The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-06-25

2 buried upon their dinner couchesz "A
effort has been made to get rid of thii
t by making the proposition epi mea
: after, instead of upon. But epi neve
means after. Will our learned brothe
) point out burial in water in this case
, IL. An humble request was made
! that Mr. G.. should account for the fac
that in the Latin versions, the word bap
tie was not translated, but transferred
into the Latin. The old Italic, ant
Jerome in the Yulgate, transferred il
/ asked my friend 10 account for this
: and asked him several times, but AGAR
and again, he is dumb as an oyster. Il
immerse is the equivalent of baptize
this is the place for it. We happen tC
know what made jerome transfer the
word, by his comment on Ezekial 36 :2s
and 26, which is as follows: ''Then will
| | sprinkle clean water upon you and ye
shall be clean," etc. Jerome comments
thus: ''and | will pour out or spr7nkd
upon you clean water so that
upon the believing and those converted
| will pour out the clean water of say
ing baptism, and / will cleanse them
| from their denominations, and
| will give them q new heart, that they
may believe upon the son of God, etc.
| And it is to be observed that a new
| heart and Il new spirit may be given,
by the pouring and spriakiiag Of acdter." "
| Now reader, you have the reason why
Jerome did not translate, but transferred
! the word baptize. 1t was not the equiv
alent of immerse, nor does there appear
to be an equivalent for it in the Latin
language, as there is not in the English.
Is it not strange that after all the un-
stinted censure that has been heaped on
Pedo- -Baptists for not translating this
word, that DR.. Carson on page 347 of
his great work says, in so many words,
"We have no word to correspond to hap-
tisma. whatever may be the mode or the
nature of the ordinance Add to this
further stunning concession made by
DIR. Carson, that he has all the lexico-
graphers and commentators against him
in his opinion of the meaning of the
wtr baptize. Add still more, that Hilary,
Didymus Ajax, and Cyprian join with
Jerome in speaking of the sprinkling of
Ezekiel 1925 as a scriptural mode of
baptism. Now reader, cut out all this
and confront Mr.. g. with it. Tell him
that all these great writers, except DIR.
Carson, lived in the days when both
Greek and Latin were living languages.
He will abuse them, no doubt, and that
is about all he can do; but no matter.
His abuse does not prove that they did
not understand Greek and Latin. He
will tell you that they were not sound
theologians, but insist upon it that at
least they understood their mother
tongues.
u. Our friend speaks of the estab-
lishei meaning of the word. Well, what
established meaning has he shown in
this discussion? He says, indeed, that
the very heart of the word is burial, but
no photographer on earth has ever so
rendered it. Verify, ii is no wonder
that Carson SAYS that all the lexico
graphers are against him. Does Mr.. q.
take any one meaning and stick to it
like man?
Notice, reader: In the Pentecost bap
tism of the Apostles, he says it means to-
Overwhelm, but Carson says the word
never means oFerwhelm in the classics.
This is harmony. Then how does MIR.
q. know that it means 0verwhelm in
the Acts? He upbraids me for apply
ing dip in this case, as he says it does
not suit the movement. Just there, he
came near repudiating dip, yet he did
not altogether, for however he may
slight the word dip at times, he cannot
do without it. Here he reminds one OF
those men who are said to tie string
to the bread they cast upon the waters
that they may pull it back again. How
ever Mr.. G. may threaten to throw away
the word dip, he has always a string tied
to it, that he may pull it back for use;
for without it his baptism would be
practically impossible. Then again, in
Heb. $40, he says it means washings,
but hardly buriais / suppose, though he
says burial is the very heart of the
word. Then again, he says 1T means
flooded, )" and inlmerse and a score of
other words not one of which he admits
is the exact equivalent of any OF the
others, as each has to have its own pc
culiar and poetic shadings, and yet if
they had not all the same meaning, ne
says the whole world would be thrown
into giggle at the absurdity This is
Mr.. Gambrell's established meaning 1t
is not perfectly certain that this word
that implies many modes? Does any
man of common sense suppose that dip
and overwhelm, and flooded, and wash,
and immerse are not all different both
as to mode and effect?
l3. Mr.. Gambrell has given up the
fathers as nth me and against him, but
he comforts himself with believing that
Paul meant what he said in Heb. 9:1O,
of diverse baptisms or washings. am
certain of that, if he is not. But is this
to argue the point, when he assumes 1T!
When he feels hard pressed he always
resorts to his usual refrain that Paul
meant what he said" Yes, Paul meant
what he said, but Paul did not mean
what Mr.. Gambrell says, and all the
Christian scholars of the world for six
teen centuries say, amen to that. lie
makes himself the measure of the Apos-
tie, and calls that argument These
Greek and Latin fathers whom he sound
ly abuses as if they did not understand
their own languages, declare that Pauls
diverse baptisms were baptisms by
sprinkling and washing, and they never
said that any of them was by dipping.
This is indeed the voice of all history,
and if Mr. Gambrell denies it let him
come down with the proof,
The fact that these men often dipped
when they baptized makes in our favor, for
to man they would have objected if bap-
tismby sprinkling had not been valid.
In Ezekiel, Jerome finds baptism by
sprinkling. This baptism by sprinkling
was to be in the Christian church he said,
and in consequence never translated the
word as dip or immerse. The same in
terpretation is given by every father who
has spoken Of this passage as to meaning.
Ambrose said He who wished to be
cleansed by typical baptisms was sprinkled
with the blood of the lamb.n And then
TO put the matter beyond all doubt he
said He who is baptized, whether in con-
foTmity with the law, or in conformity
with the gospel, il cleansed in conformi-
| ty with the law, because Moses sprinkled
| the blood Of the lamb with a bunch Of
! hyssopn might add similar testimony
| from Cyril and Gregory and Hilary and
Didymus and many others. Origin and
Others speak OF the baptism Of blood. He
says For il is only the baptism of blood
which can make us more pure than the
| baptism BY water made us Baptized q
second time by tears says Clement Alex.
But why need add further testimony,
| for my proposition, that ritual baptism Is
scripturally administered by sprinkling
or pouring, Is as certainly proved as these
men understood their mother tongues.
might have added the testimony Of
lJosephas, who was not Christian at all.
| He speaks Of baptizing corpse-de6led man
BY the sprinkling of heller ashes, OF water
Of separation.
Now as we find baptism b wine with
out dipping, and a baptism Of heller
ashes without dipping, and baptism oi
blood and baptism Of tears without dip
Ipine, what is there 70 compel Us to believe
that the symbol baptism Of Christianity
must Be by dipping, and not 81 sprinklingi
Never until the sixteenth century wae i
denied that spFinlling vas . valid mode
of baptism.
And now, reader, ! have occupied,all the
space allowed me On his question. / have
offered but small part Of the proof am
able to bring And nov ask Mr.. Gam
brell for three things