The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-05-21
Mr.. Gambrell's Rejoinder to Doctor
Hunter.

we congratulate tne Cnrlstlan pul
lie on the progress already made. l.
Us note:
!. Sprinkling and pouring, as meal
ings of bgptiliao are openly abandonet
DR.. Hunter quotes some writer's, VIII
hold that view, but they were mistakeI
says he; Liddell and Scott, in their grea
Lexicon, gave, in the first edition
sprinkle, as a remote meaning of tn
word 1t was challenged, and, failing {
find passage to justify it, they struc
it out Of all subsequent editions. ID
Hunter says they were right. This
progress. Now let not the lesser light
Of rantism ever again reaffirm this oil
error. We call upon our readers to not
this open surrender of the old battl
ground. This is worth the discussion
,. There is progress not only fr0A
syror, but toward truth Dr. Dale wen
over the whole ground in four volumes
and toward the close he summed up il
these words: An object within water
without limitation of mode in efiectiny
such condition, or of time in abiding ii
such condition, has been ins sted upol
throughout this inquiry as physical bap
tismh Again, ''This word (baptidz0
primarily makes demand for the iutus
position Of its object within fluid ele
ment by any competent act, moving in
differently the object or the element
without limitation Of time as to the con
tinuance in such intuspositiOn " W
endorse the statements to letter. DR.
Hunter comes in now, and says, tha
our appreciation of DIR. Dale's position
sis cordially appreciated" 1t is nov
agreed between us, that the word doe:
not mean sprinkle or pour, that 'physi
cal baptism" requires, that the object
be within water" that the manner oil
getting it there is not essential, that the
time of its remaining there is not of the
essence Of the matter Here we might
close the case, DIR. Hunter has surren
dered. What is this discussion about
Physical baptism" nothing else Drs
Dale and Hunter agree with US, and all
Blptists, thatin physical baptism" the
object must be within water" What
is there more to discuss unless they pro-
pose to administer spiritual baptism, OF
some other sort Now with such a
declaration and concession spread before
the world, will the Doctor ever again
dip his hand in water, physical ele
ment, and sprinkle little of it on a
physical being, saying, 81 baptize you y
If he does, he will deny himself openly
and plainly.
Let this fact of the agreement of Drs.
Dale and Hunter with all Baptists, as to
what physical baptism" is, what the
WORD baptize makes demand for, (an sin
tusp0sitiOn'') be noted Cut out the
concession and confront Pedo-baptists
with it. Happily, DR.. H., and the
writer have a common standing ground
We are agreed as to what physical bap-
tism" is-the object must be "within
water" and yet, for all that, our brother,
with amazing inconsistency, remains out
of the water How does he keep out?
BY violating the principles of sound in
depreciation and philology. We shall
proceed to demoish the bridge of straws
over which he would escape from the
force Of the word of Christ, even as he
himself understands Its meaning, as it
refers to physical baptism, the thing in
debate
He indulges in hypercriticisms on the
words bury, immerse, submerge, etc.
Let us suppose that the learned Doctor
and few dozen other Pedo baptists,
were to witness Pastor Sproles haptize a
person in Pearl river. They fall into a
discussion over the matter. One says
he was immersed in water, another, he
was plunged in water; still another, he
was submerged in water; another yet,
he was dipped, and yet another, he was
imbathed; another, he was buried in
water. While the last affirms that he
was "iaftsposed' in water. BY vast
stretch of Imagination, We will suppose
that they carry the controversy into the
papers. each standing out for his view
as against all the rest. Would not the
whole country be thrown into giggle.
Every reasonable man would say,
why, these men, all agree and do not
know it." Yet, such a question does
our brother visa us to discuss with him
in all seriousness. We appeal the case
to the common sense of our readers.
Show us where one Lexicon ever defined
the word to mean bury, says the Doc
tor We can do better; we can show
YOU 100 passages where the things bap
tized were buried. The ships baptized
i. E., sunk by storm in the Tiber, were
buried under the water The rocks sub
merged by the high tide were buried,
were they not? Will you take DIR. Hum
ter's testimony? An object "within
water" is physically baptized, says DIR.
Dale, and you endorse him. Now tell
Us plainly, is an object "within water"
buried in watere You should confess
it without a word, Doctor. The people
will say it is. Who that has ever
thought on words, but knows that i'm
merse in water, submerge in water,
bury in water, are essentially equivalent
expressions.
We regard DR.. Hunter, in many re-
spects, as q very able man, but that he
was not born with the soul of q philolo-
gist in him, we will show by indubita-
BILE proofs. Take what he says of mode.
We called on him to prove that baptize
Is generic, and he replies not word
though thisis his foundation proposition.
We quote from Webster TO show that
the primary meaning of mode is imam
ner of existenee;" measure, hence form.
The Doctor says, You say, in all It's
uses the idea of fern is carried along
and so We did. He then adds, "that Is
to say, in every use of the word, it ex-
presses the mode by which the baptism
Is Effected No. Doctor, we did not
say that at all, nor anything equal to it,
We said mode, as applied to the word,
had respect to its manner of existence,
Its form. Al Ak has a form, but how
axes are made is another question. We
agree with Cox, Fuller, Dale and Car
son, that the 'intuspositiona or Within
ness is the form, no matter h0f the OBJ
Ject gets in. Thus misusing our Ian
guage, you have wasted al your eriti-
eisms. No Baptist cares how one is hap
iized, 50 he is truly baptized. That your
sprinkling and pouring does not put one
#ithin water You know As well as any
one, and, therefore, according to ynn
and DR.. Dale, it Is not physical baptism.
1t Is not Spirit baptism; It Is, therefore,
no baptism at all. Is the multiplication
table plainerS
Our respected brother shows in his
treatment of the word bury, to what
little purpose be has studied words. He
says It means to ineinerate; that Is tsra-
duee to ashes 2 Could anything be viii
derE And yet Il illustrates strikinplv
that process by which DR.. Hunter. Orr
gen. and others Of their order Of mind.
come % regard sprinkling and pouring
IS baptism How could he imagine
that to lncinerate or reduce 4 holIv# ~,
ashes Is burial Evidently b. A, srsr,-
ciaiion Of ideas, distinct but kinlre5.
To bury aud to incinefate are two 1ra.va
Of disposing Of dead BODY. anSi henssS
our brother says, bury means II il,e;n-
crate. 1he tact Is, ineinerafion Is = ss,b.
sEiIute Tor burial, lust. as srri;ntI;no
and pouring are substitutes far' ks.s1;s,ssss'
u the same way the Fathers and ~
Hunter. a7soelating, PURIFYING n.ifb -
ranIisus q the old economy and -,
2if1 t@ptsm n the new eeonnln9 l.li