sixty or seventy years, this country has fallen miserably behind in the philological and critical departments of biblical inquiry; while the Germans, allowed to walk the course, have perverted the instruments of criticism to the most mischievous purposes. They have been met, indeed, on their own field, but almost exclusively by their own countrymen, some of whom have, for upwards of twenty years, been applying to the text of Scripture the most searching criticism, and triumphantly vindicating its authoritative character, and some of its most precious teachings. These labours we accept thankfully at their hand; but there are peculiarities in their modes of conception which do not commend themselves to the English mind, and the views of some of them seem but half consolidated, as if held in solution by some powerful agency. On the other hand, the English mind, were it on a level with the German in critical accomplishments, possesses qualities, natural and acquired, which we have long thought peculiarly fit it for excelling in the exegetical walk. In proof of this we have only to refer to what has actually been done in this branch of late years among the English Dissenters. Dr Pye Smith's Testimony to the Messiah, and his Discourses on the Priesthood of Christ, Dr Henderson's works already mentioned, and, more recently, Dr Davidson's works on Biblical Criticism and Sacred Hermeneutics, are evidences of ardent and successful efforts to raise the character and extend the prosecution of biblical study in this country. A noble effort has been made by Mr Tregelles to occupy the ground of the Griesbachs and Scholzes, the Lachmanns and Tischendorfs of Germany. His beautiful corrected text of the Apocalypse leaves nothing to be desired but that he should extend his labours to the other books of the New Testament, and complete his long cherished design of “Preparing a manual edition of the New Testament, containing the text, edited on ancient authority, entirely irrespective of modern and commonly received readings, together with a careful collation of all the more ancient MSS. so far as they are attainable." Such a work is eminently safe in the hands of one who, while enthusiastic in the use of all literary aids, trembles at the word of the Lord, "believes in its absolute plenary inspiration," and, "just because he reverences Scripture as being the word of God, believes it to be of importance to bring every aid in our power to bear upon its text, in order that we may as accurately as possible read it in the very words in which it was given by the Holy Ghost." We pray he may be spared to perfect this work. In Scotland, Mr Fairbairn and Dr Alexander are contributing by their writings to the advancement of exegetical studies; the venerable Dr Brown, in his recent work on Peter, displays critical sagacity and attainments of a high order, and has done much from his professorial chair to kindle in his students a love of biblical study. Mr Patterson, in his brief commentaries on several of the epistles, shows a taste for such inquiries, which one would like to see more fully developed; and the respected editor of the work before us, with one or two others in the same body, though they have as yet given little to the public, will probably do something worthy of themselves for helping to raise Scotland to a fitting position amongst its neighbours, in the critical investigation of the oracles of God.

In America, the old and the new school Presbyterians have each their biblical schools, which may be termed the Princeton and the Andover schools.

The latter was probably earliest in the field of scientific criticism; and by its numerous productions, and the periodicals it has established and kept up, has extensively influenced American theology. The originality and depth, the value and safety, of this school, are far, however, from equalling their warm zeal and untiring industry. A too indiscriminate admiration of their German models, for which they have been rallied by some of the Germans themselves—a too reckless importation of German criticism, without the necessary correctives-an over-estimate of the province of mere philology, as an instrument of interpretation-with a shallowness of theological conception, and a disposition to overstep the limits of true liberality by narrowing unduly the ground on which they undertake to defend the orthodox faith; -these are some of the things which, much as the Andover school has done deserving of all praisewith Moses Stuart at its head, and the eminent Robinson (now of New York), bred under and long associated with him-detract seriously from the value of its labours. In all these respects, the Princeton school is distinguished by the opposite qualities. With learning quite equal to that of their northern rivals, they display a manly independence, a healthy vigour, a firm yet liberal orthodoxy, and a depth of thought, which give their productions great value in the estimation of the best judges. The two thick volumes of Essays, extracted from the Princeton Review, will amply justify this character of their labours, high as it is. To this school belongs Dr Hodge, as Professor of Biblical Literature, whose work on the Romansinfinitely superior to Moses Stuart's-we are accustomed to class with our Fraser on Sanctification for the treasure of solid criticism which it compresses into the smallest space.

But the greatest work which this school has yet produced is undoubtedly the one before us. Inheriting his father's vigorous and accurate mind, the author has superadded qualities of his own. On all the numerous questions-critical, theological, and prophetical-which a thorough exposition of the most important of all the prophetical books involves, our author is perfectly at home. His familiarity with the original is thorough; his acquaintance with all that has been written on the subject, particularly by the eminent critics of Germany up to the present date, leaves nothing in this respect to be desired ; while his own views, discussions, and decisions, have very materially advanced the interpretation of this rich and most pregnant portion of Old Testament Scripture.

If it be asked, what are the principal peculiarities of the exposition, apart from the literature of it, we should decidedly say, the two following:-First, The use which it makes of the Oneness of the Messiah and his people, as a principle of interpretation in the "Later Prophecies" of Isaiah. Second, The application of most of the prophecies of the new economy to great evangelical principles rather than to specific Christian events. The author's views on both these very important points open up a wide field for discussion; and we scarcely know whether (with the space we have at command) we should attempt even to touch them here. We certainly regret this, and still more, that there is not one suitable medium for the full discussion of such questions in our existing periodicals. Scotland has no Biblical and Theological Journal, and what is more surprising, Britain has scarcely one. For Dr Kitto's, though in itself a

highly laudable attempt to supply the lack, is not managed on principles which give sufficient assurance of unity, elevation, and strength, and, for this reason, will scarcely reach the position necessary to insure its permanence. Some admirable statements on the importance of biblical literature, and the poverty of Scotland in this respect, were made at last Assembly by the distinguished Principal of the New College. The vacancy in one of the chairs of that college, and the question regarding an additional chair at Aberdeen, afforded an opportunity for suggesting, in the report on the college, important views on the elevation of the standard of theological training, and a redistribution of the curriculum for that purpose, which were illustrated with great power by the learned Principal. And we fondly trust, that whatever may be the Church's mind respecting the appointment that will devolve on next Assembly, regard will be had to the claims of that department of theology which has drawn forth these remarks. There is not the least ground to fear, that any appointment that could be made, having respect to this branch, would affect | the paramount importance attached so justly to a sound dogmatic training. The work before us shows how beautifully the highest style of criticism may be made to subserve the strictest orthodoxy, and how groundless are the fears which some have entertained on this subject. But we have digressed too far though we persuade ourselves it will be excused from the peculiar interest which the topic possesses at present-and must now proceed to examine, a very little in detail, the work of our author.

The introductory matter is greatly more valuable than the corresponding portion of Dr Henderson's work. It is not so much the far greater fulness with which all the questions coming under the head of "Introduction" are handled in our author's work, but the vigorous grasp which it takes of the whole subject the dignified satire with which he shows up the higher criticism of the modern Germans--the skill with which he exposes its pretensions—the elevated tone in which he vindicates the integrity and inspiration of the book-the luminous abstract which he gives of what has been done upon it, in the field of scientific criticism, up to his own time-the comprehensive views and principles which he unfolds, on the relation of this prophetical book to the old and the new economies respectively-these are features of the introductory matter which give it great value.

In point of philology, however, we are not disposed to rate Dr Henderson's work a whit below that of our author. It is true that the latter goes more into detail in his criticisms. But Dr Henderson's perfect familiarity with the niceties of the Hebrew language, his ability to avail himself of the cognate languages whenever they can be of real service, and the success with which he has employed these accomplishments to the detection of the philological objections that lie against the proposed readings of Lowth, and the perverted renderings of Gesenius-are excellencies, in the view of which we venture to think he has not been superseded by his transatlantic brother. Professor Alexander, indeed, has scarcely done justice to his English predecessor. We are astonished he should have placed him on the same level with Barnes, ascribing to him " greater haste and less laborious effort" than that superficial though popular commentator, and merely allowing him "more extended reading, and a more independent exegetical judgment."

Our author's view of the "Servant of Jehovah," in the later prophecies of Isaiah, as one ideal complex person-Christ and his Church, the Head and the members together has very much to recommend it. It is not new, but it has not, that we have observed, been so formally employed as a principle of interpretation. We have, for a considerable time before this work was published, tried to what extent it might be found available as a key to certain difficulties which all acknowledge, and had been led to think that a Christology of the Old Testament, founded on this as a radical principle, might be constructed. Very great caution, however, it appeared to us, would require to be used in defining and applying it; and the work before us only confirms that opinion. It certainly advances the question; but it leaves much for farther investigation and development. In one or two instances, the author's way of employing the principle might, we fear, be perverted; nor has he pointed out sufficiently the grounds on which the dangerous inferences to which the principle seems liable are to be avoided. Some of the confirmations of the principle which he has drawn from the New Testament seem to us exceedingly slender, to say the least. For example, on ch. xlix., which " opens,' he says, "with an exhibition of the Messiah and his people, under one ideal person, as the appointed teacher, apostle, and restorer of the apostate nations," he makes the following remarks upon the words, 'I also will give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth.' "The application of this verse by Paul and Barnabas in their address to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 47), is very important, as a confirmation of the hypothesis assumed above, that the person here described is not the Messiah exclusively, but that his people are included in the subject of the description. 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: FOR SO HATH THE LORD COMMANDED US (saying), I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth. Although this," the author adds, “as Hengstenberg observes, is not irreconcilable with the exclusive Messianic explanation of the verse before us, its agreement with the wider explanation is too striking to be deemed fortuitous." Some, we rather think, will be at a loss to perceive what it really is which the author deems so "striking." For the sake of such we must explain, that where the apostle quotes the words, "I have set THEE to be a light of the Gentiles," as a "command of the Lord to us" to extend that light to the dark Gentiles, the author understands him to mean that the "thee" and the "us" are one and the same party-Christ and they together. Now this, so far from being evident to us, seems quite a strained sense of the passage. Who would naturally suppose that the apostle meant any thing more than that as Christ-meaning Christ personal-was ordained to be the light of Jews and Gentiles alike, it was the duty of his servants to devote themselves to the illumination of the one as well as the other? Yet Hengstenberg, it seems, barely admits that the apostle's language may be so understood, while our author deems the other, and very forced, sense, to be too strikingly in harmony with his principle of a complex person to be deemed fortuitous. Another confirmation is drawn, in the following page, from the allusion to the 8th verse in

2 Cor. vi. 2, with as little reason, as we think. "Here, again," he says "we have clear apostolical authority for applying this description to the Church or people of God, as the body of which Christ is the Head. Paul says to the Corinthians, We, then, as workers together (with him), beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain: For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee.' What follows is no part of the quotation, but Paul's comment on it. 'Behold, now is the accepted time, behold, now is the day of salvation.' This, taken in connection with the citation of verse 6, in Acts xiii. 47, precludes the supposition of an accidental or unmeaning application of this passage to the people or ministers of Christ, as well as to himself." We are surprised the author should, from materials like these, draw support for the great principle which he advocates. To us, the apostle seems to intend nothing, by the quotation of verse 8th of this chapter, beyond fastening on the great truth, that for every great work of God there is an "appointed time,"-" a day of salvation." Christ acted explicitly on that principle, in the discharge of the work given him personally to do, in the days of his flesh; as when he said, "I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work." The passage in Isaiah refers, however, not so much to his work on earth, in accomplishing redemption, as to his work from "his holy hill of Zion," in dispensing salvation to the ends of the earth. This also has its "acceptable time”-it is eminently "a day of salvation;" and the assurance to Messiah is, that in this acceptable time, God has "heard him," and in this day of salvation he has "helped him," or will help him, to carry out to the uttermost the saving objects on which his heart is set. This is what the apostle fastens on; and all we can gather from his doing so is simply this -that as the work which Christ is presently engaged in accomplishing is the same on which every one of us should be bent-that is, the salvation of our souls-so the same opportunity which Christ has for dispensing, is our opportunity for obtaining it—that the day of salvation is the same for the communication of it by Him, and the reception of it by us. We think this a natural, a striking, and an elegant use of the prophecy by the apostle; but it has nothing to do with the exegetical principle to which the author would derive support from it. If it cannot stand on better ground than this, we are afraid it must be given up. But we hope to see it yet established and illustrated. Farther investigation will give rise to more matured views of the whole subject. Here, eminently, a biblical periodical of English character, if only conducted with competent ability, would be productive of real service to the cause of divine truth.

One of the chief excellencies of the work is, through excess, the source, sometimes of mistaken, sometimes of deficient interpretation, in our judgment. The capricious application, by critics of the Cocceian school, of prophetical language to the minutiae of Church history under the gospel, is well exposed by Professor Alexander, who, in addition to what is said in the Introduction, has pointed out its absurdity in a number of instances throughout the work. It is a fine feature of his Commentary, on the other hand, that it holds up the great principles of spiritual and evangelical religion already in operation under the ancient economy, and about to be established on an enduring foundation, and in all their naked simplicity and glory, under the

66

gospel, as the primary theme of this rich prophecy. In his comprehensive, and sometimes elegant summaries of the different sections and chapters of the prophecy, our author prepares the way for the great general principles which he shows to pervade them in detail. But he seems to think that specific events are not to be looked for as matter of evangelical prediction. In one instance he is forced to see a great specific event in the prophecies of this book-the future conversion of the Jewish nation, as such. But he is not always consistent with himself here, as we think; and while employing some rather misplaced satire against Dr Henderson, for the inconsistencies in which his literalism sometimes involves him, we have felt disposed to say, once or twice, though certainly not often, Physician, heal thyself." On the difficult question of the restoration of the Jews, we certainly shall not enter here; but if Dr Henderson has laid himself open to easy refutation in some of his expositions on that head, we are far from thinking Professor Alexander impregnable in his opposite exegesis of the disputed passages. Our author appears to think, that where the great general principles of the gospel kingdom are the burden of prediction, we should not look for details at all. But why should it be thought at all improbable that those principles which are involved in the Antichristian oppressions under which the gospel kingdom has so long groaned, in their overthrow before the latter day, and in the subsequent new impulses and developments which will characterize the most perfect state of Christianity upon earth-why should it be thought unsuitable that such leading details of historic Christianity should have a place in this prophetic book? And what if it be mainly in connection with these historic fortunes of the Christian Church that the great principles of the new economy are in Isaiah held forth-not so much as mere principles or truths, but as embodied and manifested in the fortunes of the people of God? We fear that, when altogether separated from these, the very principles which we make so much of will taper away; and we had marked a few examples of something like this in our author's work. Another objection we have to the sweeping generalities into which Professor Alexander sometimes resolves great, though certainly difficult prophecies, is, that it is rather too easy a way of getting over difficulties. To cut a knot is far easier than to loose it. An example or two of the former might be given from the work before us. But we must draw reluctantly to a close.

We are glad our author has not followed Henderson and his predecessors in the fantastic plan of printing his translation (which goes, by the way, to excess in its literality) in the versified form. It can scarcely be said to have one recommendation; and the incorrect ideas to which it is apt to give rise, not to speak of its utter arbitrariness, should be sufficient now to confine it to pedants and sciolists.

In point of method, the work has a certain cumbrousness which wearies the reader. Nor can one consult it even on a particular passage without the danger of missing the very thing he is in quest of. The synopsis of interpretations on each verse is so full, and the author's objections to the numerous views of a passage which he particularizes, so much mixed up sometimes with the expression of his own opinion, that we have repeatedly had to read a long paragraph twice, thrice, or oftener, before we were sure that we had got his own view of the verse.

We should be sorry to miss the body of facts-the ↑ literature of interpretation-on almost every_verse which he gives us, and in so orderly a way. But it is a pity he should bury himself under the materials he has accumulated. While on this point, we cannot help expressing the wish that he had developed his views of the more prominent portions of the book, and the great lessons which they contain, instead of confining himself to the barest statement of them. We have not forgotten his object-to furnish the materials only, out of which the clerical student may develop these for himself. But we think he could have gone a good deal farther than he has done, without overstepping the bounds proper to such a commentary as he contemplated.

It is scarcely necessary to say, that we do not concur in all his expositions. We certainly do not. But we rejoice to say, that he has greatly advanced the exact interpretation of the whole book, and even of those portions where we cannot concur with him. In conclusion, it would be a cheering evidence of the growth of that taste for Bible study which we long to see in this country, if this work-which, thanks to Mr Collins, is now within the reach of almost every student-should have an extensive sale, and its principles and details be closely investigated. While we are far from thinking that further advancement is not to be expected, we believe that a due appreciation of the merits of this work will best pave the way, under the teaching of the inspiring Spirit, for that clearer insight into this rich portion of the lively oracles which we cannot doubt will yet be graciously vouchsafed.

THOSE who are accustomed to observe the signs of the times will be disposed to agree with us in thinking, that the Baptist denomination is not likely to extend itself in these countries. Towards the conclusion of the last and the commencement of the present century, various circumstances contributed to promote its advancement. Within the pale of the Established Churches, religion was at a very low ebb; among Nonconformists, also, it was generally in a most languishing condition; but, about the period to which we refer, several individuals of eminent spirituality, energy, and talent, made their appearance in the Baptist connexion. The names of Carey, Fuller, Haldane, Carson, Hall, and others, are familiar to all our readers; and it must be admitted that these men exerted a mighty influence in the genera tion which has passed away. They rendered most important services to the cause of evangelism; and, on this ground, many were induced to join their party who might otherwise never have thought of adopting the peculiarities of their system. Some of them were first-rate controversial writers; and we may safely assert, that they have advocated their distinguishing tenets with an ability and learning never surpassed by any of their predecessors. But, meanwhile, a great revival has taken place in other sec

There have always appeared to us to be certain preliminary difficulties in the way of the admission of the doctrine of the Baptists. Their principle, as to the mode of the administration of baptism, rests almost entirely for support upon a doubtful interpretation of the single word Bazil. According。 Dr Carson, this Greek verb "always signifies to dip," and "nothing but to dip." The New Testament was certainly not written exclusively for the benefit of Greek critics; but though not one in a thousand of the community is competent to pronounce an opinion as to the merits of Dr Carson's exegesis, it is the pivot which sustains the whole denomination to which he belonged. As Protestants, we feel disposed to look with suspicion on a system resting on such a basis. The Bible is designed to make the man of God perfect, even thoroughly furnished unto all good works; and we doubt the sufficiency of a dogma of theology, if, instead of presenting us with "line upon line" and "precept upon precept," it refer us for its credentials to some grammatical nicety, which minister questions rather than godly edifying. We freely admit that literature must lend its aid in the illustration of Scripture, and that the right interpretation of words is a matter of primary importance; but here almost all the evidence in favour of one of the grand peculiarities of a religious sect is derived from the twentieths of the Christian world must be cast out of disputed meaning of a solitary trisyllable. Nineteenthe visible Church, if the meaning of this vocable has not been fully apprehended. We think that this is and setting up the lexicon, rather than the Bible, as very like making a man an offender for a word,"

the religion of Protestants.

On the ground we have just mentioned, and apart from other considerations, we would hesitate to adopt the views of Dr Carson and his party relative to the mode of baptism. For another reason, we would be inclined to pause before assenting to their doctrine in reference to the subject of the ordinance. According to their principles, the infant children of believers have no standing in the visible Church of Christ, and He who lifted up the little ones in his arms and blessed them, has left behind him no institution to indicate that they have still a share in his gracious consideration. The Church of Israel comprehended the sucking babe as well as the hoaryheaded patriarch; but it follows as a legitimate inference from the theology of the Baptists, that, in the New Testament Church, there is no ordinance which recognises the seed of the faithful as related to the commonwealth of the saints. Jesus, speaking of infants, said-"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke xviii. 15, 16); and yet Baptists withhold from them the only ordinance in which they can draw near to the heavenly High Priest.

But we must pass from these general observations, and address ourselves to the examination of the work before us. We hail it as a most important contribu

tion to our theological literature. It is the only answer, at once effective and complete, which has yet appeared to the treatise of Dr Carson on the same subject. Mr Wilson is Professor of Sacred Literature for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. It is apparent, from this volume, that he is a most accomplished scholar; and we rejoice that he has turned his attention to a question which his intimate acquaintance with Greek literature enabled him so thoroughly to investigate. He has brought to light a great amount of false criticism in the work to which he replies. He has fairly overthrown the favourite doctrine of Dr Carson, by demonstrating that the word Barra does not necessarily denote immersion. His argument is conducted in a spirit of the utmost candour; and yet nothing can be more satisfactory than the proof which he adduces in refutation of the peculiar interpretation of the Baptist controversialist. Dr Carson stakes the credit of his whole system upon the mean

ing he attaches to the Greek verb. "Nothing," says he, "is Christian baptism, but the immersion of a believer in water, in obedience to the command of Jesus." "Our opponents have not an acknowledged foundation on which to rest the opinion, that, with respect to the ordinance of baptism, the word Barril MAY have the meaning for which they contend; for in no instance can it be proved to have such a meaning." "There is not one instance in all the Greek language, in which it necessarily signifies to pour, sprinkle," &c. President Beecher, Dr Halley, and others, have completely exposed the inaccuracy of these statements. Dr Carson himself admitted, that his views respecting the meaning of Barrie were opposed by the learned. "My position is," said he, "that it always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode. ... I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion." Professor Wilson has entered into a lengthened examination of the classical, scriptural, and patristic use of the term, and has fairly upset the Baptist exposition. This portion of his work will be read with great interest by those who have closely attended to the progress of this controversy, as he here minutely examines the ingenious argumentation of Dr Carson, and shows that it cannot stand the test of sound and philosophical criticism. He has pointed out a variety of cases in which the verb cannot possibly signify to dip; and he has noticed the remarkable fact, that Dr Carson himself has very frequently been obliged to employ another translation. In connection with this department of his subject, he has thrown new light upon the controversy, by referring to the mode of bathing among the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. We suspect that the testimony which he here brings forward will take most of our Baptist friends by surprise, as their writers have hitherto reasoned on the supposition that the bathers mentioned by the classic writers dipped or immersed themselves.

"We are not aware," says Professor Wilson, "that a solitary particle of evidence can be drawn to the cause of immersion from the mode of bathing practised by the ancient Greeks; while, on the opposite side, there is presented a very large and conclusive mass of testimony. In the excellent Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, published some years since, under the able superintendence of Dr W. Smith-a work practically illustrating the advantages of division of labour-the article on baths presents us with the following clear and important statement respecting the mode of using the asaminthos:-'It would appear, from the

description of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Circe, that this vessel did not contain water itself, but was only used for the bather to sit in, while the warm water was poured over him, which was heated in a large caldron ciently warmed, was taken out in other vessels, and poured or tripod, under which the fire was placed, and, when suffiover the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the asaminthos.' From this pregnant instance, the advocate for dipping may learn an instructive lesson. It is no proof of immersion, that a party is represented as going into the bath, and coming out of the bath. In the case of Ulysses, the descent and ascent are both distinctly recorded; while the author expressly informs us, that the ablution was performed by pouring or affusion, and not by immersion. "If our judgment is to be swayed by the most unexceptionable of all testimony-the sculptured representations of Greeks actually enjoying the bath, as exhibited on system was entirely excluded. We do not overstate the case, ancient vases-we must of necessity believe that the immersion as against the doctrine of our opponents. In the Dictionary of Antiquities, already quoted, it is broadly asserted, that so far as this important class of witnesses is concerned, not even a solitary testimony has been discovered, tending to identify prevalent in our own times. the ancient mode of bathing with that which is so generally We extract the words: On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, we never find any thing corresponding to a modern bath, in which persons can stand or sit, but there is always a round or oval basin (louter) resting on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are represented standing undressed, and washing themselves!" The writer appropriately introduces, in illustration of the preceding statement, an interesting woodcut, taken from one of the vases in Sir William Hamilton's collection; and its value is greatly enhanced by the fact that, in this instance, the louter has inscribed on it the word public, showing it to be no private concern, but one of the ordinary public baths of Greece. Here, again, is bathing— public bathing in the customary manner; but where is the immersion? Can we conceive of evidence more convincing? The representation on the vase does not point to a possible way of bathing, but to the mode constantly practised by the people. It may be added that this evidence possessed the advantage of being perfectly disinterested, as the author was evidently unaware of the bearing of his views on any doctrine or observance of Christianity.

"It is not, then, matter of fact, though Dr Carson has stated it in strong and unequivocal terms, that immersion is almost always the way of bathing! It may be in our own age and country; and if this furnished the standard of comparison, no doubt his cause would be triumphant. But, in regard to the baths of the ancient Greeks, his statement utterly fails, and, failing in that quarter, it is nothing to his purpose."-Pp. 157, 158, 159, 162.

If, as professor Wilson has clearly established in this treatise, the word Barrila does not necessarily denote immersion, it follows that the New Testament contains no positive instructions in regard to the mode of the administration of baptism. And here the Church may recognise the wisdom of her King and Lawgiver. He foresaw that the grossest idolatry would at length dishonour the celebration of the last supper, and that the doctrine of transubstantiationone of the most startling heresies of the grand apostasy-would spring from an erroneous view of the character of that institution. That his true servants might therefore be furnished with the means of bearing effective testimony against the defection, he has given us in his Word the most precise information respecting the mode in which the ordinance was originally observed. We have an account of the circumstances which preceded and followed the dispensation of the elements; we can tell what was said on the occasion; we know the names of the parties who were present; and we can even describe the posture in which they received the sacramental symbols. But it is otherwise in the case of baptism. The water has never been converted into an object of worship,