The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-14


3 Greek. and not in Latin, and that in
IN merse Is as much a Latin word as bal
Be tie is a Greek word Now If immersio
3 and baptism have one and the sam
r meaning, Is it not strange. Is Il not rtr
$ strange, that neither in the old Italic, 9
p the second century, nor the Jerome vel
Y sion OF the fourth century, Is the wor
= baptize translated immerse. In neithe
q version 50 far as we have them, is bar
i tie ever rendered immerse. Jerom
vas perhaps the most learned of all th
/ Patrists. But it seems he knew neithe
!. Latin, Greek nor Hebrew, compared Will
q you and Mcknight. That neither yer
e sion used, but that both refused to use
| / in the Latin Bible, the word immerse.
: take and lay across the track of both
:. you and Mcknight. What inferencs
7 can We draw from this, save that i'm
merse was not the proper meaning of the
Greek word baptize? Reader, is it with
2 in the bounds of sober reason to sup
) pose that baptismois in the text, and the
word dimensions, are equivalents, when
, the great scholars who gave us these
! translations give us the most convincing
: demonstration to the contrary? | ehal-
lenge Mr. Gambrell either to deny this
!. fact, or to properly account for it on his
! grounds. Here is the place to show that
these words are of one and the same
meaning He cannot show this even in
the classics He cannot show it from
the lexicons, of either classic or New
Testament Greek Schleusner saws, in
so many words, that the word baptize
never occurs in the New Testament in
/ ha #
| baptismos in the New Testament means
washing, cleansing, baptism. Robinson
| gives it, washing, ablution, and refers to
Mark Z 4 and, 8 and Hebrews 9:10. And
yet because Mcknight says it means i'm
mersioDs in Heb. 9:l0, Mr. Gambrell
considers it proved beyond dispute.
If we can rely upon the declaration of
great scholars, the baptisms in the text
are put for all the cleansings of the law
of Moses, of whatever kind and by what
ever mode God enjoined sprinklings
and never enjoined any other mode |
Three times in this chapter Paul men
tons sprinklings, in showing the supe
rior cleansing efficacy of the blood of |
Christ as compared with the cleansing of |
the law.
But did sprinkling cleanse? Reader,
turn to Numbers 1857. "And the Lord |
spake unto Moses saying, take the Le-
vites from among the children of Israel |
and clease them. And thus shalt thou
do unto them to cleanse them; sprinkle
water of purifying upon them, and let
them shave all their flesh, and let them
wash their clothes and so make them
selves Clean" Was it ever known that
one man dipped another in water or blood
to cleanse him?
Now turn to Exodus 24-6, and s, and
there you find Moses sprinkled half the
blood upon the altar, and then after the
people had promised obedience to Gods
covenant with them, he took the blood
and sprinkled it upon the people, and
said, behold the blood of the covenant
which the Lord hath made with you
all these words" Reader
this was a veritable Jewish baptism by
the sprinkling of blood, and Paul men
tions it in verses 10, 20 and "A of this
ninth chapter Hebrews. And then he
adds, Almost all things are bv the law
purged with blood" Now are we to be
told that these publications are not in
cluded in Paufs diverse baptisms in the
text? II
What was the cleansing OF the man
lefiled by the touch of dead person 6
1t was in the sprinkling upon him by s
clean person the water of separation, {
and it is repeatedly said in this chapter,
Numbers 10, that unless the water nf
was spriRkIed upon him, he t
could not he oleansed. To this Paul !
Illudes in this chapter. If the sprinkling
Of hefer-asheS secured ceremonial cleans
ing from the detiement of dead bodies, !
how much more shall the sprinkling of =
the blood of Christ secure real spiritual :
from the defilement of dead /,
works? And yet we are told that this q
sprinkling effected no JAdaic baptism. !
man must be hopelessly infatuated by Z
4 theory who will not admit it to be n
Jewish baptism. But did not the man !
who was purified have also to wash his \
clothes and his body with water? He |
lid. So did the the man who sprinkled |
the ashes water, and he had not touched
1 dead body. So did the priest who b
last the cedar wood &C., into the midst :
If the burning of the heifer. So did b
ne VIII burned the heifer; and neither a
Of them had touched dead body.
Now what was done to the defiled man,
hat was not to the Others here mention
ID It was the sprinkling of the water of !. !.
separation upon the deflled man, by one :
who was clean. This sprinkling effected +
Judaic baptism, and thus secured a
condition of ceremonial purity. /
Now reader take Mr.. Gambrells defin b
ton of baptism, and substitute it in a
his passage. Remember that he says I,
he very body and substance of the word
$ burial, It then reads thus, (which |,
TODD only in meats and drinks and di- i
'erse bUI1als, carnal ordinances, imposed \
IN them until the time of reformation. il
Believe this who can; | cannot while t.
Tod has blessed me with common n
ense. @
Now reader, hear Ambrose, one of the E
arly fathers, "He who wished to be N
leansed by typical baptism was sprink- tC
ed with the blood of the lamb by bunch u
# hyssop." IL
Again: "He who is baptized, whether g
n conformity with the law or IA con- !,
ormity with the GOSPEL is cleansed; In u
conformity wish the law, because Moses =,
prinkled the blood of the lamb with a :. :,
lunch of hyssop. =
put him against Maimonides of the
welfth century with his uncertain Tai q
nude traditions. put Cypriaa and
Jyril, and Gregory, and Jerome, trans
ator of the Latin vulgate, against the n
and vagaries of Mr. Gam T
,rell, when In Heb. 9: 10, he represents t.
1aul's diverse baptisms, as diverse 7
'burials,o and when he makes this rem B
lering, the crucial test of whether ar O
lot, any man is true minister in the r,
light of God,
Yours fraternally, T
JOHN HUNTER.