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

baptism puts man within water, an
} that / admit that Christ commando
; such baptism. did not make eithe
; admission, and saying | did our learne
; brother grossly misrepresented me. ono
more demand of him to tell us how th
J man gets out of the water by a wor
which he says never brings out what
puts in. He says | solve the difficult,
by not going in Precisely Now hoV
does he solve the difficulty What is hi
reply? When | agree to go in, then b
will show me the way out, If | need an,
help. o reader, what a solution! I cal
solve the difficulty, but he cannot.
Z. Now We come to another of Mr.
GambrelPs misrepresentation. He rep
resents me as admitting that the word
baptize does not mean to sprinkle o.
pour. No, reader, | did not admit any
such thing. | admit that they are no
equivalents of the words baptize, anC
that no modal word, whatever, can bt
its equivalent did not condemn Tur
tullian for saying that baptize means
sprinkle. He believed baptism could be
effected by either sprinkling or dipping
but he did not believe that the sprink-
| ling or the dipping was the baptism,
nor do l. He believed that baptize
means to sprinkle as to the mode in
which baptism may be effected, but he
did not believe that sprinkling and dip
ping were equivalents to the word bap-
| tism. He did not believe that any par
| ticular mode was of the essence of Il
baptism. Cyprian and all the fathers
of the early church believed that mode
| was not of the essence of baptism. and
hence they universally admitted the
validity of pouring and sprinkling, and
both these modes were practiced daily
by them, they said, as well as dipping.
It was in reference to the mode OF bap-
tism that Turtullian said, the word
means, mot only to sink, but also to
sprinkle" These men understood the
scriptures to teach that baptism is one
thing. and the mode of administering is
another. and that the latter was not es-
sential TO the validity of the ordinance:
hence. they said they baptized the sick,
daily, by pouring or sprinkling. Reader,
can YOU imagine how absurd it would
be for these men to say when they bap-
tized by sprinkiing, Il immerse or dip
YOU into the name of the Father, etc.
They were not so absurd. They said,
II baptize you," while they poured or
sprinkled water upon the subject. In
such cases, baptize did mean to sprinkle
as to the mode. But perhaps it is said
that sprinkling is not directly expressed
by the word baptism. To this, / say IN
reply, that ploughing is .ot expressed
by the verb, to work, but who doubts
that pioughiDg is one mode OF working?
But YOU will search the dictionary in
vain to find ploughing as one OF the
meanings; and vet work implies plow-
ing as one its specific meanings OF work.
But blowing is not reaping, and yet they
are both modal meanings of the generic
word work. But neither is the equiva-
lent of the word work. Now, in the
same way, baptize is Il generic term, i'm
plying any mode that is competent to
meet its demand, especially such modes
AS are mentioned or implied in the word
of God. 1t is precisely because there is
no mode expressed directly by the word,
that edo-baptists can admit the valid
itv, but not the regularity, OF Baptist
dipping. God has no where said, IN the
New Testament, that unless baptism is
administered by sprinkling or pouring
il is no baptism There were baptlsms
in the Old Testament, God-erdained,
that were effected By pouring and sprlnk-
ling and washing. In this latter, there
is no mode, and as a washing, but not as a
burial, we can in the judgment OF charity
admit the validity of Baptist baptism.
s. But, SAYS MIR Gambrell, you have
not proved that baptize is a generic
term. Yes, Mr. Gambrell. | have proved
it by the fathers who lived when the
Greek was living language, and who
certainly understood their mother
tongue, for with many of them it was
their mother tongue. DIR. Carson says
they did understand it, and his author
ity is AS good as gospel with you. Well,
these fathers did baptize by dipping, by
pouring and by sprinkling, and if the
term was not generic, they would not
have done that. Not one OF them ever
objected to these several modes because
of the me ,ring of this Greek word. Ii
they ever objected, you know you have
my challenge to point out such obJec.
ti0ns. But you seem as innocent OF
knowing anything of this challenge as
lamb. This reminds me that you were
once. as you say, a literal shepherd; and,
NV dear friend, let me tell you, that if
vou treated your sheep as cruelty, and
butchered them as extensively as you
do certain words of the Greek language,
/ cannot but wonder that even one sheep
stayed with YOU one hour. Perhaps it
is happv for YOU that the Greek Is
dead language, for you might otherwise
be the subject of criminal prosecution:H y
| have another proof that baptism IS
generic term, and that is the verbal
Greek noun Baptisna, noun never
found in the classics, but used for the
first time in the ministry of John the
Baptist. "All Grammarians agree IN
saving: subst4ntives derived from verbs
and ending in MI, express effect, product,
result, state Kuhner says substan-
tiyes with the ending ma denote the
effect or result of the transitive action
of the verb. Buttnan, Sophocles, Cros-
nv. Jelf and Winer give similar testimo-
nv. Then Raptisma does not express
act, or mode, for act and mode are not
results. or effects, but instruments
which produce them. Baptisma does
not express act or mode but implies
both, and is therefore not specific, but
generic term. John preached the
baptisma of repentance, and not the
dipping or the sprinkling of repentance,
hut that purified condition of the soul
induced by repentance. John admin
| istered a rite with pure water, which
symbolized the purified condition which
repentance effected in the soul. There
| fore John bapt zed symbolly into
repentance. Neither that aspect of
baptism which John preached, nor that
form of baptism he administered, was
nhysical baptism. In that real baptism
effected by repentance, there was an in
tusposition in the remission of sins, and
% far as we know, they who were so
! hantized. are in that condition of for
giyeness TO this day. Baptism never
brings out what it really puts in. II It
nuts men into water, it never takes
them out, and if it puts them into
Christ, they stay there for ever more.
/ BAPTISM never brings out what it ever
nuts into anything. No baptism Is sell
ending. and therefore no baptism is q
mere dipping in water or mere sprink-
limo with water Ny dear brother, for
The sake Of our common Master, ] beg
Won to review your ground, and cease
| from the folly Of alleging that physi-
cal dipping in water = o. the essence o.
/ the baptism Of Christianity
i 9. Look, my readers. to what straits
onr brother Is reduced, when he feels
Iconstrained to say, in reference to the
baptism of the Apostles on the day OF
4 Pentecost. that the Divine Spirit came
from heaven IS q sound. Alas, to what
| foIly does ! false theory drive man in
order to make the truth Of God bar,
s monte with his nOtionsl The Spirit 81
i God Is neithera sound, nor did he come
q sound en- that, nor any other oc
casion. How much more simple is the
truth Of the record, that the Holy Spirit
was ppnred out, or fell on them, il
order to qualify them as Apostles fol
ne discharge Of their Apostolic duties
This was 4 baptism, and the mode oI i
was ~ DonrinR. But Il Mr q. vii