The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1879-10-23
JACKSON OHIO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23 1879.

sells containing the different element
OF purification were placed. See Elk
80, 1921. Elk. 39, 8.
But if my friend insists upon hi
supposition, then, and for that reason
Christ did not fulfill every jot and tit
tie of that law; for he went to Jordan
and not to the door of the tabernacle
OF the congregation" as the law re-
quired.
The Scriptures informs us as to the
purpose for which Christ went to Jor
dan. ''Then cometh Jesus from Gal
lllee to Jordan unto John" not as my
friend informs us, that congregation
should be present; but ''to be baptized
OF him." Friend Ego then asks, how
were they consecrated or baptized
Why say cor baptized?" The words
are not Synonymous. They are never
so used in the bible. The word "bap-
tized" is nowhere used in the law re
qulrlng the conservation Of priests
neither is the word 'consecration
used to express the Christian ordinance
OF baptism. To show how they were
made priests, he quotes: "And thou
shalt wash them with waters" but
now let us examine this water little
God never authorized any sort of
cleansing to be performed by sprink-
hing or pouring water alone, in order
to a legal or ceremonial publication.
Water and blood united, or water and
the ashes Of a red heifer combined
were the only waters of cleansing ever
commanded by the great law giver.
This water was called the water of pu-
rlhcation. See Mum. 19, 1919, which
reads: "And for an unclean person
they shall take Of the ashes of burnt
helfer of publication for sin, and run
ming water shall be put thereto in q
vessel" etc. So while it was water, it
was not water unmixed.
Water was an element, but not an
only element. Now, granting my
friend all he claims on this point, I
| ask: Did John take the ashes Of a
burnt heifer and mixed it with the
waters of Jordan, as the law required;
and with the same washed Christ?
LIE not, then, and for that reason the
law so much referred to by my friend
was not literally fulfilled. So here is
another jot or little of that law unful-
filled. My friend further says, that
If Christ was immersed for that
reason the law was not fulfilled. Did
the law of Moses forbid dipping, or
immersing the thing or person to be
washed in water for the purpose of
cleansing? 1 trow not. The law of
Moses required dipping, or bathing in
order to effect legal and ceremonial
cleansing. See Lev. xvi. 26 and also
%. Lev. xvii. Is, etc. Indeed the
word wash conveys the idea Of INNER
sion; for the thing or person to be
washed for the purpose of cleansing is
dipped or immersed in water. But be |
it remembered, that every unclean
person under the law, sprinkled or
poured upon with the water of purif-
cation, must finally be bathed, or
battle himself in water, in order to
legal and ceremonial cleansing. To
Moses God said: "Then the priest
shall wash his clothes, and he shall
bathe his flesh in water" etc. Mum.
xix. 7 and 49, For this purpose the
laver and the molten sea were placed
at the door of the tabernacle of the
Exodus xxx. 1921.
Exodus xxxviii. s. Now, as my
friend would have Christ comply
with every jot Of that law, in order to
be the Captain of his Salvation, he
must finally be bathed, or immersed
in water as were the priests, and as
The law required. To make the oil
answer to something he says: ''That
It was typical of the descent of the
Holy Ghost" The Scripture informs
US, that the "dove" was emblamatic of
the "Holy Ghost Therefore the as
sertion cannot be true; for the reason
that we can no more have a type of
type in theology, than we can have
shadow of shade in nature.
Again, we are told, that the law was
for says my friend, "Luke
says, Uuke iii. 21-23, ,)EaWhen Jesus
came to John to receive his baptism.
he began to be about thirty years old,
and refers to this law that he was
required to fulfill. For thus it be-
,ometh US to fulfill all righteousness"
Now by reference to the passage above
cited, it will be seen that Luke says
about law, and the words,
For thus it becometh us to fulfill all
which is said by Ego,
to have been uttered by Luke, was ut
tered by Christ, and recorded by Mat
thew, iii. ID.
The phrase "all righteousness" here
has no reference to the law respecting
priestly consecration. There is no
precept in that law requiring that he
should be baptized" The passage
may be thus paraphrased: "For thus
it becometh us to establish the di-
vinity of the character of my mission,
and to confirm and honor the ordi-
Of baptism as a divine, and
Christian institution-to make mani
fest to Israel that | am the Messiah;
and to typify my death and resurrec-
ton. His baptism by John was a
type and prophesy of the real baptism
of his death and resurrection. For,
said he: II have baptism to be bap-
tized with, and how am | to be strait
ened till it be accomplished" My
friend asks: How could John and
Christ fulfill the law by plunging the
Savior into the water, when they both
knew that the priests were to be
washed in water" What means did
John possess Of knowing that? There
was nothing in the law and the
prophets respecting the baptism Of
Christ. If John knew that he was to
wash Christ into his priestly office,
why did he hesitate, saying, II have
need to be baptized of Thee, and
comest Thou to me?" If John was
so well informed with regard to this