Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1877-11-08

But how brother Latham scatters! He occupies
much space in writing about what occurred a'ter
the baptism of Christ, and then places Hoo re-
cognition of his Son after his temptation; and ia
the same sentence adds to Gods word thus: "God
now publicly recognized him as ms Son and "a as
priest forever after the order of Melchisedec"
Brother Latham verify believes that Jesus was
baptized dpPed or nta tbe of
flee of priest - but fails to give his reasons Ior
such belief. Where are the crown, the mitre, the
breastplate, brother Latham? How could ne nave
been lawfully inducted into the priests once
when he was not of the lawful tribe of priests
"Our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb. vii:l4. How could he have been hteral
priest when his ministry was not In the temple!
ing to be spiritual? What about the induction
into the Office of prophet and king?
AS to nv statement that "Christ, in obedience
to law of his kingdom, was baptized as one dead
to sn," my meaning was suthclentiy clear, ana
if brother Latham misunderstood it, the fault was
his and not mine. Christ was baptized as one
dead to sin just he was crucified as one guilty
of sin, though innocent. He was baptized as one
over whom sin had no dominion-ust as the oe.
lever is dead indeed unto sin and, therefore, -
buried with Christ by baptism into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we chez also should
walk in newness of life. Is brother Latham aware
that my language to which he objects, is in the
very words of Scripture? The reader will re-
member that brother Latham said that "he =
died to SIM is statement contradlcted by
the Scriptures and repugnant to common sense =
But Scripture says expressly OF Ghr1ss: s +reats
this part of the subject, together with his state
ment that my reply was scattering, his promise
to confine himself to the subject, and his closing
reference to George W. Clark, is clear proof that
he is "hard up.'
He admits that baptizo "ce, tainly does mean to
1aamerse - but says that zone half the Christians
in the world think it means something else.
Is that an evidence that it does mean somethlng
ese? If So the fact that at one time inca an - 1he he
world, except one man, believed the worio 10 oe
flat, was proof that it was flat.
He virtually admits, repeatedly, that 6aptlzo, IN
the case of Christ, means to lmmerse II SO, why
not in every case? The word is the same IN eve.
;ry instance In his fourth column, he thinks he
sees, metaphoricaly, some other meaning; but ne
cites no example in which immerse might not be
used metaphorically, as adding force to the ideas
conveyed. - l.,
what authority does he sprinkle water on sub,
ject in the name of the sacred Trinity and call u
baptism? DR.. Trevern, Roman Catholic, IN ms
La Discussion Amicdle, answers the question IN
the following striking The he vadty
your baptism, (sprinking,) by Scripture alone.
Jesus Christ there ordains that it shall be con-
ferred not by sprinkling water on the heads OF
believers, but by believers being plunged INTO
water. It would, therefore, be all over with your
baptism, (sprinkling and pouring,) unless you
established it by tradition and the practice or the
(Catholic) church. To produce plea for 1t, you
are Obliged to seek it with Pope Stephen and the
councils of Aries and Nice" Up. l42
We conclude then, that Jesus Christ was bap-
tized in the only Scriptural sense OF the word !;
that is, that he was immersed as one over whom
sin has no dominion, in water, by properly au.
thorized administrator, and thus he ''honored
the ordinance which God had sent John to admin
ister." Is that what you mean by sticking to the
point brother Latham? B. G. COVINGTON.