The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-04-30
RglOIHDEs 10 DoCTOR HUNTER.
81 Rev. : /. Gambreil Editor Baptist
Record
PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

writers IN speaking OF the rite, IS 0dptidz0.
1t was a word in common use among all
Greek speaking people, and had fixed
meaning. Il is certain that Christ used
it in its common acceptation, else how
could he have been understood The
religious use to which the word was put,
no more changed its literal meaning than
the riding on the ass by our Saviour
changed the nature of that animal.
What the rite means, what religious
truths it was designed TO teach are to be
learned, not from the word itself, but
from the connections.
,. Nothing is seriptural baptism that
does not fulfill the meaning of this word.
That is self-evident.
8. Ii comes home to the common sense
of mankind that Christ meant us to
understand the word he employed in its
plain sense. Laws are not written in
figuratiye or mystical language.
t. The word employed by our Saviour
to convey his will, is capable of being
| translated, or else it is impossible to
convey the mind of Christ to all people,
and vet all people are expected to obey,
literally, the literal command, '.be bap
tied
5. DIR. Hunters affirmative binds him
to prove that the sprinkling and pour
| ing of the Presbyterian church are scrip
tural baptism; that is, they fulfill the
meaning of baptize. 1t is nothing To
his case to say that water might be
sprinkied or poured on persons in GER
tain conditions till they would be i'm
mersed or overwhelmed That is not
what happened in Pedo-baptist churches.
| Turning now t. DIR. Hunters argument,
we notice what he says of mode Web
ster defines mode: 'Manner of exist
ing" He says, "The primary sense of
mode is measure, hence form" Form
essentially inheres in the word bdptidz0
| In all of its uses, the idea of form is
carried along. That form is a burial,
an immersion. This is the very body
and substance of the word The how,
of burying or immersion, the where, the
when, the what for, in what, etc, are
questions lying round the word, but dc
not touch its heart. In travel we have
a different sort of word. One can moi
| walk, go on horseback, or sail without
travelling Bot one can sprinkle anC
pour without baptizing. Travel is the
genus; walk, ride, etc, are the species
Baptize is not the genus of which i'm
merse or sprinkle and pouI are the 5pe
cies. We deny DIR. Hunters first ant
fundamental proposition, and challenge
him to the proof. He offered not wore
| Of proof TO establish the proposition
upon which he proposed to build hi,
superstrueture. Come, Doctor, this viii
not do. You must not forget your bust
ness in this way. DR.. DA e-Presbyte
rian, says: ''An object within water
without limitation of mode in effectins
such condition, or of time in abiding il
| such condition, has been insisted upoI
throughout this inquiry as physical bap
| tism" Again, This word (baptidzo
primarily makes demand for the intus
position of its object within fluid ele
ment by any competent act, moving in
differently the object or the clement
without limitation of time as to the con
tinuance in such intusposition.
| juster statement of the truth, we have
never met. Baptists accept it, and ne
| scholar who has any care for his reputa
ton will wish to deny it; and let it bt
thought of, that this discussion is about
| physical baptism, water baptism. The
word is modal as to form of being, Just
as burial is modal, carving with it al
ways form of idea, that of within
ness; but as to the manner of getting
in, neither is mo iai, the NJ DIAL, the one
| as much, but no more than the other
This is the plain fact about it. DIR
Hunter must show that there is an in
| disposition of the person in the waters
Of baptism when he sprinkles or pours
lr he fails. The word of command lies
against him.
Now take all the words used By Car
| son, Conant, Cox, Morel aud they cen.
ter in the idea Of burial or immersion
| Look at them: Dip, immerse, overwhelm
whelm, plunge in, battle, cover, etc. The
essential thought is the same, and, if DIR.
| Hunter got his consent to do one, he
would not bubble second about the
| others. lie gives us nearly two columns
| showing what Baptists have said, as ii
there was war among Baptist scholars
md yet it is perfectly clear that they
speak. essentially, the same thing. AS tc
! Carson, a reading of his work will show
that he used immerse, dip, oyerwhelm
| etc, as synonymous. That they are moi
| perfectly so, in all connections, we read
lily grant; That they are practically
enough so, for this discussion, we affirm
In serious discussion, when the aim i,
to ascertain the import of divine com
mand, splitting ana dividing the fringe:
IF the question are out of place Car
son was no trifler Brother Hunter
there is nothing between dip, immerse
| bury, overwhelm, cover, submerge
plunge, etc, that is worth our spending
time over. You do none of these things
We will say further, that Carson onl,
complained of lexicons, because they
give to words secondary meanings, which
are not separate meanings at all. but
the same meaning modified by the con,
text. He says, with respect to the pri-
mary meaning of common words: II can
think of no instance in which IAxicons
ire to be suspected" He has no quar-
rel with them on that point. Again.
There is the most complete harmony
lmong them IN representing dip as the
primary meaningof hapto and baptidzo. y
Further, Accordingly, Baptist writers
have always appealed, with greatest
confidence, to the lexicons of even
Pedo-baptist writers. On the contrary.
their opponents often take refuge in a
supposed sacred or scriptural use, that
they may be screened from the fire of
the lexicons When Carson said the
word meant mode and nothing else. he.
doubtless, used the word mode in it,
primary sense of form. But. if he
was mistaken in what he said at that
ooint. let me remind you, dear Doctor
that it does not help your case. You
nave got to prove that your sprinkling
little water on person, or pouring il, as
the case may be, fulfills the meaning of
the word baptize. Again, II is said that
baptize, of its own force can not take
the object out of the element. There Is
no EMERSON in the word. We grant ii
but this is only difficulty in the minds
of modern ccntroversialists The word.
by is own force, neither takes an OBJ,
iect out nor keeps it in. Bat we know. /
certainly, that the people baptized did /
come out. We have example for it and /
the Savior knew that people had some |
common sense. If the word baptize /
means immerse or to be intusposed IN /
water, and We are commanded to be /
baptized, then we must be immersed I
Under the water We must 20. IF DIR. +
Hunter will do what the word means.
We will get him out of the water, ave, he
will not need orr help as to coming out
His sense viii not f0rsake him at that
,oint. but, like one of old he will be
'ound coming up 0utnf the water But
4 any enc. after reading the New Tesla
nent felt that he would have to remain
q the water If be got in t-he might be
excused. Some people ought not to be /
baptized. As to mode, be says, IL vou |
would properly Represents the cleansing
4 renewing Of the heart, you ought to !
prinkIe the WateFs az baptism. Pedo-
laptists tell Us that, that Is what hap :
ism Is designed to represent, and vet i
)r. Hunter tries to prove that pouring &
scriDtural. We ought Ito sprinkle E
he water Of baptism, be says, and ret .