The state capital., 1892-05-14
Reply to Rev, e. Hiii1n"n


tremendous efforts and endeavors to
substantiate his views he has accom-
nIished as much as the "Great Merri-
mac,n the confederate monster did
when tshen exhausted all her ammuni-
ton upon the little Monitor and al
though she turned her siege guns loose
upon her little foe, yet when the smoke
cleared away, the Union Monarch un-
injured glided from the cloud of smoke
Undoubtedly he has exhausted his
logic Y ith what "He'' terms Biblical
Historical facts to substantiate his
doctrine. Notwithstanding his tre-
mendous efforts to prove that Baptize
IS not q general term. / still maintain
and hold to the fact that it is a generic
and not specific which will endeav-
or to prove by the word of God. Bro.
Hillman endeavors to prove his mode
of dipping as the true mode by refer
ring us to Eph. 4 5. We quote the
passage; lone Lord One Faith and
One Baptism Now I ask Brother
Hillman if this passage states definite
ly and emphatically that dipping is
the one baptism? I say No, and he
has no more reference to dipping thar
to sprinkling or pouring over. Bro
Hillman also asks, Can [ baptize in
less water that it takes to wet the sub
iect? I answer, Yes, and produce the
scripture. Lev 6-6; "And the Priest
dipped his finger in the blood" The
word dip" is rendered baptize and it
is plain the entire finger was not sub
merged. First Samuel 14-27, "And he
(Jonathan) put forth the end of the
rod that was in his hand and dipped it
| in the honey comb; the word "dip"
here is also rendered Baptize wnen
only part of it is made wet. | ask
Brother Hillman what was the act
| performed by John the Baptist? There
| is no evidence that Jesus Christ was
| immel sed in the river of Jordan at all
lit has been satisfactorially proven
| that he was S. .Jrinkled and it is very
certain that sprinkiing was practiced
by the apostles and early christians
Brother Hillman a,so says Webster
| is the only authority with reference tt
the word Baptize being a generic WORD
and states / have no other authority
for this assertion. Mr.. Barnes defini
ton and Mr.. Websters's are identica
to each other in regard to this worC
and it is as applicable to bible truth
y
YOU refer us to several passages O
Scriptures, in which you hope to prove
YOUR point There is 10 evidence tha
that baptism which he commanded
the Baptism of the Gospel dispensa
tion was performed by sprinkllng
Johns baptism was not christian bap
tism. it was the baptism of repentance
designed to introduce christianity; i
prepared the way for the Gospel, bu
was itself no part of the Gospel dispen
sation. 1t was very certain that JOIN
did not immerse those whom he bap
tized. though if a had it would no
follow that Christ commanded INNER
sion. John may have done one thin!
and Christ commanded something else
We contend that the word baptlZ
means sprinkle. 10 pour, to wet, o
wash, as truly as it means to immers
or to dip T can sOlemnly assure yo
as q christian that the word we rende
bapti2e does legitimately signify tn
1 application of water in anyway as We
/ as by immersion, no matter what th
, Lexicons may say and if so sprinklin
t is as much baptism as dipping; tn
4 quantity of water used does not affet
the validity of the ordinance. If tn
L be the case, if the words mean
lsprinke. or to pour as well as to in
q merse. it is evident that John migf
o have dipped and Christ might hay
O commanded sprinkling and yet hay
O used the same word to describe John
!. baptism. I might rest the case her
II but I will 60 further and assert tn
O Johns baptism was not immersion
o all. 1t could not have been immersio
: in the first place immersion was IL
possible; for it was clearly impossib b
for John to have immersed the thou
ands and thousands mot to say t
le millonsl that resorted to him for ba
a. tism.
The Evangelist says Jerusalem al
all Judea and all the region roul
about Jordan went to him and we
ne baptized. Now the population of Jel
is salem itself was a prodigiOus mul
or tude and that of all Judea added to
Sc would surely be more than one NJ
eli could dip in the time of Johns pub
ministry. Another reason for belle
ING that John did not immerse; it sa
~ iexpressly that he baptized in Betl
= bara beyond Jordan, and in the W
derness as we'll as at the much wat
lie or many waters of Aenon and at
SO river Jordan. Now as there is
III mention made of a river at Bethabt
IS or Of a lake in the wilderness 1T is
to infer that no great quantity of wa
til was required and consequently VIII
1y ever he may have done in Jordan,
Ii did not immerse in Bethabara OF
ice the wilderness Now Brother III
by man this fact which will state is r
I'll, factly unanswerable; John says b
en- self that he did not immerse, over &
ley over again he repeated this testimo
0 "I indeed baptiZe you with water,
IN. He that cometh after me shall bap
our YOU with the Holy Ghost and with
will T am come,n he says, 'baptizing W
re- Water.n Now Bro. Hillman, whf
srs, want to know now is how John /
ro- tized? I ask the reverend man "
ent the hairy garment, did you baptize
us immersion? No sir; baptize v
and water not in water, as he that CON
f a after me baptize with the Holy Oh
NOT in the Holy Ghost and with
A not in fire: so I baptize with water,
Ilv. in the water. I apply the water
4 the subject and not the subject to
A water. No rational minded ]
ner. would ever speak Of immersing '
bbs. water. Not only is it true that J
I I. did not immeI Sc, but there is no re
Il. milton of immersion as baptism in
Is of bible; neither before the deaf
Christ or afterwards, did the disci
ever dip the baptized person in
Ion. water. There is no proof that job
Jesus or Phillip or the Eunich
'Aiis went into the water at all.
In our version it reads into b
the original it reads near or at the
an. not in it, and down to the water
col INV - since s = Won must concede this
With I can continue to give you fal
TIL; n,oof tbat TohDfS hantism ia M