The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-21

- - but one mode, why do you practice t
!. - and receive a third? God never {
n Joined but one mode, and yet our go
- Doctor, in his first article, tried to pro
he two from the Scriptures. We ought
n i sprinkle, says he, but he will pour
- any one likes it better; he viii ey,
o take immersion, if somebody else W
Z perform it. This is the way our broth
- writes and acts. We are only supposil
:, be allows immersion, as all his brethre
= do; if we are mistaken, he will CORE
- us. Doctor, you are hardly the man
throw a stone at your Pedo-baptist bret
rem, who eandidly admit the truth i
:, this subject.
J We do not deem the Doctors troub
about getting out of the water wort
arguing over. Il is not a real troubl
: with any serious soul and never hs
= been. He admits that physical baI
q tism" puts man within water
: Christ commanded such baptism, an
]. now shall we undertake to show ou
: trembling brother how to get out? III
! solves the difficulty by not going in
: When he agrees to 60 in, then we vii
. show him the way out, if he needs an,
help.
! All this writing is to get away from
! the admitted plain meaning of the com
! mand of Christ Is it not deeply sig
! nificant that it should require such wa
on the plain meaning of words suel
; evasive criticism, such confusion O
words, to keep from doing the thing
admitted to be physical baptism
When boy, we had the care of foel
of sheep, and we noticed that some oi
them were always trying to keep out oi
the plain way. Every possible outlet
was sought Are not some of the Lords
sheep the same way?
The burden of proof is on DR.. Hun
ter, but he has spent his time mainly in
assaulting the Baptist position. Hi
proof is ia the Pen coastal baptism and
the Jewish publications. If, therefore.
he does not make out his case from
these, he fails. We will now re-examine
them with him.
Ii ever there was piece Of evasive
criticism, DIR. Hunter displays it in deal
ing with the Pentecostal baptism. $50
you dip the Apostles in Divine Influence
on the day of Pentecost." Heperverse-
Iy takes dip, (Which we did not,) the
word of all the list perhaps least suited
to the context. 0verwhelm suits the
movement and general complexion of
the passage 1t is true dip and over
whelm, both imply an ''iHtuspositi0n," !"
burial but it is downright ptryersity
or ineompetency to select the least suit
able word. Does DIR. Hunter have to
abuse scholarship in this way to keep
out of water? Then he plays on Di-
vine influence" Here is what the record
SAYS: And when the day of Pentecost
was now come, they were all together in
one place. And suddenly there came
from heaven sound as of the. rushing
of mighty wind, and filed all the
house where they were sitting. They
were sittiug in a house. The Divine
Spirit came from heaven, as sound of
rushing wind. We do not care what it
is called, influence, spirit, anything, it
! filled all the house with them in it. Now
was there here an intusposition" or
not? Notice how he seeks to evade it.
"You ought not to say that the divine
influence filled the house, the four walls,
and the apostles were dipped within
those walls" This is not criticism; it
is quibbling, and shows the desperate
straits tn which our opponent is reduced.
If man says box is filled with water,
and an object in it is immersed, he is to
be told that he Is quite mistaken, though
he means we'll You ought not to say,
friend, that the water filled the box,
four sides, and the object was dipped
within those sides Would not such
criticisms be regarded as trifing We
are astonished and grieved that the truth
of God should thus be treated.
The passage in Hebrews $40, "divers
immersions, by Mcknight, an eminent
Presbyterian scholar. and translator,
President of college in Scotland, is the
base AM last support Of the Doctors
theory. He discards Mcknight as one
who had not been pricked by Baptists
into informing himself. With accus
toned peryefsity of unscholarly treat
ment, he puts in bury for us, and makes |
the passage read "divers burials. The |
old and new versions render it divers
washings." This is perfectly suitable to
the context, and the references, and we
are willing to let it stand Just that way, |
remarking that Mcknight was literally |
correct in his translation, and that there
Raptisms carried with them the idea of |
a burial, covering. We like washings
best of all the allowable words, because
it blends in its shading with the con
text.
Well, what is the Apostle doing? He
is contrasting the two economies in gen
eral, showing the failures of the one,
the success OF the other. He speaks ef /
meats drink, and divers washings or
baptisms, as belonging to the old ecano-
N.Y. Pursuing the arguments, he refers
to sprinklings, also, several times. DIR. /
Hunter atiirms that when he says bap |
tisms be refers to sprinklings. II he
does, then sprinklings are baptisms, but
DIR, Hunter denies this, claiming that
they only result in baptism. We have /
Hunter VS.. Hunter. He brings III, the
fathers to testify, one of whom says, |
water cannot baptize until il is baptized
aud a hundred other absufdit,es which |
ne Christian scholar believes for mo- /
ment DIR. Hunter himself contradicts /
them, and yet wishes US to receive them. T
They are his stay in this emergency,
Let it be understood that we do not I
rest our objections on any translation, but |
ON the established meaning of the word /
empIoyed. Note these facts. Through +
out the old economy bapto ard raiao re
peatedIy occur, often in the same pass
ages. No two words we're ever more /
distinct in their meaning The priest /
shall baptize his finger in blood and |
rantize the people, Ii is in proof that
there were both bdptisas and Tnatisnls
under the old economy, both used for
purifying. It is in proof, also, that the I
bathings required were performed by
immersions, as in the case of Naaman, |
who was commanded to battle and obeYed
by dipping himself. 1t is further eyi7 |
dent, that Paul referring to the rantlsms |
Of the law used raiao. Now, unless
Paul used word entirely out OF its
true meaning by baptisms he meant the |
dimensions practiced by the Jews. We
rest the case on the established meaning
of the word How else can we know |
what he means7
DR.. Hunter himself condemns Iertnl-
Ian for saying baptize means to sprinkle.
VIII he say Paul did what Tertallian says
It was wrong To doa We repeat, give
an infidel leave to change she meaning
Of words when he chooses and he can
overthrow Christianity from the Bible.
The cases cited by DR.. Hi, showing pur-
ifyings by sprinklings are granted. They
are genuine, and they prove our point
completely by establishing the meaning
81 words. He calls them Indaic bap-
tism; with IS much truth he might
call them circumeisions or sacrifices
The old Testament writers invariably
can them rantislns and So does Paul: #
IS "a assumption to call them baptism.
Against the Fathers and Or. Hunter
With their dreamy and contradictory
theories and testimony, We believe that
Paul meant what he said The testi.
monv 81 aII Jewish writer's of note.
confirm this view. Or. Hnnters whole
case depends on literally chan sing the
meaning 0l word @ sui him. And,
Is conclusion, were these not physical
babfisms Ceftainly Wei. then. ~.
Daie said. d object within water
has been insisted nnoni through.
& e. Iai..4 - ~