Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1893-11-16

and "ek meaning from and moi
tout Of" The common version and
the revised version, both by pedo.
baptists, say he went down into the
water and came up out of it. These
are better authority than Bro. Jack.
son, who gives no authority for pis
assertion. To show that his state.
ment is not correct, / will simply
quote a few passages of Scripture
where ''eis" is translated into, and
where it could not possibly mean to !;
and remember this is a pedobaptist
translation.
"For ofttimes he talIeth into
(eis) the fire, and ofttimes into (eis)
the water" Mat. 17:15.
'sHe saw two brethren casting a
net into (eis) the sea-" dat. Ais.
"The kingdom of heaven is like
unto a net that was cast into (eis)
the sea-" Mat. 13:47.
"And the herd rushed down the
steepinto (eis) the sea-" Mark 5:13.
"And these shall go away into
(eis) eternal punishment; but the
righteous into (eis) eternal life"
Mat. 25: :46 r. V. 1t Bro. jackson
be correct in his statement, the
wicked will not go into hell but on
ly to its borders, and the righteous
only to the borders of heaven. In
order to keep Philip and the
Eunuch out of pool of water, he
shuts himself out of heaven. If
"eis" means into, eek" must mean
out of.
Second. Bro. Jackson says there
was not enough water along the road
Philip and the Eunuch were travel
ing for immersion. The Bible says
the Eunuch saw water-that Philip
and the Eunuch went into the water
that Philip immersed (baptizo)
him-that they both came up out of
the water.
l hope Bro. Jackson will excuse
me for preferring the simple Bible
statement to his.
Third. Bro. Jackson says: "The
Scriptures he was reading and
which were preached to him taught
sprinkling." The Scriptures he was
reading had not one word about
baptism and not one word about
sprinkling.
The Bible (Acts :32-33) says:
"Now the place of the Scripture
which he was reading was this: He
was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and as a lamb before his shearers is
dumb, SO he opened not his mouth;
in his humiliation his judgement
was taken away; his generation who
shall declare? For his life is taken
from the earth" He did not get
his idea Of baptism from what he
was reading but from what Philip
preached; and the act performed by
them shows what Philip preached as
to baptism.
Fourth. Bro. Jackson's fourth
reason-that baptizo means to
sprinkle and pour-has been already
fully answered in these articles.
Eleventh. Bro. Jackson says,
"Acts 9:1S, meansliterally, stand
ing was baptized. To make a case
of immersion here you must sup
pose tank, bath or pool
Again he puts himself in conflict
with both versions of the Bible; for
both render, che arose and was
baptized" (baptizo.)
When the Scripture says he arose
and was immersed (for all lexicons
say that is what baptizo MEANS it
implies a place to immerse. If
Bro. jackson wants to prove that
there could be no immersion in this
case for lack of water, and that
therefore baptizo must here be given
some new or unsual meaning, he
must prove - not suppose that
there was not sufficient water there.
If Paul's baptism was by affusion,
why should he arise? He could
be sprinkled or poured upon just as
we'll while sitting.
Twelfth. Bro. Jackson says the
following reasons lead to the con-
clusion that the baptism of the jail
er and his household (Acts 16:33)
was by affusion: "First. Roman
prison discipline would have for
hidden their wandering off in search
of a pool. Second. A pool was
not likely to be found within the
prison. Third. Paul created the
0DY