Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-10-18
5flistellaueuns &eadimg.


For the Yorkvile Enquirer.
"BAPTISM OF CHRISTI"
In the ENQUIRER of August 10th, appeared
an article on the Baptism of Christ" In
that article, the ground was taken that in
"the accepted meaning of the word baptze,
Christ was not baptized at ALL" From this po-
sition the Rev. B. G. Covington dissents and
replies. In reference to his reply, we remark
that tits too scattering. The good brother sets
out by stating that he had previously seen
some things in the column of Reading for the
Sabbath in the ENQUIRER, which he could
not endorse" 1t would have been most re.
markable thing had it been otherwise. But
what has this to do with the question ?
Again, he refers to Drs. Conant, Doddridge,
Schaff and Stourdza, to prove that the
Greek word baptizo means, "literally, and
always to plunge" In addition to this
proof on this point, he asserts that "for
the last twenty years, he has examined
every Greek lexicon he could find in any Ii.
brary, and all that be has ever seen give dip
immerse' or plunge as the meaning Of
5aptizo, and not one gives to sprinkle or
pour" This, no doubt, is literally and ab.
solutely true, for, we take it, that the good
brother has not seen all the Greek lexicons.
We conclude that this is the case, for we hap
pen to have three Greek lexicons before US,
every one of which gives Ito pour" and "to
sprinkle" as meanings of the word 6aptizo.
But what has this to do with the question Of
Christ's baptism? Finally, the brother con-
cludes with paragraph on "once in Christ,
in Christ forever" and a sly alusion to infant
baptism. Again we ask, what has this to do
with the point in dispute? One thing at q
time, Brother Covington. Stick to the point
in dispute. Remember what Apelles said to
Crispin Ne sutor ultra crepidam. "The shoe.
maker should not go beyond the last" The
mooted question is, "Was Christ baptized, in
the accepted meaning of the word baptism p
I say he was not. Brother Covington says
he was. To this question I will con6ne my
self closely, and the good brother must do
the same.
Brother Covington says 5aptiao means al.
ways "to dip" "to immerse," or Ito plunge"
Well, am convinced that at least one half
the Christians in the world think it means
something else but the mode of baptism has
nothing to do with the question in dispute.
We have no objection to either dip, immerse
or plunge, as proper meaning of the word
baptiso. 1t certainly does mean to immerse.
So much is readily admitted, and we are not
discussing the point whether it means any
thing else or not.
Suppose we, to crafty the good brother, say
baptizo means to immerse, and say nothing
about its other meanings. Now, it is, we
think, clear that immersion and baptism do
not necessarily always mean the same thing.
In other words, every case Of immersion is
not case of Christian baptism. We will
cite few examples in which the word baptizo
occurs, to prove that all immersions or dip
pings or plungings, are not Christian baptism.
In these quotations, when the word baptizo,
or any of its parts, occur, we will translate it
immersion. We feel bold in doing this, since
the brother says it means nothing else. In
the 9TH chapter Of Mark, we find these words:
"When they saw some of his disciples eat
bread with de6led, that is to say, with un.
washen hands, they found fault. For the
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash
their hands oft, eat not, holding the traditions
of the elders. And when they come from
the market, except they immerse, (baptisontai)
they eat not. And many other things there
be, which they have received to hold, as the
immersing (baptismous) Of cups, and pots,
and brazen vessels and of tables" Mark vii {:
"a.
Now, will brother Covington, or any other
brother, say that immersiug cups and pots and
brazen vessels and tables, (properly couches),
is Christian baptism? If so, then the ordi
nance, rite or sacrament, or call it what you
will, is administered by all the cooks in the
land every time they wash the dishes.
But we may cite another passage: "And as
he (Jesus) spake, a certain Pharisee besought
him to dine with him: and he went in, and
sat down to meat And when the Pharisee
saw it, he marveled that he had not first i'm
mersed (ebaptisthe) before dinner" Luke
xi:37,5 5S.
1t will be sometime before it will be gener-
ally believed that the immersion referred to
in this passage, was Christian baptism. 1t
never has been so understood : it is not now
so interpreted ; and we may safely say that,
by sensible men, it never will be regarded as
having any reference at all to Christian bap'
tism.
We quote another passage from the Scrip
lures. In speaking of the Old Testament
ritual, Paul uses these words: (which stood
only in meats and drinks, and divers immer-
sions" (Baptismois.) Heb. ix:1O. From
this it seems that under Old Testament dis
pensation, there were divers kinds of INNER
sions, or divers modes of immersion. In some
way, or in some particular, all the legal i'm
mersions we're not the same. Is it possible
that all these divers immersions were Chris
tian baptism? If so, then Christian baptism
dates back to the days of Moses.
One more passage from the Scriptures will
suffice our present purpose. 1t will be found
in 1st Cor. x:1 2: Moreover, brethren, |
would not that ye should be ignorant how that
IL -- T. IL ~-. .u..a ...,la. 4l.o olnnd ond oil