Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-12-13

appointment, as appears not only from the
question which our Lord put to the Jewish
rulers the baptism of John, Was it from
heaven or of men ?'-but also from the declara-
ton of John himself: he that sent me to bap-
tie with water" It should be observed fur.
ther that John was filled with the Holy Ghost
from his birth, and hence all his acts were
under the guidance of the divine Hand. But
it is so hard for brother Latham to accept the
great truth here taught, that he says: even
should it be proven that Johns baptism was
from heaven, * this would not prove that
it was Christian baptism. There are multi.
tudes of things that are indisputably from
heaven that are not Christian baptism" This
is ia bis characteristic style, and may be thus
briefly answered. No baptism is Christian
baptism which is not from heaven. To show
that sprinkling, pouring or immersion is not
from heaven, is to show that it is not Christian
baptism, and the fact that it is administered
in the name of the sacred Trinity, only makes
the matter many times worse. "Many will
say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
not prophesied in thy name? And in thy
name have cast out devils? And in thy
name done many wonderful works 7"
If the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch,
after the cruci6xion, was Christian baptism,
SC also was the baptism of Christ; for both
were baptized in the water; both came up
out of the water in both instances there was
manifestation of the Spirit; and while it
was Christ himself that was baptized before,
the eunuch was baptized upon profession of
e. IL =. -. "a 81
It has been further said that "in the nature
of things, baptism could have no existence un'
til an atonement for sin was made" What is
it, in the nature of things, that prevents the
existence of baptism before an atonement was
made? What! Echo answers, what2 Bap.
tism could and did exist before an atonement
was made for the Bible gives an account of
the baptism of multtudes by both John and
the disciples of Christ before the cruci6xion.
By the divine covenant, Christ's people were
his, even before the foundation of the world.
Christ says Of Them "Thins they were, and
thou gavest them me" "Those that thou
gavest me have kept" According as he has
chosen US in him before the foundation of the
world" If they were Christs, why could he
not require their baptism before he made the
atonement? It has been correctly said that
he bought some of his people on credit.
Where then, is the improperly of their pub.
lie declaration Of their allegiance to him,
through baptism, before he paid the price Of
their redemption
fit be said that baptism is New Testa-
ment church ordinance, what objection is
there to its existence before the church was
organized? Do we not now baptize converts
from the heather, and afterwards organize
this prepared material into churches2 But
did not the church exist before the death Of
Christ? How, then, did be speak to his dis
ciples of the church as he did seven or eight
months before his cruci6xien! "And if be
shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
church" etc., etc. See Matthew 18: 1870.
DR.. William Smith, one of the ablest pedo-
baptist divines of the age, says that the church
was organized when our Lord bad chosen but
three disciples-Peter, John and Andrew
Nsw Testament History, page 2OS. The Or
ganization may not have been complete until
Christ ascended to the Father and sent the
Holy Spirit to guide his people into all truth
and to abide with them forever but it was,
nevertheless, an organization, just as COM
pany of men may take the necessary prepara-
tory steps, be initiated into the mysteries Of
Free Masonry, elect their officers and be regu-
larly organized into lodge, according to the
orders Of the Grand Lodge, and yet not be
complete lodge until they receive their char
ter from the Grand Lodge There is certain
ly no intimation in the,Scriptures that 'in
the nature of things, baptism could not ex-
ist until an atonement for sin was made"
The reader has not failed to notice the fol-
lowing language in the last article: ITO prove
that Johns baptism was Christian baptism,
+ some subterfuge would have to be de-
vised to escape the conclusion that he Christi
was sinner. This done, some more twisting
and turning of the word of God would have
to be resorted to to account for the glaring
contradiction that an innocent Saviour was
baptized with a baptism unto repentance"
Having said enough in my former articles on
this part of the subject, to satisfy the thought
full, l will now only ask the reader to contrast
the above language with the following meek
expressions of that eminent Christian gentle.
man, DR.. Smith, above referred to: HE had
come in the likeness of sinful flesh, though it
was likeness only. He was made sin for u.s.
though in himself he knew no Gin. And he
felt it to be as much his part to condemn sin in
the flesh by renouncing it through the water
of baptism, as by expiating it by bis blood on
the cross and 80 he set the example of en-
trance into his kingdom by the path of meek
repentance and of solemn obligation to holy
life. His conscience, free from all senae Of
guilt, must have felt it hard to descend into
the water; but this first suffering had its re-
ward in the glory that at once followed" In
order to decide who has twisted and turned
the word of God,' nothing is necessary but
careful perusal of all that has been said on
both sides in this controversy. -..t
In conclusion, I am free to confess that af.
ter careful perusal of the first half column
of brother Lathan's last article on this SUBJ
ject, I can see no connection between ali that
is there said and the baptism of Christ. But
I do see some statements there with which 1
can by no means agree. ..
First, do not believe that "the church of
the living God has existed since the days of
Adam" There is difference between
church and dispensation. There is also
very great difference between church and
promise of Saviour.
Second. see no authority for saying that
"in the time of Abraham the privileges of the
church were restricted to single individual
and his seed." If this be true, and if, as some
reasonably suppose, Job was the cotemporary
of Abraham, where were he and Elihu and
the Sons of God who came to present them.
selves before the Lord Where was Lot, that
righteous man, who vexed his righteous soul
from day to day with the unlawful deeds Of
the Sodomites? These were all left out