense, to purify, and vainly tried to fix upon a universal sense that denotes neither to dip, nor to immerse, nor to pour, nor to sprinkle, but some external state more generic than any of these.

We should, however, do him injustice did we not add, that he has, without seeming to be aware of it, effectually refuted his own false theory and sustained ours. This, in its place, we shall show. But this, cannot alter the fact that he repudiates the sense to purify. In one point of view we rejoice that the Prof. has taken this ground. A universal and instantaneous reception of the sense, to purify, without dissent or opposition by the anti-Baptists, might create an apprehension that party bias had produced too ready an acquiescence in arguments that appeared favorable to sectarian interests, and not allowed them to be subjected to a thorough scrutiny. The dissent of some of the opponents of the Baptists from our views, will give cheering evidence that a spirit of free and independent thought exists, and remove all such apprehensions. Indeed, so far are we from deprecating such opposition, that we earnestly request that any one who can, Baptist, or anti-Baptist, will thoroughly expose the insuffiiency of our arguments. The more thoroughly this is done, if it can be done, the better. One thing only do we deprecate-an effort to destroy the lawful power of argument by invidious personal attacks, and by the authority of names. The only tendency of such a course, is to produce a contempt of truth without enquiry. To effect this purpose it has been said, that no really respectable scholars believe our views, and other arguments equally highminded and logical have been employed.

Indeed, a review of the leading Baptist arguments against the doctrine in question which this country has thus far produced, is truly edifying. One learned scholar seemed to regard the fact that the writer of the articles in the Biblical Repository resided in the West, as having great weight to evince the falsehood of the doctrine advanced by him. Another found a powerful argument in the fact that Prof. Stuart, a much older man than the author, had, in his article in the Biblical Repository, previously advanced an opposite doctrine. We are now told' that it will be a great waste of precious time for the Baptists to answer our arguments till we have convinced such men as Profs. Stuart and Schmuker that we are correct in our views. It would have been a happy thing if Dr. Carson, confessedly the most able Baptist writer of the age, had discovered this compendious mode of reasoning in season to save so great a waste of his own time as has been made in his fruitless efforts to reply to our facts and arguments. We will, also, add, that the actual opinions of Prof. Stuart and Prof. Schmuker we do not know, but we do know what the facts and 1 By the Editor of the Christian Watchman and Reflector, Boston.

1