It is to be the purpose of this study to examine the main scriptures offered as proof of sprinkling and pouring for bap­tism, and see whether such scriptures teach what is claimed for them. Baptize, sprinkle, and pour, are from three different Greek words in the New Testament. Baptize is from "Baptizo" which we have seen in a previous lesson means, "To dip in or under water" or "An immersion in water"—"Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon. In the New Testament we are said to have been "Buried" in the act of baptism, and that therein was a resurrection. (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12.) No standard Greek-English Lexicon defines the Greek word for baptism to mean sprinkle or pour—not one. Furthermore, the word for baptism in the Greek New Testament is never translated sprinkle or pour—not once. Sprinkle and pour comes from two entirely different Greek words from the one translated baptism, or more correctly transfered, or Anglicized. Sprinkle is not from "Baptizo", the bap­tismal word, but from "Raino", a word that is never translated baptism, nor ever means baptism. Pour is from "Cheo," and also is never translated baptism, and never means baptism. The average person seems to think baptism came from all three of these Greek words, but this is not true.

AN EXAMPLE OF USAGE

To show that sprinkle, pour, and immerse do not all refer to the same thing, let us read the following scripture, putting in brackets the oreek after the words under investigation. "And the priest snail take some of the log of oil, and pour (Cheo) it into the palm of his own left hand; and the priest shall dip (Baptizo) his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle (Raino) of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord". (Levit. 14:15-16.) If we scramble these three words and use the one for the other in the passage, it will make nonsense. Think of saying the priest shall "Dip" (Baptizo) some of the log of oil into the palm of his own left nana. Or try saying the priest shall "Sprinkle" (Raino) his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand; or he shall "pour" (Cheo) of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. Hence here are three separate acts. (1) Oil was to be POURED into the palm of the hand; not sprinkled into it, nor dipped into it. (2) The priest was to DIP the tip of his finger into the oil in the palm of his hand, not sprinkle his finger in it, nor pour it into it. (3) Having dipped his finger in the oil in the palm of his hand, the priest was to SPRINKLE the oil with his finger, n-yt pour it with his finger, nor dip it with his finger. Only one of these three acts is from the word used by our Lord in commanding baptism, and that is, "Dip".

THE THREE WORDS TESTED

There is a rule of logic, and interpretation, which says we may test a definition of a word by putting the definition in the place of the word it is supposed to define, and if we have the right definition it will make good sense in the sentence. Now, let us test the three words, sprinkle, pour and immerse in this way, keeping the meaning of each word in mind as it is sub­stituted for the word baptism. Let us use the passage which says, "And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins". (Mat. 3:6). This is the first time the word baptize is found in the King James Version of the Bible. Let us first try the word "Sprinkle" and remember the word means to "Scat­ter in small drops"—Webster. "And were baptized of him in Jordan"—"Sprinkled of him in Jordan", or "Were scattered of him in small drops m the Jordan". This does not make good sense, for it represents John as turning the people into some sort of liquid and then scattering them in small drops in the Jordan. Hence, John did not sprinkle the people in Jordan. Next, let us try the word sprinkle in another passage. Paul says, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death". (Rom. 6:4.) Putting sprinkling in the place of the word baptism, which thing we could do if baptism meant sprinkling, it would read as follows: "Therefore we are buried with him by sprinkling into death". Why the very idea of any one being sprinkled enough to "Bury" him is absurd. But let us try pour, and it makes no better sense. It would read, "And were all poured of him in Jordan," etc. But pour means "To cause to flow in a stream"—Webster. Hence, they were all caused to flow in a stream of him In Jordan. Of course he did not pour them in Jordan, yet the passage does say they "Were all baptized of him in Jordan". (Mat. 3:6). Also, there would have been no sense in the people leaving the cities and going to the river of Jordan to be sprinkled or poured for baptism, a thing they could have done so much more conveniently back at home. They had as much common sense as we have in this age, and great crowds today do not go off to some river to be sprinkled or poured for baptism. But try the word pour in the other pas­sage. Then we would read that we are "Buried with him by pouring" etc. And this would be a lot of pouring—enough to bury one. Well, we are now ready to try immersion, and see if it makes good sense, when substituted as the definition of baptism. In the first passage it would read, "And were all immersed of him in Jordan, confessing their sins". (Mat. 3:6.) This makes good sense and baptism is immersion. But sprinkling and pour­ing are not baptism, and hence do not make sense when used as the meaning of baptism. But some one wants to know if baptism means immerse, why was it not translated that way? Well, if it means sprinkle, or pour, why was it not translated that way? Remember the baptismal word is never translated sprinkle, or pour, but they come from entirely different words from the one from which we get baptism. This is a weighty argu­ment, and settles the issue. But the word for baptism is trans­lated by many translators immerse, while it is never translated sprinkle or pour in any translation. Many translations say, they were "Immersed of him in Jordan; and we are buried with Christ in "Immersion". (Mat. 3:6; Rom. 6:4.) They say "He that beheveth and is immersed shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16.) But no translation says, "He that believeth and is sprinkled shall be saved". All scholars know too much to dare translate "Baptizo" by sprinkle or pour.

QUIBBLE ON JOHN'S BAPTISM

But effusionists tell us that John baptized Jesus by sprink­ling, and that his baptism was a part of his consecration to his priesthood, and required sprinkling. First of all, Christ was not made a priest by his baptism, nor according to the law of Moses, for he was of the wrong tribe to be made a priest by the law. Paul says, "Our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood". (Heb. 7:14.) He also says the priesthood has been "Changed". (Heb. 7:12.) Furthermore, Christ was not a priest on earth. Paul says, "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest". (Heb. 8:4.) Also, Christ was not made a priest under the law, but after it was nailed to his cross, after his ascension. Paul says Christ was made a priest by "The word of the oath, which was since the law". (Heb. 7:28.) The priests made such by the law "Were not suffered to continue by reason of death". (Heb. 7:23.) "But this man because' he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood". (Heb. 7:24.) If made a priest under the law, Christ died as a priest. But if made a priest since the law—since the cross—he does "continue Ever". In the second place, Jesus was immersed for after his baptism the record speaks of his "Straightway coming up out of the water" of the Jordan. (Mk. 1:9-10.) These verses say he "Was baptized of John in Jordan". All the talk in modern times about John making him a priest by sprinkling is an effort to darken counsel, rather than shed light.

QUIBBLE ABOUT THE BURIAL

You ask what the sprinklers do with Paul's statement that we are buried with Christ in baptism. Why they quibble around the statement, just as they do all the scriptures presented. They say this does not say a word about water baptism, and draw, the conclusion that it can not therefore mean water baptism, as though the element would always have to be mentioned every time baptism is mentioned But if it can not be water baptism because it does not say we are buried in water baptism, then it likewise cannot mean Holy Spirit baptism, for it does not say we are buried in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then what kind of baptism is it, if it is neither water nor Spirit baptism? There are two things said about it in the context which show it was water baptism. First, it had in it a resurrection, "Like as Christ was raised". (Rom. 6:4.) One is raised thus in im­mersion but is not in Spirit baptism. There was no being raised up in Spirit baptism. One was not put under his power then raised out from under his influence and power. In the second place, Paul said the baptism which had not only the burial in it, as Christ was buried, but also a resurrection in the act, like Christ being raised was a "Form" of the doctrine, or gospel facts of his burial and resurrection, and said this "Form" was obe­dience on the part of the Romans. "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine". (Rom. 6-17-18, 4.) Now. water baptism is obedience on the part of man, and fits this case ci baptism exactly. But spirit baptism was not an act of man at all, and could not be obedience on man's part. Therefore, the baptism in which we are buried and raised in Romans 6 is water baptism. These are not assertions, but facts, and can not be set aside. Furthermore, changing the element could not change the fact that there was a "burial" in the baptism referred to. (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12.) If, as they admit by their quibble, that in Spirit baptism there is a burial, where did they get the idea that it is different in case the element is water, and not Spirit?

SPIRIT FELL ON THEM

But they try to go back on their idea of there being a burial in Spirit baptism by the fact that the Spirit was "Poured" out on Pentecost, and "Fell" on the apostles. (Acts 2:16-17; 11:15.) Jesus and John called this being "Baptized" in the Spirit. (Mat. 3:11; Acts 1:5.) Then they say if the "pouring of the Spirit" and "Falling" of the Spirit is called Spirit baptism, why would not the same be true of water baptism? But the Bible does not call the "Pouring" nor the "Falling" baptism, it does speak of the pouring and the falling, but it was not these acts, as such, that was the baptism of the Spirit, but the RESULT OF THE POURING AND FALLING OF THE SPIRIT UPON THE DISCIPLES which was called a baptism of the Spirit They were "All filled with the Holy Ghost". (Acts 2:4.) Their minds, and very Spirits were overwhelmed, or immersed in the Holy Spirit. This destroys their argument entirely, and is the truth about the matter, and all know it to be a fact. If a man is standing under the city water tank, and suddenly the bottom falls out of the tank, the water falls upon the man, and is poured out upon him in such torrents that the RESULT OF IT ALL IS HE IS BURIED OR BAPTIZED. The baptism was not the pouring, nor the falling, but the result of these actions. I have often poured water into a baptistery, then baptized therein. The pour­ing was one thing, and the baptism was another.