The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1879-10-23
Written for the Standard.l
The Baptism of Christ, A Reply.

| IndnKS, Mf. Eu1COr, Tor inserting
my last reply to my friend Mr.. Egot
communication, on the baptism Of the
Israeites, in your excellent columns
The communication by my frienc
written on the baptism Of Christ in.
wolves upon me the necessity Of reply.
ing 'sternly, though tenderly, that
he may feel the velvet scabbard holds
a sword Of steel"
have replied to two or three of my
friends articles, but as yet no answer
to my charges have been made.
Why? judge ye. Of!course I admire
my friends resignation in modestly
refusing to answer my replies. It is
an easy thing to be resigned when
there is no other refuge. 1t is very
important that every man having the
powers of reasoning, and the word of
God, should Judge for himself on all
questions Of duty and future good.
Were it necessary, only to depend on,
and abide the decision Of others, re-
garding them as the voice Of God, and
therefore infallible, we might be JUS
titled in receiving the explanation of
my friend on the baptism of Christ.
But as such is not the case, we regard
1T as being our imperative duty to
search the scriptures for ourselves,
accept no mans opinion, however log
ical and seeming, unless it chimes
with the current tenor Of Gods reve-
lation.
My friend says that 'immersionists"
say that Christ was immersed for two
reasons John baptized in Jordan,
and Christ came up straightway out
of the water" Here [ desire to say
to my friend that the reason why the
majority of the Christian world be-
lieves that Christ was immersed is,
that we are expressly told just what
was done whilst he was in the water,
namely, baptized" "And Jesus after
he was baptized straightway came up
out of the water, It does not read, |
"And Jesus after he was washed, or
poured, or sprinkled, straig ghtway came
up out of the water" but Jesus after
he was baptized straightway came up
out of the water Nearly the same
words are used by the sacred writer in
recording the baptism Of the eunuch
by Philip. The phrase, "they went |
down into the water" does not ex-
press the action, it proves it. No 9TH
er logical reason for going Into the |
water" can be given. But apart from |
all Of this, the words, 'and he baptized
him" gives US to know just what was
done. That this is true can be seen
by reference to St. Paul's definition of |
the word baptism" He says, ''there-
fore we are buried with Christ in bap-
tism. .'-col.2, -. rom. 6, 4.
This idea no doubt was that of i'm
mersion, since he ikened it to a burr |
al: See Wesley, Clark and others. |
The true and primary import of the
word "baptize" as used in the New
Testament to express the ordinance of
christian baptism means to immerse.
This no scholar or critic Of any note
has ever virtually denied. Prof. Mo-
ses Stuart, one of the best scholars
America, or even the world has ever
produced, Che is not an immersionist
either,) says, ''baptize means to dip,
plunge, or immerse into any liquid"
and he adds, 'all photographers and
critics of any note are agreed in this :"
This is the only word used in the New
Testament to set forth the action of
Christian baptism. Baptism is a spe-
cific act, and the reason why this word
is used in contradistinction to all 9TH
er words is, that no other word could
express the precise action to be per-
formed. Baptism is used in the New
Testament about sixty times to desig-
nate the ordinance of baptism. Wash
ing, sprinkling, and pouring a few
times, but never to express or describe
the ordinance of Christian baptism.
Mosheim, Du Pin, Waddington,
Neander and others, none of which
are immersionists, say that for about
two hundred and fifty years after
Christ nothing but immersion was
practised, and that by all Christian
nations for thirteen hundred years it
was generally practiced, even after
sprinkling was used IN cases of sick or
feeble persons. Other reasons might
be assigned. Ny friend informs us
that Christ was baptized into the
priestly office Now let us inquire
| into this matter little. We are told
that the priests had to go to the door
of the tabernacle Of the congregation"
in order to be set apart to their office,
for the reason that Congregation"
should be present. If congregation
was all that was necessary, then Moses
and his successors could have gathered
the people together to witness the
ceremony, at some other place as well
as at the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation The reason why
there, more than at some other place