INFANT BAPTISM A SCRIPTURAL SERVICE, AND DIPPING UNNECESSARY TO ITS RIGHT ADMINISTRATION; CONTAINING A CRITICAL SURVEY AND DIGEST OF THE LEADING EVIDENCE, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WORK OF DR. CARSON, AND OCCASIONAL STRICTURES ON THE VIEWS OF DR. HALLEY. BY THE REV. ROBERT WILSON, TROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ROYAL COLLEGE, BELFAST. LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. BELFAST: HENRY GREER. MDCCCXLVIII. PREFACE. THE leading object contemplated in this treatise is the defence of infant baptism as a divine institution, and of scriptural latitude in the mode of its administration. Convinced by careful and protracted inquiry that immersion is neither identical with baptism, nor essential to it, and that "the little ones cannot be rightfully debarred from the ordinance, I have endeavoured to present a critical analysis and digest of the evidence on which these convictions are founded. In prosecuting the inquiry, the principal testimonies from the ancient classics, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, have been examined at considerable length, and the results in some interesting cases tested and sustained by comparison with artistic monuments of antiquity. The chronological order has been to a certain extent followed in tracing the significations of the more important terms; the structure of 134137 the passages in which these terms occur, has not been overlooked as a modifying element; and the principle has been broadly asserted that the ascertained usage of any particular period is not the slave of antecedent usage. Baptism, for instance, in the writings of the apostles may not exactly correspond to baptism in the works of Hippocrates or Plato; and in that case each must stand upon its own evidence, the earlier usage having no power to overlay or coerce the later. This principle does not limit the province, though it aids in wisely applying the products, of "historical philology," which renders valuable service in determining the mode of the ordinance, and the discipleship predicated of its subjects. Without deviating essentially from the proposed plan of discussion, I have considered it my duty, in the present state of the baptismal controversy, to make special reference to the opposing view as advocated with characteristic power and acumen in Dr. Carson's work on Baptism. As a specimen of masterly criticism and forcible argument, that work possesses merit of a very high order; yet the scholarship of the writer, as it appears to me, is not unfrequently at fault, and fallacy lurks in several of those logical processes which seem closest and most convincing. This charge is not preferred at random, nor would it ever have been penned in the absence of such proof as will satisfy every candid inquirer, and sustain the assault of adverse polemics. It is contrary alike to my intention and my feelings, if these pages contain a single expression inconsistent with sincere respect for Dr. Carson's talents and acquirements as an author, and his eminent worth as a Christian man; still in instances not a few, his positions are challenged, his reasonings refuted, his assertions contradicted, and his abuse and dogmatism rebuked. For this course I have no apology to offer. It would indeed be a most unsuitable tribute to the memory of an author who zealously maintained the privilege of unshackled freedom of discussion, to shield his own views from the fire of criticism, and thus necessarily invest truth and error with a common sacredness. On the mode of Baptism, I am disposed to rank the labours of Dr. Halley among the most important contributions to the cause which I have espoused. In none of the treatises which have recently issued from the press, have I detected the same comprehensiveness and mental grasp in dealing with the subject as a whole, combined with equal correctness in the examination and adjustment of matters of detail. Of the fruits of his well-directed talent, I have freely, and with marked |
