| 110 satisfied that we are following the Apostles and primitive church.
B. This is assumption, and assumption is no proof. We must fix upon some point, and abide by it, for instance, pray where do you receive your authority for infant sprinkling?
Mr. W. I am surprised at your question, sir, pray do not your church practice the same as we do upon that point?
B. Yes sir.
Mr. W. Why then ask the question?
B. Because I presume you cannot defend yourself upon your own principles.
Mr. W. If I cannot, as you practice the same, you of course must lie in the same difficulty.
B. That does not follow. But pray, sir, shew [show] me your authority for infant sprinkling.
Mr. W. We refer to the New Testament, (taking one from his pocket,) here is one let us examine it.
Is it the English version, if it is, I shall not abide its decision, for it is not a fair translation.
Mr. W. You surprise me, sir; were not the translators learned men, and men of probity?
B. I grant this part. But sir, who is not sensible how far party zeal influences views, sentiments and practice. Look for instance at the wild notions of the learned Dr. Lightfoot, that proselyte baptism is as old as the fall of man; and that christian baptism is analagous [analogous] to it. Now many learned men have been duped by the authority of this individual and taken for granted what he asserted and have never examined the point. Yet I challenge the whole world to produce one instance of baptism before John. You must know, sir, that every learned man, who has examined for himself, both in your communion and in every other, has been forced to accede the point to the ana-baptists.
Mr. W. I can by no means admit the imperfection of our version, sir, nor can I see the consistency of your reasoning. It appears that you expose your own practice as much as any.
B. I will produce an instance or two where the object of your translators must have been to deceive the public, and to make the evangelist appear to support their sentiments of sprinkling where the opposite is apparent in the original, Matt. 3:11. Your version says, "I indeed baptise [baptize] you with water, &c. he shall baptise [baptize] you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."-Notice this translation sir, now in the 6th verse where they perceive that the same rendering would appear ludicrous, they have translated the preposition en by the English preposition "in Jordan." Will you assist me sir, to account for this conduct upon any principle than that of intentional deception and determination, right or wrong, to support hypothesis. I will not dispute about the signification of the preposition en. You must allow that we are more honest than protestant writers. We render it "in aqua," "in spiritu sancto." If the whole did not amount to the signification of dipping or plunging in water, I would ask you why the evangelist used in the application to baptise [baptize], the verb anabaino which cannot admit of any other explanation, but to arise, or emerge or ascend, see verse 16, also Acts 8:39. It cannot be admitted, sir, either that this arose from inadvertance[inadvertence], or from want of knowledge; for your translators knew how to render the word, when the controversy was out of sight: see for instance John 13:26. "When I have dipped bapsas it, and when he had dipped embapsas, the sop, &c. Why sir, did they not render this baptised [baptized]? You will not charge me sir, with inconsistency between my sentiments and practice. In our communion we never refer to the scriptures for authority for infant sprinkling, you know sir, that the Greek and Armenian churches which controvert our supremacy, practice dipping to the present period. The church has authority to decree rights and ceremonies and her orders are infallible. Here we depend for this and many other points, of sentiments and practice, which you hold in common with us; but referring to scriptures for your authority, cannot support your practice. There is sir, in fact no ground upon which you can stand, or any other protestant with consistency, between the two extremes, you must either return to the bosom of the Holy Church, or join the wicked, heretical anabaptists, who reject the authority of the church.
Mr. W. I have not I confess examined these subjects, but I consider it right to be honest and follow the dictates of truth.
Conference Minutes.
The minutes of a conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held at the court house in the city of Utica, N. Y. on the 28th day of January, 1843, at 10 o'clock, A. M.
The conference met agreeubly [agreeably] to previous appointment, and was called to order by priest Boice. Elder George Montague was chosen president, and elder Samuel Tibbles clerk.-The conference was opened by singing, and prayer by the president. The president them laid before them the object of the conference.
(page 110) |
