The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1894-03-10
MIR. GHORMLEY AND THAT LEXICON.

Editor of the New Northwest.
doubt not that you and the people of Deer
Lodge generally think that you have had about
enough on this subject for the present; yet trust
you will allow me few words In reply to Mr..
Ghornley'S last.
mence of assertion is allowed to pass as argument
audwhere by misrepresentny his opponents posi-
ton he is allowed to avoid the point at issue.
| know Of no one who is "enraged" at Mr..
Ghormley's proposition, as he declares, for there
is nothing to be enraged over. He asserts that
"sprinkling and pouring mere w,tter on any per-
son or thing for any moral, ceremonial or relig-
ions use, was never done by the authority of God
since the world began" But Where Is his proof
of this assertion? He gives number of scripture
references but they make no such declaration as
he does in his proposition. might grant Though
do not grant t) that these passages referred to
do not dsprove his negative proposition. but that
would not help him in the least to prove his state
Ment. He goes on the assumption that If silrink-
ling and pouring are not specifically commanded
therefore they are forbidden.
Now, as he calls SO often for "chHpter and
verse'' for proof. will ASK him for 'cl,npter and
verse" authorizing Immersion for baptism.
The word Is not mentioned in the bible from one
end to the other. and II were as unfair as Mr..
Ghormley, or as hard pressed for argumentas he,
| would claim that because immersion was not
mentioned specifically therefore it was not bap-
tlsm. Mr. Ghormley can show no passage where
'baptidzo is translated "immerse and I have
the same right to use that as an argument against
immersion as he has to the fact that the word
Is not translated sprinkle" against sprinkling.
And further 1t is also true that when the scrip
lures want to express the idea of mnersiOn"
they do not employ the word "baptidzo" but other
words 1t is hard to believe that any sane man
would undertake to prove the above proposition,
which Is a negative one and like the FOOLS state
ment ''there is no tiod,' is easy to assert but
in preaching and writing, Mr. Ghormey seems to
think that his bare assertions should be taken as
conclusive arguments.
| l claim on the Judgment Of seven-eighths of
| Protestant Christendom, which includes at least
an equal proportion Of the scholarship and learn
ing, that when Christ authorized his ministers to
| baptlZe With water, the mode was not of enough
| Importance to be specified and might properly be
done by sprinkling, pouring, OF immersing. And
| If the MODE is vital matter 1t should be done by
pouring because the baptism of the Spirit was by
| pouring, This pouring Of the Spirit on the people
was OF course only tlguratve. But whence came
| the figure except from the type of the baptism
| with water?
Mr. Ghormey claims that the spirit was poured
| upon them until they were immersed; but as
with many other statements, he gives no proof,
| for none can be given In this connection he also
stated that "if pouring is baptism, then the spirit
must have been baptZed because the spirit was
poured.' Here he twisted the use Of the word
poured as anyone can see, aft r the manner
OF Il conundrum with the evident Intention of
deceiving.
Now, as to the exicons. When Elder Creel was
cornered in order to get out Of paying the 81 GOO
reward he said lit was intended only as joke a
little pleasantly" When S1r. Ghormley is cor
nered he does not say 1t was a joke, but he gets
out of 1t by changing his proposition to one Ell
tirely aside from the issue and which has never
been disputed. 1t would have been quite a hon.
oruble to have said it was a joke.
| have tried to understand Mr.. Ghormley anG
am sure that have understood him Just as a Hrge
majority of his hearers understood him. As tt
whether | state correctly affairs at home Of
abroad, others less prejudiced than Mr.. Ghormle!
may judge. w. NJ BRITT.
Deer Lodge, March 5, 1894.