Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1885-06-25
ACTION OF BAPTISM.

Aet 10 AoN SiahCC at tho piSoeht
state of this controversy. At the out
set disciple" boldly asserted that
"God never authorized the sprinkling
Of mere or unmixed water" l met |
his assertion with three passages of
scripture and nailed that error fast. |
He started out with the assumption
that "Baptizo' signifed "dip OF i'm
I called for an example |
from the classics older than the CON-
mission of such usage. In that he
has signally failed. I atfirmed that
'God never commanded one person
to put any other into and under water
for any purpose, and he never au-
thorized the construction of any YES
sci, in or about the Tabernacle, in
which immersion would be possible"
On these points ''Disciple" has OBJ
served an ominous silence.
I gave him four Greek words, used
eight times in the Greek Bible, all in
current use in the time of Christ and
his Apostles, all rendered into Latin
by "mergo" and its compounds. On
this point disciple has been silent
as the grave. He appealed to the
authority of learned men. I quoted
Dean Afford, Alexander Campbell,
DR.. Doddrige, DR.. Carson, (Baptist)
DIR. Whitly, and the Baptists, Robert
Robinson and Pengilly against his
teaching. He appealed to the Lex
icons. l have shown that the best
Lexicons say explicitly that Baptizo
never means 'dip or immerse' in the
New Testament. And we have shown
plainly by "Disciple's" own quota
tions that it does not mean "dip OR
immerse'' in the classics. So that
the Lexicons are in error when they
define it by such words as "dip OR
immerse." I have shown by indis-
putable proof that the Hebrew
"Rachaty" and the Greek 'Louo"
(wash) do not put the person washed
into the water. So that the supposed
help he gets from the mistranslations
"wash in water" "bathe in water"
is totally worthless. Now in the face
of these facts (and many more)
disciple has cheek enough to say
June 4th) that CDR. Gallaher has not
answered "Disciple's" arguments!"
Well, I am willing to let that rest
with the readers of the LEDGER.
"Disciple' should not insult the
intelligence of his readers nor try to
impose on their credulity by attempt
ing to make the impression that the
"Jordan" and "Aenon, near Salim,"
were in the wilderness, where the
Tabernacle was sit up, and where for
40 years the ''divers baptisms'' were
administered. Facts seem to hurt
"Disciple," because they smash his
DAZZLING idol-"dip or immerse." Ger
tainly God made the Jordan and
Aenon, but he did not locate either
the river or the springs (many waters
of John 8, 23) in the city of Jerusa-
lem, where 5000 were baptized in
one day; nor in Damascus, where
Saul of Tarsus was baptized in his
own room, by his bedside (Acts 8,
1S); nor in the prison at Philippi,
where the jailer and all his were
baptized (Acts 16, 33); nor in
Caesarea where water was brought
for the baptism of Cornelius and bis
family (Aets 10, AZ; nor in Ephesus
where twelve men were baptized
without delay or any searching fol
water (Acts 10, 81
"Disciple" having signally failed
to prove that Baptizo is word OF
mode, now wishes me to translate i,
by modal word. No. Mr.. Disciple,
1 have contended all the time that
Baptizo is not word of mode at all
but like the word ''chrio," Ito
anoint) it expresses something to be
done, but not the mode or manner of
doing it. For example, 1st Sam. 1G
8, Thou shalt anoint unto me him
whom l shall name unto thee" Now
the word "anoint" tells nothing of the
modal action to be performed. Yet
something is to be done. Now, how
was it to be done? All that is to be
learned from other sources. "Anoint
(chrio) does not mean to sspour OF
sprinkle" and still all amounting was
done by pouring or sprinkling
"Cheo' Ito pour) and ''rantizo'' (to
sprinkle) were both in current use
and yet when the Lord wanted oil
poured on the head of David the
Greek word "chrio'' is used, which
4