The Progress., 1897-05-15

khnl I
which was performed without immersion
that the writer to the Hebrews re1er 10
the old dispensation as requiring OF 1he
vorshipers divers baptisms whlle In 'ne
Testament immersion is never once re-
CURED this settles the question tnat the
lay If ba ptism does not require lmmer-
.;or the proposition which is here trans
lated in is very frequently rendered, at,
-, will hear it said that only cpl means
~ and that en- means in, but this is SO lar |
,.om being an invariable rule that any
40 Who will be at the trouble OF looking |
s tho matter up will find that cpl is found !
,,,,v fortv-four times in the Greek where |
.ue have it in our version the rendering AT
- .,-.;,st one hundred and two times, |
!, which at is the translation of en-, the |
expression in the river Jordan applles TO
the whole river bed, which is often, may
more truly say, almost always mucn
wider than the stream, the account states
that Jesus after his Baptism went up out
Of the water, this implies his immersion.
reply out OF the water is admitted oy all
competent critics not to be an exact
translation, no Baptist scholar would be
willing to risk his reputation apo in the
revised version it is translated from and
never should have been translated other
wise. Assuming that John used bunch OF
hvssop and performed the Baptism &C
cording to the old law, dipping into the
running water and sprinkling those who
camelto his baptism; everything told us
Of John baptism at the Jordan would APP
DIV. there is not one circumstance nor one
detail that would need to be changed,
~ So tod DC
ego Baptizo humas en- hudati, while in
Luke 3:16, the same statement OF John IS
in these words, ego Baptizo humas huda-
ii, in this last form hudati can be nothing
else but the doctrine OF means or lnstru-
ment. Baptize you with water is the
obvious and only translation, no one
would ever think of saying l immense
you with water, under the old dispense
ton, there were two ordinance, circumcis.
ion and the Passover, under the new dis
pensation there are two baptism and the
Lords supper, which l contend, Johr
could not use as he was under
the old dispensation, which prov
ed in my first article. John hat
no authority to use Christ name IL
baptizing, for Christ was not dead. w
see Heb. 9; 18th, 18th and 18th verses
which John could not use for the testato
liveth, the 18th, 20th 21st, I'D and q
verses shows plainly, also 18th verse, tina
sprinkling was the mode that was use
by the High Priest; your corresponder
making use of the words of Jesus suffer
ing, will answer by saying the gres
drops of sweat that fell from his blesse
brow, were the drops OF water mingie wit
blood that his father was sprink1in
upon his face and head, as he finished
will and testament which gave his apo
tails authority to administer the ordinan
OF baptism and to administer the Lord
supper, which right John did not have,
SO, there was one church in which t
Trinity was not used nor the administr
ton of the Lords supper, for Christ liv
some three years after the death OF Jon
Your correspondent cannot deny tt
statement, these articles are not writ
in any sectarian spirit. 1 make no o
lection to my baptist brethren practiclI
only immersion, would be glad If th'
ill., L - 80 ~,, f<Nu