Baptism

Nor is this all; lexicons and vocabularies were made by Suidas, Zonaras, Hesychius, and others, exhibiting sometimes the classical, at others, the ecclesiastical uses of the word, and yet, in no instance, taking the modern Baptist ground, not to say that some directly oppose it.

Besides all this, numerous treatises on Baptism were written in Greek, and allusions to it are frequent in all the Greek Fathers. Moreover, commentaries were written on both the Old Testament and the New, containing constant allusions to baptism, especially in commenting on the Mosaic ritual, and on the predictions of the great purification to be effected by the Messiah, and their fulfilment in the Evangelists; and yet, in no treatise or commentary, is the Baptist ground taken, not to say that it is often and pointedly contradicted.

It is plain, therefore, that the Baptist position is entirely of modern origin. It has come up since the Greek ceased to be a spoken and written language, and it may be added, that it depends for its continued existence on preventing a revival of a full and general knowledge of the usus loquendi of the ecclesiastical Greek writers.

In order to a comprehensive view of the origin and peculiarities of the present work on baptism, I ask attention to the following summary of facts.

The Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Greek Fathers, belong to one system of writers. The writers of the New Testament were affected by the Septuagint, in their style and use of words. The Fathers were affected by both.

Taking this system as a whole, it is easy to produce proof of the most positive and decisive kind, that Sarriw means to purify. Around these central and absolutely irresistible passages, there are others in which there is satisfactory moral evidence, to the

same effect, in various lower degrees of power, although the sense to immerse is not impossible.

Now it has so happened that the passages in the New Testament, with reference to which this controversy began, are in this second class. They furnish real and satisfactory proof to those qualified to exercise a sound critical judgment, and to feel the various degrees and shades of moral evidence. They have, in fact, led the great body of lexicographers and commentators to decide that Barril has a secondary sense, and does not always mean to immerse.

My investigations began with passages of this kind. Indeed, I was not aware, when I began, of the existence of the stronger class of passages.

I therefore stated the laws of probability, and, in the exercise of a critical judgment, came to a result.

From a slight examination of the language of the Fathers, I came to the same results. These results are contained in Part I., and were published in 1840, and were republished in England, with the decided recommendation of Dr. Henderson.

Immediately on their appearance, Dr. Carson published his first reply to me, in a pamphlet of 74 pages.

Meantime, before I had seen this reply, I was continuing my examination of Patristic usages, and also undertook a radical investigation of the celebrated passages in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12.

The results I published in 1841, and these compose Part II. After this, I imported a copy of Dr. Carson's reply to me. This led me to make new investigations in the Fathers, the result of which I published in 1843. These compose Part III.

To these Dr. Carson published a short answer, and soon after died. His work on Baptism, including this answer, and others

of his controversial writings, were published in London, in a
volume of 500 pages, just before his death, and were at length
republished in this country.

To this second reply, and to other parts of his book, I now pub-
lish a final answer, which is contained in Part IV.

No one can fail to notice how entirely the critical judgments of
my earlier investigations are sustained, when the whole system to
which they belong is unfolded.

And yet, because the evidence on which these earlier critical
judgments rested, did not amount to an impossibility of the sense
to immerse, Dr. Carson, and the whole body of the Baptists
would have trod them down as nothing.

The issue of the controversy shows that it is dangerous thus to
despise such results of moral evidence, and critical judgment,
especially under the bias of organic influences. The greatest
questions of life are often decided by similar moral evidence.

Although, therefore, I have produced passages so strong as to
defy any fair answer, yet I still look with great pleasure and in-
creasing confidence on the first results of my critical judgments.
The capacity of perceiving the various shades of moral evidence
which God has given us, was not designed to lead us astray.

My original articles I have revised, enlarged, and rewritten, as
seemed best. But I have not deemed it best to make any radical
changes, because there is a historical interest attached to them, in
consequence of the extended discussion to which they have given
rise.

So far as I know, this is the first time in which the issue pre-
sented in this work has been discussed, in full view of its relations
to the usages of that system of writers, by whom the question in
controversy must be finally settled.

Boston, Aug. 27, 1848.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

THIS portion of the discussion was republished in England, and

gave rise to Dr. Carson's first reply.

CHAPTER I.

The Import of βαπτίζω.

Introduction. Reasons for engaging anew in the discus-

sion,

Division of Christians, and desirableness of unity,

God's mode of producing unity,

PAGE