Newport daily independent., 1902-05-28
CONTINUED FROM YEsrERDAY.)

3.-Again notice that the baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire ad- ministered by Jesus himself, after he arose from the dead and ascended to heaven, was by this. same mode or method. Cf., Acts 2:1-4. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of rushing mighty wind, and it (the sound) filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost etc." The Holy Ghost filled them; and he was poured out from above from heaven touching them first symbolically on their heads as fame of fire-and His efficacious work was applied to them, and not they to it, by being dipped or plunged into Him as an abstract ele- ment of cleansing.
 4.-But John baptized in Jordan; and he and the candidate for baptism went down into the water and came up out of the water. And still no where in this or any other of the in stances of scripture is it said that John or any minister immersed any candidate. We challenge the com bined scholarship to prove this point. It is only an inference and that one not we'll taken. But says the immer- sionist Git says he baptized him, this only begging the question. This is to be proven that baptism means im- mersion When an animal or man goes down to the water's brink, and even goes into it, especially so far from home as was this, does he not go there to drink or wash or for some other good reason besides being im- mersed? Does the mere going into theE water prove immersion? If SO, every time one went down into the water he was from necessity bound to be immersed.
 (b.)-Again notice in this connec- tion that if this were true, John the Baptist and all other ministers were immersed, because the term ''going into the water' is synonymous with immersion. This same difficulty ap- plies with "Phillip and the Eunuch" of which we will speak later.
 (B.)-But can there not be given a good reason aside from immersion why John and others of his day went down into the water, whether ankle deep or waist deep, more or less, it is not said anywhere in scripture. Yes.
 We must remember that John the Baptist was prophet under the old testament dispensation, used to all the customs, and bound by all the 1 laws of the Israelitish nation, and to which they were themselves accus- toned. Sprinkling was the Jewish method of purifying. Moses sprin- kled the people at Sinai, the leper, who had a disease which was typical of sin in the scripture, was cleansed with water. There were millions of cases of sprinkling running water on persons who had touched the dead, another symbol of sin in the scripture. (Ex. 24, Heb. 9:19, Lev. 14:1-S). Johu had been familiar with these from infancy; likewise the efpeople.
 John observed this custom. God had taught him how to purify the people. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your flthiness will cleanse you.n Ezekiel 36:25.
 "How natural to obey and baptize by sprinkling ''unto remission of sins' So familiar were the people with this mode, that they would have re- belled at the suggestion of any other"
 (C.)-Again the physical impossibil- ity of immersing the thousands. Yet it was a very easy task to sprinkle the great number with water and hyssop, just as Moses did at Sinai, es- pecially if they should go down into the water according to the custom of the day,--a custom eminently con- venient and appropriate since san- dals only were worn on the lower limbs. The narrative says "Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about