Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-10-11
M|isfellantuns &eaaiug,
For the Yorkvillc Enquirer.
s'BAPTISM OF CHRISTI"

DAT OE
There appeared in the YoRKv1LLE ENQUl
RER of the 18th of August, an article b.
Rev. Robert Latham, on the Baptism of Christ
containing some statements from which Bap
lists heartily, conscientiously and Scripturall!
dissent. My attention was called to this artl
Gle soon after its appearance, and recently
gentleman kindly handed me copy of tn
paper containing the article.
I had previously seen some things in you
column of Reading for the Sabbath" which
1 could not endorse, but thought 1t best to le
it pass but there is so much that is objec
tionable in the article in question, that w
hope we may be pardoned for asking fol
space for reply.
1. Mr.. Latham says: ave proceed to de
clare that in the accepted meaning of tht
word baptism, Jesus Christ was not baptized
at ALL" Now, we readily admit that in the
meaning Of the word accepted by pedobap
fists, "Jesus Christ was not baptized at all )
for they accept sprin king and pouring as the
meaning Of baptism. But in the meaning o.
the word accepted by Baptists, and according
to Matthew 1918; Mark l.: 9; and Luke
iii :21,, Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan
2. Mr.. Latham asks: "What does the word
baptize mean ?"-and answers-"It will be
admitted by all candid controversialsts, nc
matter whether, they be advocates of sprink
ling or immersion, that the word baptize has
a variety of meanings, according to the cir.
cumstances and connection in which it il
used" But we deny his assertion, and will
show by candid authority that it is incorrect
DR.. Conant, although Baptist, is "candid
controversialist,' and says: "This word ex'
pressed particular act, namely, immersion
in fluid or yielding substance The word
had no other meaning x From the ear
liest age of Greek literature down to its close
"a period of about two thousand years. not
an example has been found in which the word
had any other meaning. There is no instance
in which it signifies to make partial ap-
pIicaton of water by effusion or sprinkling
or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the liter,
al act of immersion, as the means of cleans
ing or purifying" .-
DR.. Doddridge, a Presbyterian, on Romans
via, says: "It seems the part Of candor to
confess that here is an allusion to the manner
of baptizing by immersion"
DR.. Philip Schaff, who is high authority
but not a Baptist, in work recently pub
ished, says of the same verse: Gall commen.
tators of note, except Stuart and Hodge, ex'
pressly admit that in this verse the ancient
mode of baptism by immersion, is implied"
DR.. Stourdza, native Greek scholar, and
one of the most learned of the present age,
says: "The verb baptiso has, in fact, but one
application. 1t signifies, literally, and always
to plunge Baptism and immersion are, there
fore, Identical"
have made it point for the last twenty
years to examine every Greek lexicon could
find in any library, and all that l have ever
seen give dip" "immerse," or "plunge," as
the meaning of baptiso, and not one gives ito
sprinkle" or Ito pour" Liddle and Scott, in
the first edition published by the Harpers,
of New York, did give ito pour upon" as a
"metaphorical' meaning of the word; but
they were called upon to show their authority
for this meaning or to retract it, and being
unable to give such authority, they left it out
in their next edition.
might continue these quotations from can
did authorities to show that ''it will'' not "ba
admitted by them all that "the word baptize
has variety of Meanings" but l fear that
the reader has already cried out enough.
8. Mr. Latham says in the same connection
"This is the case with every word. We ara
not able, at present, to think of single ex'
ception." But what I have seen of his wri.
tings causes me to think better things of him
that even little reflection will convince him
that "every word" has literally but one mean
ing, and that any other use Of that word is
6gurative.
4. Again, Mr.. Latham says: "There are
two baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures
Johns baptism and Christian baptism" and
he argues that our Saviour was not baptized
because Johns is baptism unto repentance,
and Jesus had no sins to repent of. Now, we
glory in the sinless purity of our Saviour
We love to think of him as holy, harmless
unde6ed and separate from sinners. But We
love to know that "He hath made him to be
sin for us who knew no sin; that we might
be made the Righteousness of God in him
Prophecy represents him, long before he suf
fered, as making the sins of his people hi'
own, and saying of them "Mine iniquite'
have taken hold upon me-" We know thai
when the Father laid on him the iniquities O.
US all, Jesus said: my soul is exceeding
sorrowful" He assumed our lou place, anc
was really the sinners substitute. In ODE
dience to law of his kingdom, he was bap
tzed as one dead to sin. The argument from
the sinlessness of Christ, who is the sinners
substitute, weighs nothing at all especially
since the Bible, which is complete revela
ton of divine truth, and perfect rule O
faith and practice, makes no difference be
tween Johns baptism aud Christian baptism
That Jesus received Johns baptism is Ger
tain; for the Bible says he was baptized o
John in Jordan.
was startled to see that Mr.. Latham say
of Johns baptism: "Tbis much we do know
it was not of divine origin!" John express
ly says: "He," that is, God, "has sent me tt
baptize." Jesus teaches the same thing ii