The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-06-25
DIR. HUNTERS AFFIRMATIVE
Enron B4PTkr Rrcopn.

i OF m0QS III H1cCElB& SUCH COAQ1EAOIly y
J, of time IN abiding in such condition
has been insisted upon throughout thi
inquiry as physical baptism Her
4 YOU leave out the article "a befOr
physical; and thus you materially chang
the meaning. Dale has the expression
''as physical baptism" He represent
intusposition in water without limit o
i time As one species of physical baptism
Mr.. Gambren makes him say that ever,
I physical baptism is within or undel
water, while DR.. Dale says there ar
many physical baptisms in which Their
is no intusposition in water, or any ma
terial element On pages 81 and So il
his third volume, he shows baptism By
wine when there could be no intusp0si
ticn which could produce a drunker
baptism. That baptism was effected by
drinking wine, and could be in no Other
way. 1t was a physical baptism, and
there was no intusposition in water oil
wine. He gives instance after instance
of this kind of physical baptism. The
same with drug baptisms, and sleep bap
tisms. They are all physical baptisms
without dipping in, o~eOyerlng over
with any fluid. l have tried to gel
| your attention to these baptisms but
/ YOU refuse TO notice them. Instead
of this, YOU proceed to misqGOte the
| language of DR.. Dale. | regret to have
to expose YOU in this way. but time after
time you have falsifed this, at best, but
garbled quotation. | might have
thought it a mistake of the printer, but
As YOU continued the omission OF the
urfioie, and construct your argument
upon the sense given by that omission,
you must have done ~ with intention
and am atle to put no other construc-
ton upon it. Even Ford, from whom
YOU quote, at second hand, | suppose,
puts IN the article, and you even garble
FOrd's garbled quotation. You omit In
the second quotation the words, thus
bringing the object into a new and
thoroughly changed condition. Now
reader. when Mr.. Gambrell asks you to
cut out and confront PedObaptists with
the concession, that we are agreed as to
what physical baptism is, and that We
are agreed that baptize makes demand
for an intusposition in water, except
when drowning is effected, | wish you
o remember that you will confront
them with what is absolutely untrue.
Bat you may cut out and confront Mr..
Gambrell with the ugly fact that he
nisrepresents and misquOtes DIR. Dale,
md that he attributes concessions to me
which absolutely deny and repudiate.
When a man is driven to such resorts ii
is a virtual admission that he Is unable
to NETT the arguments of his opponent.
,. Now let me ask Mr.. Gambrell II he
admits what he formerly ridieuled, viz:
that the word baptize is expressive OF
condition? He seems to admit 1t. lie
SAYS he endorses Dales statements to
letter. Then we have Gambrell versus
Gambrell He would not surrender to
me, but he submissively yields to Dale,
and / hope the Doctor will impress him
with this truth, that it is neither good
manners, nor good morals to misquote
any author, even though he be Pedo-
baptist. Dale says that the intnspOsi-
ion in " Mater is for unlimited time, and
here Mr.. Gambrell sounds note OF dis
cord to this, saying, it makes no differ
ence about the length of time. tie says
we are agreed on this, but | say 4ce are
not. If he says the fathers often dip
ped, and here the time was most limited,
10 this | reply. that Patristic dipping
was not Patristic baptism. Let him go
into the classics and show us that when
storms baptized thousands OF ships and
men, said storms as baptizers ever brought
one of them out of their condition OF
baptism. No baptism is seif-ending.
3. We are MT agreed that ritual bap-
tism is physical baptism. Most emphat-
icaIly we are not. Nor are all classic
baptisms physical. A baptism of taxes
is not-a baptism of questions is not.
Perhaps the greatest heresy that holds
Mr.. Gambrell in its grasp is, that the
ritual baptism of Christ is a physical
baptism, He might as well say the
Lords Supper is full physical meal be-
cause the word supper is used. SePar-
ate the Lords Supper from the idea OF a
crucified Christ, and it is not supper
of any sort. Can an inhdel eat the
Lords supper?
Separate the rite of baptism from the
idea of the purifying w0rk.,'f lind's (
Spirit, and it is no baptism at all. Meth
er dipping, nor sprinkling, is Il baptism
in itself Real baptism is by the Holy
Spirit into Christ, and ritual baptism Is
but the symbol of the reality. But Is
there NOT physical element used in the
rite of baptism? There is; but that
nbysical element docs not make baptism
a physical rite. To say that baptism
and the Lords supper are physical or
dinanoeS, Is a shocking utteranee 10 come
from the pen Of a religious teacher
Alas, to what straits will not false IN
terpretations of Gods truth drive
man! Johns baptism was baptism
into repentance. Christian baptism Is
haptism into Christ, and neither bap-
tism is into water. There is no baptism
into water Els Hudor) in the whole bible.
4. But was not Naaman, the Syrian,
eleansed of his leprosy by being dipped
in Jordan seven times? SO our dipping
translators said, at a time when dipping
was the statutory law of England. IL
was not by dipping seven times, but by
shrinking seven times that God directed
lepers to be oIesnsed. Moreover the
Hebrew word tdbdi, does not always
mean dip. Furst, the greatest Hebrew
lexicographer that ever lived, gives the
meaning of tabal: to moisten, to sprinkle,
10 din. to immerse. The Peshito'Syriae
version of the Bible renders the word
tabal to wash. Jerome in the vulgate
renders it by lavo, to wash froI.
stuart says it means to molsten. IN
truth the Jews never dipped rellglousiy,
and certainly never dipped seven times
for the leprosy. They did, however,
sprinkle leprous men and leprous houses
seven times to cleanse them from leprosy.
This God commanded: And he shall
sprinkle upon him, that is TO be cleansed
seven times" {Lev. 14:7). The septua-
gint translates tabal by baptize, because
6aptize had grown among the jews 70
signify to cleanse or purify, and tne
Greater part of Jewish cleansings was
Effected by sprinkling. Baptism by
sprinl ling was universally admitted
| fsct nm to near the seventeenth century.
Naaman was purified or baptized IN the
Jordan seven times by the sprlnkhng q
water. He went down and baptized
himself by sprinkling himself seven
times. Did the prophet violate Goo
| lon,.b before ordained rule, In directing
the leprous NaamanI ]
s. Mr GambFell represents me as
ouibbIer, as q wordsjuggleF. 90 nniaii
and unscholarly, as man without any
soul for philology, and one Tor whom
| he has but little respect lie quietly
assumes that he IS the very soul @
scholarship, fairness and philology. at
IfIambrell seems to possess more OF tht
ST of boasting and calling nieknames
shan for meeting my arguments. Ht
Furnishes Us with q unique specimen q
/ his fairness and pathology, by represent
inc ne As saving that to bury means
| :. ;;nc;nerate' that il, to reduce to ashes.
I y did not gay It, but Ar. Gambreh saie
:. sie,- f,r me. said il was one mode Of burla
snS 4, sevsit again. The Greeks said tn
ss,.s -, and T,sed the verb thapt0 as signify
- - S..-ssI Svbafher hv inferment or b.