Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1893-11-16
WHAT DOES BAPTIzE MEANT
Those Twenty Reasons for "Effasion
the Mode" Reviewed From
Baptist Standpoint.
tConcluded,) J

In his 7th reason Bro. Jackson
gives four reasons why he thinks
Johns baptism was by affusion
"First, AS Jewish priest he knew
no other mode; second, I'm Batha.
bara, lin Jordan and in the wild
erness,' designate place and not
mode; third, the number bap-
tized too great to be accomplish
ed by immersion; fourth, he applied
the element to the subject. He
baptized with water"
To first in reply: Ga. )John in bap-
tizing was not performing any priest
ly office. (b.) The Scriptures de-
clare, as plainly as the language in
which they were written could say
it, that John was immersing; for
they use the word which erybody
understood to mean immerse, and
which was never used to mean
sprinkle or pour. They could not
have used a word more definite
than baptizo, and if by the use of
that word they could not say that
John was immersing, it was impos-
sible for them to say it in the Greek
language.
Second. No one claims that "in
Jordan" designates the mode, and
we are glad to see that Bro. Jackson
admits that John was not near to
Jordan-not on it's banks-but ac-
tually in it. A queer place for him
to be if he were only sprinkling or
pouring-exactly where we could ex-
pect to find him if he were immers-
ing. Bro. Jackson and those who
practice affusion these days do not
go into the water. In fact, the
practice of affusion was gotten up to
keep out of the water. Johns being
in the Jordan is presumption in
favor of immersion and against af-
fusion.
Third. We deny that the num-
ber baptized was too great for the
baptism to have been by immersion,
and call on Bro. Jackson to prove it.
We shall have more to say about
the immersion of large numbers
further on.
Fourth. The expression "with
water" proves nothing. wash my
hands with water, but that does not
imply that | apply the water to my
hands; I usually plunge my hands
in the water. Moreover, with wa
ter" is pedobaptist translation.
The Scriptures say in water, but
pedobaptists translate it with water,
and then, forsooth, attempt to base
an argument on their translation.
In the late revision in is put in the
margin. The American Committee
insisted that in be put in the text
and with" in the margin.
Eighth. In his Sth reason Bro.
Jackson gives five reasons why he
thinks Jesus was baptized by af-
fusion:
First, That was the mode
employed by John who baptized
Him.
We have shown above that the
Scriptures plainly say that John i'm
mersed. The Bible says John was
in the Jordan, that Jesus went into
the water to John, that John inn
mersed Him, and Jesus came up out
of the water.
Second. That His baptism was
to introduce Him into His priestly
office, and, according to the law OF
Moses, this ceremony is by sprink-
ling.
But Jesus was not literally priest
had no connection with the priest
ly line, and never did any work
belonging to the office of a Jewish
priest. He was "a priest after the
order of Melchizedek."
Third. "John said he needed to
be baptized of Jesus, referring to
Holy Ghost baptism, which was by
effusion." (a.) We deny that John
referred TO Holy Ghost baptism, and
call on Bro. Jackson for proof. o.
The use of the word baptizo to de-
note influence or gift of the Holy