Sunbury American and Shamokin journal. [volume] (Sunbury, Northumberland Co., Pa.) 1840-1848, 1843-06-24
ron THR AMkuIcAN.
REVIEW OF REV. HALLS C0MMUNlCA TI0N
Mode OF Baptism.

| come now to reply to the direct arguments
Of Mr., Hall and, as tar as they are concerned,
the merits Of the controversy can, very speedi-
ly be settled
His first argument is founded on the word
baptzo, which, he would appear to contend,
means only to immerse, and yet he only insists
that such is its primary Specification. Well,
suppose that it is the first meaning OF the word,
does that hinder that il should have other me m
ings! There are hundreds Of words in every
language that have variety ofmeanings and
30 it is with baptizo. The best way to ascer-
tain the meaning Of a word, in reference to
given subject, is to examine the various rela-
tions and circumstances connected with that
subject. Now, in the New Testament it is OBJ
vous, that whatever is the original Specification
Of baptzo--it is either left ndctcrminatc, or it
would be better translated, pour or sprinkle. A
calm investigation of the come ctons in which
it is there used and of the different cases OF
christian baptism there recorded, will show
that all the probabilities are against immersion,
and in favor OF our mode and, when Mr.. Hall
is ready to enter upon the discussion of baptizo
in connection with the cases of baptism, am
ready to substantiate this position. / believe
that the word is rendered into English but
twice in the New Testament, and in both cases
by wash, which does not, of itself, determine
the mode in which the water is used. The
scriptural use of the word denotes the applica-
ton of water without abstract regard to mode.
The mode in which the water is applied in the
ordinance Of baptism, is to be settled by varie-
ty ofcircums,antial considerations
But Mr.. Hall says that all the Lexicons are
on his side. That they generally give its first
meaning to immcrse is granted But, with
scarcely, if, any exception, they give other
meanings. All the best phologsts and critics
unite in this So that, instead of the Lexicons
and the Greek scholars being on the side of the
Baptists, they are with us to man. | can call
it by no softer name than deception, when Mr.
Hall attempts to impose on the unlcarned, by
conveying the idea that the Baptists have the
exclusive sanction Of photographers for their
exclusive use Of baptzo as meaning TO immerse.
II is high time that they had done with such
shameful dishonesty. He then parades the
names Of some learned pedobaptist writer's as
confirming his import Of the word. | ask what
support their opinion gives his mode when
their practice differed entirely from it Those
great men never intended to be understood that
the word did not allow of the application of wa.
ter by sprinklng or pouring. 1t is perfectly
dishonest to attempt to make the impression
that their judgement and conscience were in
conflict. TO boast thus Of those great men is
at the expense Of their integrity. 1t is a kiss
and stab.
The second argument Of Mr.. Hall is de-
rived from the places where baptism was ad
ministered. His argument is this : because
there was much water, therefore the persons
were immersed. He, in the fisrt place, brings
to our notice, in proof, the river Jordan. A
very cursory examination of this position will
show its weakness, and even destroy his cause
remark, first, that Johns was not christian
baptism, and therefore, no valid argument car
be drawn from it in proving the mode OF christian
baptism. But not to insist on this now, | re
mark, secondly, that in all the cases of christi
an baptism in the New Testament there is n,
mention Of river. Lydia was near a river
when she was converted. and yet it is not said
that even she and her household were bap
tzed there. Now, if in the only case were
river was handy no mention is made of it, il
il not more than folly for the Baptists to max,
out strong argument in favor of immersion
because John baptized in or at the Jordan
But, besides, the argument turns to our favo
for, it the Baptists argue because John bap
tized at Jordan, therefore he immersed, w
will argue that,-becausc the three thousan,
were baptized in the streets of jerusalem, il
the dry season of the year, the yaior and fami
ly in the jail, and Saul in a house, where Their
was no river-theretore the water was poure
or sprinked upon them. But, our argumen
absolutely swallows up theirs, for, if baptism
was evidently administered where there wa
but little water, and being at or in Jordan ca
never, Of ITSELF prove immersion, therfore, tn
probability is, that even John applied the wa
ter in the way of sprinkling. What, now, NJ
Hall, becomes of your argument from the rive
Jordan1 Csass TO cry the river, the rive
when you can't prove that christian baptism,
single instsscs. was administered in river.
He next refers US To Enon. where, in o,
translation, it is said sthers wns much wat
IL u. II u