Page 202 - Demo

be observed that the author of the fifth book of the198New Testament, called the “Acts of the Apostles,” was a companion of this Paul, and pretends to show that those baptized by John the Baptist (pbuh) had not received the Holy Spirit “and therefore were rebaptised and then filled” with the Holy Spirit (Actsviii. 16, 17 and xix. 2-7),not through baptism in the name of Jesus (pbuh) , but through the “laying of hands.” It is clearly stated in these quotations that the two baptisms were identical in their nature and efficacy, and that they did not “bring down” the Holy Spirit upon the person baptized whether by John, Jesus (pbuhthem), or in the name of either of the two. By the “laying of their hands” of the Apostles upon a baptized person, the Holy Spirit touched his heart, to fill it with faith and love of God. However, this divine gift was granted only to the Apostles who were really prophets and inspired, and cannot be claimed by their so-called successors.(f) If the Gospels mean anything at all in their statements concerning baptism, they leave behind the impression that there was no difference between the two baptisms, except that they were administered in the name of one or other of the two Prophets. The great Pharisee Paul or Saul of Tarsus has not a single kind word about John the Baptist (pbuh) , who had branded the sect of the Pharisees with the opprobrious epithet “the children of the vipers.” There is a tinge of grudge against John andagainst the value of his baptism in the remarks made by Luke in the “Acts of the Apostles.” In addition, Luke was a disciple and companion of Paul. The admission by Luke that the baptism in the name of Jesus (pbuh) , too, was not carried out by the Holy Spirit is a sure proof against the Church, which has arbitrarily and wantonly transformed it into a sacrament or a mystery. The Church’s baptism