Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-11-08
For the Yorkville Enquirer
sRApTJSM OF CHRISTI

The Rev. Robert Latham replies to my dissent
from his declaration that Jesus Christ was not
baptized at al" and remarks that III IS TOO scat
tering." This must be true: for it has evidently
scattered his thoughts from the subject and spread
them out so thinly over three and half columns
of the ENQUIRER, that they scarcely toucn tne
main points in my reply. He wastes a large por-
ton ofhis first column in proving what nobody ev-
erasserted or believed viz. that the immersion OF
cups, couches, hands, Aristotle hay &C, was not
Christian baptism. Certainly, all MS readers
knew better. without reference 70 these exam
pies and it is probable that most of them knew
further that every of Christian baptism is an
immersion, just as they know that every case OF
THEFT is SIM but every sin is not case OF theft:
But what about his Greek lexicons! why aiu
he not name them? Are they not pedo6Gpt1st
New Testament lexicons, together with some poor
affair which no scholar regards as worth notice!
Was he not ashamed to name them?
He speaks OF my Paragraph p sn bsntsm"
and asks, "What has this do with the point in
dispute?" 1t has much to do with it, that it
proves beyond question that his definition OF bap-
incorrect, and utterly demolishes one of his rea-
sons for asserting that Christ was not baptized
He asserts. without proof, near the TOP OF ms
second column, that Johns was not CHRISTIAN
the proselytes. But why do you scatter So broth.
er Latham? What has this do with the baptism of
Christ? You had already wasted more than half
of your first column in proving what every BODY
Christian baptism. Every immersion of be-
lever into water, by proper administrator, in
the name of the Father and of the Son and OF the
Holy Ghost, is Christian baptism. Perhaps a
careful examination of this statement will help
YOU to ''stck to the point in dispute" Remem-
Der that Jesus was baptized by John, properly
authorized administrator, while the proselytes
baptized themselves:
had been in the world for about thirty years, John
had never seen him"' How, then, did John say
to Jesus before he baptized him: II have need to be
baptized of thee, and CONTEST thou to me?' VIM.
Hanna. D. D., IL. D., an eminent Presbyterian,
in his excellent "Life Of Christ" says: From
previous acquaintance he may instantly have
recognized him as the son of Mary, to whom his
thoughts and hopes had, for so many years, been
as his Superior as at least so much holier'than
himselfthat he shrunk from baptizing him. But
he did not certainly know him, as the Christ, the
Son Of God did not so know him at least, RS to
be entitled to point him out as such to the people,
Even if it had been true that John had never seen
Jesus this would be ho evidence that his baptism
was not instituted by Christ. His ministers of
the present time have never seen him, and yet ne
has authorized them to baptize. John claimed
that his baptism was Of divine origin not only
that he came baptizing; but also that he was sent
to baptize Jesus taught the same when he said:
s.The baptism Of John, whence was it-from heav-
en- or of men?" Luke also teaches the divine ori-
gin of Johns baptism in the following striking
language: And all the people that heard nlm;
with the baptism of John. But the pharisees and
LAWYERS rejected the counsel of God against them
selves, being not baptized OF him.
Reference is made to the rebaptism OF the disci-
ples that were found at Ephesus. But this only
proves that they were baptized when they were
unfit, and this rendered a second baptism neces-
sary. II is now, and dtaCdys has been custom
among Baptists to rebaptiZe all applicants for
membership, whose first baptism was in any way
improper. Hence their name-Anabaptists. DR..
Joseph A. Alexander, Presbyterian of acknowl-
edged ability, in his Commentary, on Acts, vol.
Q. SAYS of the passage under consideration: Per
haps the most satisfactory solution is the one az
forded by the intimate relation between John and
Christ. and the entire dependence of Johns bap-
tsm pom faith in Christ for its whole meaning and
validity. Where this was understood, and those
baptized by John went on as he instructed them,
without undue delay or interruption, to embrace
Christ as their Saviour, and his doctrine as their
muocke,y. 1t is hardly probable that those Ephe-
slams were baptized by John; for they lived more
than six hundred miles, in straight line from
where John baptized; it was now nearly thirty
seem to have been so ignorant ofwhat John taught
his disciples, that Paul speaks to them as II ne
were astonished at their having been baptized at
all. saving unto what, then, were ye baptized "'
The record of their case is proof that Johns pap.
tism was Christian; for he taught them that they
must believe on Christ. If Paul did not know
that Johns baptism was Christian BAPTISM how
did he know that John taught the people that they
must belleveOn christ, JUST as bdptSS HoW LedcH
all candidates for baptism that they must believe
on Him?
The passagein John iii 20 and iv:l, 3: After
these things came Jesus and his disciples into the
land of Judea; and there he tarried with them
and baptized. = When, therefore, the Lord
knew how the Pharsees had heard that Jesus
made and baptized more disciples than John,
(though Jesus himself baptized rot but his dis
cples, teaches that his disciples baptized by his
authority, if it teaches anything at all. Jesus
continued with them, made disciples, and when
thew were made disciples and not before, he bap..
tized them through his disciples as his authorized
agents. . .
the Bible, says of the passage: "We naturallyin-
fer from it, that as soon our Lord began his
ministry and gathered to him company of dis
ciples, he, like John the Baptist, admitted into
that company by the administration OF baptism.