NEGenWeb Project
Resource Center
Church

     THERE is something inspiring in the thought that God has condescended to establish a covenant of love and mercy--a bond of union between himself and his people. O what a thought! By nature under the curse, but by vow in the covenant. And that God has established such a covenant with his people is an accepted fact by all who believe his word. It was in the formation and keeping of that covenant that Abraham was called "the friend of God;" not simply as the man of his counsel, but also as "the man of his covenant." And that covenant, proposed by God and entered into with Abraham, was not only the ground of hope for Israel, but for all of like faith. For God's own proposition was: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant." Gen. xvii. 7. And to remove all doubt from the minds of the Gentiles of Galatia, Paul (Gal. iii, 29) said: "If ye be Christ's then are

ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Hence what inspiration and zeal this thought should beget on the part of all God's people.

     But the matter into which we would lead the reader's mind in this chapter is

of that covenant. When God established the covenant with his people, and circumcision as the initiatory rite of that covenant, he said (Gen. xvii. 11): "And it (that is, circumcision) shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." But having passed from the dispensation of the law and the prophets, headed by a Levitic priesthood, to a dispensation of gospel light and life, with the "seed of Abraham" as "Prophet, Priest and King," and a universal priesthood of believers; and having the divine assurance of an "everlasting covenant," we naturally inquire, with the change of dispensations, has there been any change of tokens of the covenant? And if so, what is the token of the covenant in the present dispensation? And without a dissenting voice the answer comes, with the change of dispensations a change of tokens of the covenant has taken place. What then is the pres-

ent token of the covenant? To this there can be but one answer, viz., baptism. For it will be observed that we have no ordinance or sacrament in the Old Testament, but that has its corresponding ordinance in the New Testament. The present sanctuary service has its prototype in the old tabernacle service; the preaching of the gospel in the reading and exposition of the law; the Lord's Supper, in memory of our deliverance from the bondage of sin by the atonement in the blood of Christ, has its prototype in the Paschal feast, in memory of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; and if baptism does not take the place of circumcision, then what does? But every candid and thoughtful student of God's word, and of the history of our Lord and his Apostles, will at once concede that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and is therefore the new--dispensation token of God's covenant with his people.

     But in the former dispensation God gave his people specific direction as to the manner of applying and administering the token of the covenant. But in the present dispensation no such specific directions were given. And no doubt wisely so. In this dispensation of "light" and ''faith," and "life," this would seem entirely unnecessary. Not

withstanding this, the question is frequently forced upon us, "What is most likely the Scriptural mode of applying this token--baptism--to its subject?" And the very fact that such a question has been raised is "prima facie" evidence that the public mind is not very thoroughly settled as to the manner of applying and administering the new--dispensation token of the everlasting covenant. We therefore offer a few thoughts for reflection to our readers.

     A fact worthy of notice is that the true idea and significance of the New Testament ordinances, as well as their mode of use, are usually found in the original ordinance. But it is to be noted that the original token of the covenant--circumcision--was an act performed upon the person. Hence we observe as a fundamental principle:

     1. That the ordinance is administered to the subject or person, and not the subject to the ordinance. We have found this principle in the original ordinance. Let us therefore examine the Bible, and ascertain whether the principle is in harmony with its teaching. If it is, well; if not, then we must abandon this point, and look elsewhere for a proper starting point. Let us turn to the prophecy of Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-27: "Then will I sprinkle

clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." In this passage the prophet, looking forward to the new--dispensation token, describes baptism in almost the very words in which we find it so frequently described in the New Testament. Here, just as in the New Testament, it is described as baptism both with water and the Holy Ghost. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you," is baptism with water; and "I will put my Spirit within you," is baptism with the Holy Ghost. But you will notice that in each case the elements are applied to the subject, and not the subject to the elements. It declares, "I will sprinkle clean water upon you," and "I will put my Spirit within you."

     Again: The Bible teaches that baptism, as a I divine ordinance, signifies a cleansing operation the cleansing and renewing of the soul by the Holy Ghost. As an ordinance the simple act of baptism ("opus operatum") possesses in itself no intrinsic value. But it becomes to us the external symbol of that which is accomplished within.

Hence with this presentation of baptism, in the Bible, as a purifying ordinance, what do we find to be the process of purification? By applying the subject to the elements, or the elements to the subjects. In the passage already adduced we have a case of cleansing, but not by applying the subject to the elements--not by immersion.

     In the book of Numbers (viii. 6, 7) we read "Take the Levites from among the children of Israel and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do: to cleanse them: Sprinkle clean water of purifying upon them." How were they purified? By applying the Levites to the water or the water to them?

     Again: Baptism, just as the old--dispensation, token, is designed to seal to all that believe their interest in the covenant. But how do we find this covenant confirmed and the seal applied? In Exodus xxiv. 8, it is written: "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said: Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Prom the context we learn that Moses had a private interview with the Lord, and that he wrote the result of their interview in a book. In verse 7 we read: "And he took the book of the covenant and read it in the audience of the people. And

they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, arid be obedient." Here we have a covenant made between God and his people, and in order to publicly confirm this covenant, it must be sealed. How was this done? "And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant." How was the covenant sealed? Not by applying the subjects to the element--not by immersion. Hence baptism being the seal by which the covenant of grace is sealed to all believers, does it not naturally follow that the elements of the seal should be applied as here specified? The covenant was then sealed by sprinkling the elements upon the people: why not now?

     Water is commonly used in the Bible as a symbol of the Holy Ghost. The baptism of the Holy Ghost is, without any exception, presented as applied to the believer, and not the believer to the Holy Ghost. In reference to the day of Pentecost the prophet Joel (ii. 8) writes: "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." In the Acts of the Apostles (ii. 17) we have a quotation of the same passage: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." And we do not read that on the day of Pentecost the disci-

pies were applied to or plunged into the Holy Ghost; but we do read (Acts ii. 2, 3): "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." Here we have the inspired description of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but not by applying the subject to the element--not by plunging them into the Holy Ghost.

     In Paul's letter to Titus (iii. 5, 6) it is written: "According to his mercy he hath saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Paul's experience was that in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost was applied to him. We ask, therefore, does the Bible teach baptism by the application of the subject to the elements--by immersion? Nay, verily. But as we find it in the original ordinance--applied to the subject--so we find it in the subsequent teachings of the Bible. Yea more: In the whole plan of salvation man is subjective--he is the receiver. All the means and elements used are appropriated for and applied to man. God appropriates and applies--man re-

ceives. We have examples of this in the work of grace of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, in the Lord's Supper, and no less in the token of the covenant--the ordinance of baptism. But we pass now to notice:

     2. Some Bible examples of baptism, hoping therefrom to receive still more light on this subject. We will commence with the baptism of our Lord. We find the record of his baptism in the gospel by St. Matthew iii. 13--17: "Then cometh Jesus from 'Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying: 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?' And Jesus answering, said unto him: 'Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'"

     The reader will notice in this record, that though John at first modestly declined to baptize Jesus, he nevertheless persisted in being baptized of him, on the ground that "thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." Then John suffered it to be so. Our Lord was not baptized therefore in

order to introduce a new ordinance--far from that --but in order to conform to the law. For to fulfill all righteousness is to fulfill the law. This was his purpose in coming, as he himself declares (Matt. v. 1, 18): "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Hence, as stated, he came to fulfill all righteousness.

     According to Webster, righteousness means "conformity of life to divine law." Hence Jesus came and was baptized in conformity to the divine law--not simply to fulfill all righteousness--not simply the law, but every jot and tittle--every part of the divine law. Let us therefore observe carefully every step necessary to fulfill the law"--all righteousness.''

     Jesus came to assume the functions of a High Priest. By reference to the fourth chapter of Numbers it will be found that the law requires "that from thirty years and upwards until fifty years old," priests were to officiate in the tabernacle. In the gospel by St. Luke (iii. 23) we read: "And Jesus himself began to he about thirty

years of age," that is, at his baptism. Hence the first point of the law respecting his priesthood is fulfilled. He was of lawful age. But having awaited a lawful age, the law also required consecration. The elements used in consecration --were water and oil. As already observed, the manner of applying the water under the law in the consecration service was by sprinkling. "Sprinkle clean water of purification upon them" (Numb. viii. 6, 7). A person divinely chosen was to apply the water by sprinkling it upon them. Now what more natural than that John, chosen of God to be the forerunner of Christ, in perfect harmony with the Jewish economy and in conformity to the law of God, should "sprinkle clean water of purification" upon Jesus as he stood or kneeled at or in the water's brink? This was the demand of the law. Christ had fulfilled the law in every other point so far as he had gone: why not in this? He came to fulfill the law in every jot and tittle, and hence must have fulfilled it in this. But this was not all. We read in Exodus (xxix. 7): "Then shalt thou take the anointing oil and pour it upon his head, and anoint him." So Jesus, our High Priest, in fulfilment (sic) of the law, must also be anointed. Hence, after John had baptized him,

as he left the water, "he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him;" or, as Peter has it, "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts x. 38). Thus far Jesus had fulfilled "all righteousness"--"every jot and tittle of the law." The law said, "Sprinkle clean water upon them." Our Lord's baptism could not therefore have been immersion, as that would have been contrary to the law. But some one will say, "They went down into the water," and "they came up out of the water." Yes. But has any one ever read that they went under the water? Who ever read that in God's word?

     But let us now look at the baptism of the eunuch (Acts viii. 26-38), "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasures, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot, read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself to the chariot.

And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. *  *  *  *  Then Philip opened his month and began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."

     From this narrative we learn that the eunuch was a man of authority. He was no doubt a devout Jew, who had come to Jerusalem to worship at one of the great annual feasts. At all events we find him now on his return to Ethiopia, and in eager search of the truth. Philip, according to divine direction, went to him, and on invitation from the eunuch began to explain to him the prophecy which he had been reading. Just in the midst of this conversation, the eunuch interrupts

Philip by, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down into the water, and he baptized him."

     Let us observe now carefully

     1. The subject matter of this prophecy. What was the eunuch reading about? He had just been reading the 52d and 53d chapters of Isaiah, the predictions concerning the Messiah, where he found, "So shall he sprinkle many nations," etc. *  *  *  *  "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter," etc. *  *  *   "Of whom," enquires (sic) the eunuch, "speaketh the prophet this? of himself or another? And Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus." Let us observe also

     2. The place where the eunuch was baptized, "which was desert." No river or creek there. The water at which it was done is described by Eusebius, Jerome, Reland, and even Mr. Lamson (Baptist), from personal observation of the place, as a fountain boiling up at the foot of a hill and absorbed again by the sandy soil from which it springs. Not much chance there to immerse any one. Observe--

     3. The religious training and custom of both parties concerned in this baptism. The eunuch was a Jew and accustomed to the Jewish forms and modes of purifying. Philip was not raised or even accustomed to immersion, but, on the other hand, was well acquainted with all the Jewish modes of consecration.

     Now, in view of the fact that Philip explained the prophecy to the eunuch--no doubt showing to him the full signification of the "sprinkling of many nations," showing the moral cleansing which baptism always represents, and in connection with it the suffering and death of Christ--and the "place being desert," at best but a number of small springs or pools, both parties being thoroughly accustomed to Jewish modes of consecration; in view of all these facts, what is the natural conclusion as to the way in which Philip applied the water to the eunuch? Is it reasonable to suppose that Philip would bury the eunuch in the water, contrary to the law, contrary to Jewish custom, contrary and foreign to all religious forms with which either of them were acquainted, contrary to the prophecy they had just been studying? Is it reasonable to suppose that Philip would introduce such an innovation? Is it not more rea-
     4

sonable, on the other hand, to suppose that both having gone down to the little springs, Philip sprinkled "the water of purifying" upon the eunuch's head, as he stood or kneeled at or in the water? Most certainly this conclusion is, not only the most natural, but in harmony with all the circumstances, as well as with "all law" and "all righteousnes (sic)," which Jesus and his disciples came to fulfill. There is an impression abroad that this passage presents a positive case of immersion. But a candid and unbiased consideration of it presents it in a very different light. But in this, as in the case of Christ's baptism, we do not read that they went under the water. In fact, according to the united testimony of the best historians, they could not, even if they had felt inclined to have gone under the water. It was not deep enough. While it is said, "there was much water there,'' it was one of those desert or swampy places where the water came bubbling up out of the ground in numberless little springs--"much water there"--and yet one writer says, "you could not have buried a man there in water in any one place by laying his body fiat on the ground." There was a continuous bubbling up of water and sinking away again into the soil around.

     Let us consider next the case of Paul's baptism. Was he immersed? We find the record of 'his baptism in Acts ix. 10-18: "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth.  *  *  *  And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house, and putting his hands on him said: Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized. And when he had received meat he was strengthened."

     Ananias found Paul, as directed, in the house of Judas. And the whole scene is presented as having taken place in his house. As Ananias entered the house he said: "Brother Saul, the Lord hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had been scales, and

he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptized, and when he had received meat he was strengthened." Observe here, Paul "arose"--"stood up, and was baptized." The Syriac translator uses the word "amad" for baptized, which primarily signifies to stand, "because," says Schindler, "those who were baptized stood." According to the narrative Paul received sight, was baptized, and took meat--all in the house of Judas. There is no record of their leaving the house, much less of their going to a river or stream without the city. But, says one, "They may have had a pool for that purpose about or under the house." What a mania for pool--digging must have possessed the people of Paul's time, that they should even undermine their houses with pools. Narrow-minded bigotry can imagine some very vain things. How then must Paul have been baptized. Most certainly not by immersion. With him the "token of the covenant" could not so easily, without some divine authority, change in its mode of administration.

     Besides this clear case of sprinkling, or pouring, we have also those of the jailer and his family (Acts xvi. 33), Lydia and her household (Acts xvi. 15), Cornelius and family (Acts x. 48)--all equally

as clear and decisive as to the Scripture mode of applying the new dispensation token of the covenant as that of Paul. But we now call the reader's attention:

     3. To the use of the terms in the ordinance of baptism. We do not intend to quibble now about the "specific" and "secondary" meanings of "bapto" and "baptizo." Too much of that has been done already. But we desire to call attention to the use of these words as they occur in different passages of Scripture.

     The application of the Holy Ghost is spoken of as baptism. It is called the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Now the same Greek word (baptizo) is used to express both the application of the Holy Ghost and of water. Let us examine a few passages of Scripture, and see if this is not true. And, if true, what bearing will it have on this subject? In Matt. (iii. 11) we read: "I indeed baptize ("baptizo") you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,  *  *  *  he shall baptize ('baptisti') you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." In Acts (i. 5) it is written: "For John truly baptized ('ebaptisen') with water, but ye shall be baptized ('baptisthesesthen') with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

     In each of these passages the same Greek word is used to express the baptism of water and of the Holy Ghost. Hence if "baptizo" means to immerse, and nothing else, and if John immersed those whom he baptized, then those who were baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire must also have been immersed into the Holy Ghost and into the fire. The same word is used in both cases;. and if nothing but immersion is baptism, then the day of Pentecost must have been a day of immersion into the Holy Ghost and fire. Who would be so rude and irreverent as to speak of being plunged into the Holy Ghost and the fire from heaven? Such an idea is simply preposterous.

     Moreover, in these passages two baptisms are spoken of: "I baptize you with water,' is one; "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire," is the other. The question now arises, Was there any difference in the mode? But there could have been no difference, for the reason that the same Greek word is used in both cases. If there was no difference in the mode, which was the real baptism? We would naturally and properly conclude the one which "he"--Christ--shall administer. If this be true, then which baptism shall determine the mode? Most certainly the

real baptism. That which is emblematical--indicating that which is done within--must certainly take its mode from the real. Therefore, if we determine the mode of baptism from the real--the Holy Ghost--baptism, we cannot adopt immersion as the Scriptural mode of baptism. For the mode of this--Holy Ghost--baptism is indicated by the words "sprinkling" and "pouring." The prophet Isaiah says (lii. 15): "He shall sprinkle many nations." And "This is that which was spoken by Joel the prophet (ii. 28), And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Therefore the scriptural mode of applying the New Testament token of the covenant must be that of sprinkling or pouring.

     Upon careful examination into the use of these terms in the ordinance of baptism it will be found:

     (1) That "baptizo" is used in passages where it cannot mean immerse, but must mean something else.

     (2) That "baptizo" is used interchangeably for water and Holy Ghost baptism, and hence cannot mean immerse only.

     (3) That "baptizo" is used synonymously (sic) with terms which cannot and do not mean immerse at all.

     (4) That the mode of the real--the divine

baptism is indicated in the use of the terms "sprinkle" and "pour."

     In view of all these facts respecting the use of terms in the ordinance of baptism, we conclude, in the language of another: "It may be seriously questioned whether the Bible gives any countenance to immersion as a mode of baptism at all."

     4. Let us consider some figurative passages of Scripture which are claimed to refer to the mode of baptism.

     Our immersion friends are very ready to resort to such passages as Rom. vi. 3-6: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death! Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

     The first thing to be determined about this passage is the subject under consideration. What was the subject of Paul's discourse? It was "salvation

by grace." In the previous chapter he discussed man's depravity, his reconciliation to God through Christ by faith, and his ability to triumph over sin by grace. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." But for fear some might abuse the doctrine of grace by taking license from it to continue in sin, he opens this chapter by the inquiry: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" And then answers most positively, "God forbid! How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" What now is the subject of discourse? We repeat, "salvation by grace"-- the reign of grace in the heart. What then has this passage to do with the external ordinance of baptism? But for the figurative reference the reader would not have known that the apostle had the ordinance of baptism in mind at all. But in order to simplify and set the import of this passage clearly before the reader's mind, we will submit a few inquiries, and endeavor to get answers for them from the narrative.

     (1) What is said in this passage to be crucified? and what was the character of the death spoken of? What does the apostle say? "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him (Christ)

that the body of sin might be destroyed." What is it that is dead? "Our old man, the body of sin." But for fear that some may yet doubt this answer, we will cite the reader to another declaration of Paul (Gal. v. 24), "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts." What now is it that dies, that is crucified? It cannot be the natural body, for Paul was yet alive in the body, and was writing to men having their live bodies.. It was not the soul, for the soul was undergoing an experience that brought life, not death. What then was it? Plainly "our old man," "the body of sin," our depraved natures. This being true, the second part of our inquiry is easily answered. The death was spiritual in character.

     (2) What is the nature of the burial? The answer to this is found in the nature of the death. It is customary to bury that which dies. It was not the literal, physical body that died. Therefore it could not be the physical body that was buried.

     Moreover, we are in the habit, in a general way, of grouping like with like in the natural as well as the religious life. For example, the body dies and we bury it in the earth, because "then shall the the dust return to the earth as it was." (Eccl. xii.

7.) In the passage above quoted the death spoken of is spiritual; therefore the burial must be spiritual also. "We are buried with him (Christ) into death." But into what death? Christ's death? What!--buried in Christ's death? Certainly! Christ died for sin. The merits of Christ's death have become the sepulchre for "our old man," "the body of sin." The "old" (natural) man has been crucified. Here we have a spiritual, but real death. In Christ's death we have a spiritual, but real sepulchre for the sins of the flesh. Therefore we have a natural correspondence in each of the successive steps--the death, the burial, and the place of burial.

     (3) What is the nature of the baptism spoken of in this passage?

     In our conversion to God, there are three steps or separate operations. First, we cannot find acceptance with God in our sins. "The body of sin" must first be destroyed. Therefore the necessity of repentance and faith. Second, on the exercise of repentance and faith--the crucifixion of "the old man"--Christ promises us a sepulchre for our "body of sin" in the merits of his death. Hence, the forgiveness of sins. Third, all this done, the Holy Ghost performs his work of sanctification,

which the Scriptures call the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is the nature of the baptism in this passage. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

     "Indeed," says one, "any other construction than this would do violence to the meaning of this passage, and rob it of its very life, and of all its beauty and consolation." In the language of the venerable Dr. J. A. Seiss (Baptist System Examined, page 243, etc.), "In these words we have a sublime description of the wonderful efficacy of the gospel upon the inner being of believers, and of a condition of things resulting from their oneness with Christ, which amounts to an actual reproduction of his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection in the experiences of their hearts. But, sublime and spiritual as these Scriptures are, the attempt has been made to harness them down as the mere dray-horses to drag out of the mire a hopeless sectarian cause.  *  *  *  According to our estimate of the type of Paul's mind and of the connection and import of these passages, they are the words of a man of God laboring to express some of the profoundest mysteries of the transforming power of the Saviour's grace. The baptism of which he speaks is neither the baptism of immer-

sion, nor affusion (sic), nor of any other mode of performing an external rite, but in the inner and miraculous purification of man's whole moral nature by incorporation with Jesus Christ. The crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection to which he alludes, so far as being mere images of immersion and emersion, are literal terms, denoting realities, and pointing not to a figurative but an actual death of every believer to his sins and his real resurrection to newness of life.  *  *  *  Let us not be carried away, then, as too many have been, by the mere sound of a word. The burial of which the apostle speaks is not a mere figurative, but a literal and real burial, an actual extinction of the carnal mind, and an actual abstraction and concealment of it in the deep abyss of eternal sepulchre. There is not one in all of these allusions that supports the Baptist theory; no just laws of exegesis will permit them to be thus tied down to the signification of mere mode. They prove that baptism is a sanctification, but they do not prove that it is immersion, or that immersion has anything to do with it."

     A brief notice of the passage in Col. ii. 10-12, to which our immersion friends are so free to refer, will suffice: "And ye are complete in him which

is the Head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him by baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

     Here we are said to be complete in Christ, "in whom also are ye circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." Now, this cannot be the literal ordinance of circumcision. For,

     1. It is said to be a "circumcision made without hands."

     2. It is said to be "the circumcision of Christ."

     What then is the meaning of this passage? Circumcision is a mark of separation by which the child was set apart from the world. It is here used figuratively, denoting the cutting off and separating from sin; or, as Paul has it: "The putting off of the sins of the flesh." The body of sin being now cut off, bury it in Christ's death, and receive the baptism performed without hands, just as the circumcision and the whole spiritual operation is done. Then, clothed with all the excellencies of Christ's righteousness and the power of his grace

and love, we are indeed "complete in him who is the Head of all principality and power."

     5. Let us now review the customs of the early Christian Church--the Church of the Apostles and Church Fathers--and see what was the prevalent mode of baptism then.

     It is a fact worthy of note just here, that if the Apostles baptized by immersion, then their immediate successors, the so-called "Church Fathers," would naturally follow on in the same way and practice the same mode. But every careful and candid reader of the history of the early Church, will be frank to admit that immersion, as a mode of baptism, did not come into public favor and use until in the third century. On this point Dr. N. L. Rice says: "I will state an important fact, which cannot be disproved, viz., no one can find any account of the practice of immersion before the third century; and then we find trine immersion, accompanied with various superstitions and indecencies."

     To confirm the truthfulness of this quotation, we cite a few cases as they occur in history. Cyprian, who suffered martyrdom in A. D. 248, spoke of affusion as the mode of baptism. St. Lawrence, his contemporary, baptized Romanus, a

soldier, with a pitcher of water. Tertullian, born A. D. 150, speaks of the "aspersion of water" in baptism.

     Thus we might continue to multiply names to substantiate our position. Hence the conclusion of it is that if the Fathers practiced affusion and sprinkling, and if immersion did not come into use until in the third century, immersion must have been an innovation upon the common practice. And if sprinkling and affusion or pouring was the prevalent custom of the early Church, it must have had its origin among the Apostles and the sanction of our Lord. Hence if this was the prevalent custom of the early Church, it should be now.

     With all charity towards our Baptist friends, therefore, and with due respect for their honest convictions, let us go on in the practice of our present mode of baptism, in the settled conviction that it is both valid and scriptural, and with the assurance that God will "sprinkle the clean water of purification"--divine grace--in our hearts; and that being baptized into Christ and his death, we shall rise triumphant in the forgiveness of sins and in newness of life, "meet for the kingdom of God."

© 2003 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller.