Page 191 - New English Book L
P. 191
190
but his disciples only” (john iii. 23 and iv. 1, 2). However,
granting that he himself did not baptize, the admission
that his disciples did, while yet initiates and unlearned,
shows that their baptism was of the same nature as that
of John’s. Considering the fact that Jesus (pbuh) during
the period of his earthly mission administered that rite
exactly as the Baptist was doing at the streams or pools
of water, and that he ordered his disciples to continue the
same, it becomes as evident and as clear as a barn door
that he was not the person intended by the Crier in the
Wilderness when he foretold the advent of a powerful
Prophet with the baptism of the Spirit and fire. It does not
require much learning or an extraordinary intelligence to
understand the force of the argument - namely, Jesus (pbuh)
during his lifetime baptized not a single person with the
Holy Spirit and with fire. How, then, can he be regarded
as the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit and with fire, or be
identified with the Prophet foretold by John? If words,
sermons, and prophecies mean anything, and are uttered
in order to teach anything at all, then the words of the
Baptist mean and teach us that the baptism with water
would continue to be practiced until the Appearance of
the “Shilohah” or the Apostle of Allah, and then it would
cease and give place to the exercise of the baptism with
the Spirit and fire. This is the only logical and intelligible
conclusion to be deduced from the preaching as recorded
in the third chapter of the First Gospel. The continuation
of the Christian baptism and its elevation to the dignity
of a Sacrament is a clear proof that the Church does not
believe in a baptism other than that which is performed
with water. Logic, common sense, and respect for any
sacred writ ought to convince every impartial reader that
the two baptisms are quite different things. The Prophet
of the desert does not recognize the baptism with fire in
the baptism with water. The nature and the efficacy of