Newport daily independent., 1902-06-13
SERMON ON BAPTISM
 BY REV. L. H. RICHARDSON
Reviewed by Rev. c. c. Cline.
CONCLUDED FROM JUNE II. }


 Had "sprinkle'' been one of the meanings of bapto or baptidzo, would not these learned translators have made bapto or baptidzo one of these sixteen words by which to put the idea into Greek? Again in the Al cases where we have "pour" in the Old Testament, these transla- tors make use of 31 different Greek words to put the idea into Greek, and and yet bapto or baptidzo they fail to use once. Certainly the idea of pour ing cannot be expressed in Greek by the words bapto or baptidzo. If so, the idea of pouring is not in the word bapto or baptidzo. What idea did these seventy Greek Jews put into bapto and baptidzo? They answer by using bapto and it's cognate word baptidzo to convey the idea of "dip- ping'' IF times in the Old Testament. Nor do they use any other Greek word for "dipn or "plunge" than baptize. Therefore Jesus, in select ing "bapto" and "baptidzo" he sell ected the most specific word in all Greek use, classic or Old Testament, to denote just what he wanted done. Had he wanted ''pouring" done he not only had before him the three words usually translated to pour, cheo, ekcheo, epicheo, but choice of 31 different Greek words in use in the septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the authorized Greek Testament among the Jews from which the Eunuch was reading. Had he wanted "sprinkling" he would have made choice of Is words used in. - Snptuagint for that idea. He wanted the io-.4. If dipping" "plung- ing'' "submerging' z -erwhelming" as in suffering or in death, @d2 order to have the emersion or resurrecGon to the new life. To get this idea he was limited to but one word and that was the word bapto or baptidzo, the only word the seventy Greek Jews had to express the same idea of "dip- ping. This one word Jesus used. May God have mercy upon the souls of these "blind guides" who are seeking to annul the beautiful, the powerful law of christian baptism, "the burial with Christ in baptism," by sub- >stituting therefor an ordinance of man invented by the church claiming to have the right to change ordinances, and followed for the sake of the con- venience attending it's observance.
 Of such as these Jesus said, ''many shall say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name done many wonderful works, when l shall say de- part from me ye workers of iniquity, II never knew you.ps If it is not working ''iniquity" to divide Gods children by attempting to force upon them ''popish substitute" for the command of Jesus, thus rejecting his law and his authority, I know not what is working iniquity.
 4. The idea of sprinkling clear or unmixed water upon persons or things is not found within the lids of the bible. It is not commanded, not mentioned, not even hinted at. If God wanted the "sprinkling of water" upon persons to be an ordinance of his church, how will we account for its not having received a single men, tion We find "sprinkling of blood" 37 times, of "blood and oil'' twice, of "blood and water'' twice, of ''oil' three times, of "ashes and water" six times, of "senal substances" seven times. In Eze. 36:25 we have the ex- pression 'clean water," which could mean nothing less than the "water of purifcationo or 'water of separation" fully set forth in Numbers 18th chap ter. This chapter contains the pre- scription for making the "holy waterp of tLe Jews. This was the "holy'' or ssclean water'' used on the return from captivity, and the word "clean" is used in the same sense as when ap piled to "clean animals" The New Testament refers in seven passages to this ''sprinkling of blood" so often used in the Old Testament, thus clearly showing that the "sprinkling" of the Old Testament has it's antitype in the "sprinkling of the blood of