The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-07-02

Mt declaratiye, not real; Naaman's clean
q, ing was real, in truth, 3 striking miracl
OF And vet Dr.. Hunter is so Wedded /
~ Judaie rites, that he eonfounds the tn,
is Judaism in one form or another, hs
le been from the birth of Christianity, th
to most seductive evil with which th
o churches have had to contend.
,y It Is dn6icult to see how, taking q
1e that Bro. Hunter says of BAPTIsN to b
p true, it can help him. It is the nom
g for BAPTIzo as immersion is the noui
Z for immerse, or dipping for dip. d,
'e these nouns prove that immerse and diI
!? are generic? He would not say so.
q Neither that aspect of baptism which
e John preached, nor that form of bap
tism which he administered, was ply
i steal baptism" Would it not be we'll K
e consult the Bible at this point? "Ther
went out to him Jerusalem and all Judes
q and all the regions around about Jordan
: and were baptized of him in Jordan
2 confessing their sins" And this was
, not physical Baptism; the Doctor af-
D firms "John baptized symbolic into
: repentance" and yet this symbolic bap-
tism which was in Jordan was not ply
} sical baptism, so we are told. No bap-
tism," says the Doctor, s'is self-ending."
: We would like to know ifsthe symbolical
baptism of John in Jordan is going on
yet. Every intelligent reader knows it
is not. All this confusion comes of con-
! founding rites with results, symbols with
things symbolized. Into what mist does
/ it lead onel From such justification
bow good to turn to the plain records of
divine truth. Turn, Christian brother,
to your Bible and read how our Master
was baptized into (eis) Jordan, or how
John baptized the penitent in Jordan how
the eunuch was baptized and the multitu-
des were baptized on the day of Pente-
cost, and how our Lord said, "Go teach
all nations, baptizing them," &c. Read
all these accounts and then say whether
these baptisms never ended. In case
like this, nothing goes further than
plain common sense without theory.
At least the next time DIR. Hunter propo-
ses TO baptize any body, he should never
cease, since no baptism is self-ending. Is
not this no-end to baptism q device to
plague Baptists with? Reader, there is
nothing in it. To say that that the bap-
tism which Christ enjOined upon his
disciples can never be gone though with,
is SO clearly an error that no man ever
tried to practice on the idea. DIR. Hun
ter has said no end of time, we dare say,
Il have baptized" indicating finished
action. The Pentecostal baptism has
been discussed. We need say no more
than this. If the Doctor will not be-
lieye that people in house and that
house filled with the spirit are over
whelmed, buried, ..then it is not worth
while to argue.
We are besought to know why bap-
tie was transferred into the old Italic
version. Could the Doctor tell us why |
the word church. is transferred from
one English version to another? 1t is
from a feeling of sacredness for the
word. No scholar of to-day will affirm
that it fairly represents the Greek exile
sia, or that congregation would not be a
good translation. There was an early
springing up of a superstitious reverence
for the rite, and with it, natural yen-
Grafton for the word. This same spirit
has stood and is still standing in the
way of thorough translations innOt a few
instances. This is it, Doctor.
1t has been said over and over, that
the Fathers called the Jewish sprink-
lings baptisms, and they knew Greek;
they did not so call them on phylologi-
cal grounds; but by association or ideas.
When they magnified the purifying idea,
they connected them with baptism. Ex-
cept one or two, they did not venture
to say baptize meant sprinkle, and Dr.j
Hunter certainly did say that no specific
or modal term could define baptize.
Mr.. Gambrell has given up the fathers
as WITH me and against him That ia not
q fair statement. We admitted that they
are with him, as to connecting those
rites with baptism by association of
ideas, but distinctly declared that what
ever their testimony is worth it is more
with us than with the Doctor. Their di- i
rect testimony, as to the Christian rite is |
clear. Cyril said: "Thou going down /
into the water, and in a manner buried q
in the water, as he in rock, art raised t
again." Chryostom: "Christ's body I
was buried in the earth, SO ours was /
buried in baptism" Basil: "The l.
bodies of those baptized are, as it were, I
buried in water" So wrote the Others.
This is clear. Y
DIR. HI. twits us with not taking one c
word to define baptize and standing to v
it like man. We never proposed toI O
take Just one for all places. That "
would be wretched scholarship. None
Of the lexicons take Just one, but they C
take several, all centering in common i
ground smeaning, ''intusposition" and
we will stick to them all, like man. +
but they converge to one point. There n
II -, H.. hot
adhere to DIR. Hunters idea. He will
not, aside from this subject. We sufici- /
emily show that oyerwhelm, dip, i'm I
merse, inbathe, ETC., all center in the /
idea of burial or "intusposition." He /
should confess it. He says we will not !
find that any dictionary gives plough as '
4 definition of work, but to plow i'm a
plies work. True, and you. win not find /
bury in .any lexicon as q meaning of e
baptize, but you will find dip, immefse, I
etc., and they all imply burial. Is it Q
net SO, Doctor. Why not confess it !? a
The challenge. Who, for centuries, j
objected to sprinkling or pouring on ae- Q
count of thelmeaning of the word bap- c
tie? We put this: Who during that 8
time, urged these modes on physiological t
groundsI Auswersthat. The truth is,
during all that time, immersion was the I
practice, and sprinkling. or pouring only T
tolerated as a substitute. The new man s
nscript, "the teaching of the twelve 8
Apostles" is clear on that point. 1t 7
gives direction for baptizing, and then 1
says if they cannet. be followed then pour. z
There was no occasion for objeeting, q
dear Doctor. Nobody would object to G
what was not urged. q
There are several other points we '
would like TO notice, as bury by burn I
ing, can an infidel partake Of the Lords
Supper, &C., but We must reserve some 7
space to sum up.
- CONCLUSION.
/. The Doctor has tried to prove j
baptize to be a generic word; bat he
denies that sprinkle or pour is species e
Of baptism. Therefore this point does 9
not help him. fc
!. q The Pentecostal baptism was by
ponring, he says, but the pouring was :
AOt the baptism. affirm that the over e
Rhelmfng was the baptism. There was g
an overwhelming. II
5. His other proof is the divers bap-
tisms Of Hebrews. .and the repeated ref e
srences to the Jewish sprinklings by the
fathers IS baptisms.
On the other side, We have shown that
/ was inTespect IA the idea Of purifca-
sati0n that they were 50 called, and that
sheAe same fathers testified directly to q
immersion as the New Testament hap lp
ism. Further, Mcknight, Presby- {
serian scholar Of great renoHn, rendered 81
he passage In Hebrews divers inner FL
ions, and other versions, Washings, ALL
the idea Of reference to ls