01.04 - Lecture 4

LECTURE IV. THE MODE OF BAPTISM- continued. IN previous lectures we have carefully examined the greater part of the New Testament record in so far as it bears upon the question of Mode in Baptism, and we have seen that there is not, so far as we have gone, any foundation in Scripture for the doctrine that mode is of the essence of the ordinance, and that it is rightly administered only when immersion, and nothing but immersion, is used. The fact that immersion not only cannot be proved, but cannot even be shown to be probable, in connection with any one of the instances of Christian Baptism recorded, is significant, in this relation, up to the point of demonstration. For, as we have already pointed out, the Baptist contention requires that immersion shall be established beyond the shadow of a doubt in every case. If there were nine hundred and ninety-nine cases in which immersion took place for a certainty, and if after that there were one case in which it did not take place for a certainty, then that one case would be sufficient to disprove the Baptist allegation that Baptism is immersion, and nothing but immersion. Now, we have examined every case that can throw any light on this question of Mode, and we have shown that, in view of the facts, not one of them can even be tortured into giving any testimony in favour of immersion, not to speak of exclusive immersion. At this point we might fairly enough say that our work is done, and that the Baptist position, so far as this particular aspect of the question is concerned, has been completely overthrown. But as there are still some considerations on which our Immersionist friends rely, and as we have a conclusive and crushing reply to every argument they can advance, it will be well to prosecute our inquiry still further, and investigate some passages of Scripture still outstanding, with the view of discovering whether there is, on New Testament ground, any remaining refuge within which the now discredited doctrine of exclusive immersion can find for itself a happy hiding-place where it shall be safe from the shafts of truth to which it has been exposed, and from which it has suffered more than it can afford to bear.

BAPTISM INTO CHRIST.

We turn, in the first place, to two passages of Scripture which the Baptists regard as conclusive on their side of the controversy, Romans 6:3-4 : “Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried, therefore, with Him through Baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.” Colossians 2:12 : “ Having been buried with Him in Baptism, wherein (or rather, In whom) ye were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” A superficial reading of these passages might lead the ordinary reader to suppose that Baptism is a burial, and that being a burial it must be performed by immersion, which is the only mode in which burial can have anything like emblematic representation. But a superficial reading of Scripture, and especially a superficial reading of Paul’s Epistles, is not enough to enable even the most careful reader to grasp the truth that is expressed, in all its richness and fulness. It is never safe to study a text or a passage by itself and apart from the context in which it occurs, and it is never safe to elevate what is incidental and subordinate to the level of what is dominant and essential. If the truth is to be seen as truth it must be looked at in its right relations and in its true proportions. Turning now to the verses quoted from Romans, let us first of all try to see what is the scope of the passage in which these verses occur.

You will notice that the Apostle is dealing with an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith. The objection is this: If a man is justified by faith apart from works, what is to keep him from continuing in sin? If grace abounds over sin in securing the pardon and acceptance of the sinner, what is to keep him from continuing in sin that grace may continue to abound?

What shall we say then? “ Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? “ That is the question that the Apostle asks in the first verse of the chapter, and which he proceeds to answer in the second verse. “ God forbid. We who died to sin how shall we any longer live therein? “ The Apostle’s answer to those who say that the believer may continue in sin after justification is that such a thing cannot be, inasmuch as he died to sin. And how did he die to sin? Through his oneness with Christ. In a way that is peculiarly Pauline, the believer is represented as having died with Christ, as having been buried with Christ, and as having risen again with Christ. That is to say, there is on the part of the believer an ideal participation in the death and burial and resurrection of our Lord. Not only so, but there is in his own experience, in virtue of his union with Christ, a counterpart of the Saviour’s death and resurrection.

He died to sin, and has risen into a new life of righteousness. He does not continue in sin. He has broken with sin. He has ceased to serve sin and has begun to serve Christ. Now, I want you to notice that the two outstanding words on which the Apostle rings the changes throughout this whole passage up to the end of the eleventh verse are the words “ death “ and < life.” The Saviour died and lives. The believer, in virtue of his union with the Saviour, died and lives. The burial that is spoken of is purely incidental and subordinate. Burial is only death sealed and certified. There is nothing in burial that was not already in death. You will see that the reference to burial which appears in the fourth verse disappears in the fifth, eighth, tenth, and eleventh verses. In these verses death without burial is equivalent to death followed by burial in the fourth verse. The gist of the whole passage is that the believer does not continue in sin, because he died to sin and has entered upon a new life in which sin is not the dominant power. And that change has come through union with Christ. But how did the believer come to be united with Christ? By Baptism, we are told. “ All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death.” And what kind of Baptism is it that brings us into union with Christ? Clearly not water Baptism. Union with Christ is completely independent of water Baptism. A man may be united to Christ who has never been baptized with water, and, on the other hand, one who has been baptized with water yes, and one who has been immersed in water may not be united to Christ.

Therefore, the Baptism of the third verse is not water Baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit. In the passage from Colossians the Baptism that is spoken of is identified with Circumcision, the “ Circumcision not made with hands,” and, therefore, spiritual. In Galatians 3:27, we read: “ As many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” This shows us that it is the Baptism of the Spirit that is referred to, for nothing short of Spirit Baptism leads to the “ putting on “ of Christ in sanctification. Indeed that is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians 12:13 :” For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” To say that by water Baptism we are baptized into Christ is to teach Baptismal Regeneration. It is not to be wondered at that some of the more ignorant Baptists have the idea that immersion brings salvation. The loose and unguarded and unscriptural interpretation of this passage in Romans that is common in Baptist circles is largely responsible for the existence of this erroneous view. Taking into account the whole scope of the Apostle’s argument, and bearing in mind the significance of expressions and ideas that are distinctly Pauline, we are driven to the conclusion that the Baptism by which we are baptized into Christ and into the death of Christ is not water Baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit.

Granting, however, that the reference is to Spirit Baptism, is there an allusion to water Baptism, and in particular is there an allusion to the mode in which water Baptism was administered, and is the allusion such as to imply that immersion was the mode which the Apostle had before his mind when he penned these words? There is a difference of opinion in relation to this matter among the commentators. I could give you names on both sides if that would be of any service, but I think you will excuse me if I pass by the names and proceed to put before you as briefly and clearly as possible the view that commends itself to my own judgment, and the considerations which seem to justify that view. For my part I do not admit that there is any allusion whatever to immersion in either of the passages under consideration. Let us look carefully into the fuller passage of the two (that from Romans), not with borrowed eyes but with our own eyes. First of all it is said that certain Christians were “ baptized into Christ.”

There is no Immersionism there. Christians are not immersed into Christ. Then it is said that they were “ baptized into His death.” There is no suggestion of immersion there. It cannot be contended that Baptism by immersion has any resemblance to the death of Christ. The Saviour was not drowned. He died on the Cross. And dipping has no resemblance to death by crucifixion.

Then we have an inference indicated and introduced by the word “ therefore.” “ We were buried, there fore, with Him through Baptism into death,” that is, “ into His death.” Burial with Christ is here said to be a consequence of Baptism into His death, so that Baptism into His death precedes burial with Him. Burial is, therefore, subsequent to Baptism, and not contemporaneous with it. It is not a part of the baptismal process, but a result of this process considered as complete. And what comes after the Baptism that is here spoken of cannot properly have symbolical representation in the ordinance of Baptism to which there is supposed to be an allusion. The great fact on which the Apostle lays stress in the passage is Baptism into Christ’s death, which does not admit of being symbolized by immersion. As Stuart suggests, the idea of burial is introduced here “ merely for the sake of rendering more striking the image of a resurrection which the Apostle employs in the other part of the antithesis. A resurrection from the grave is a natural phrase when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a resurrection.” l You will note that it is not Baptism into Christ’s grave that is emphasized, but Baptism into Christ’s death. Burial is inferential and subordinate. Now, I ask, why should the inference from the main fact be deemed worthy of emblematic representation in Baptism when the fact itself receives no such representation? Why should the ineffective subordinate be honoured when the effective superior has been passed over? If symbolism must have an object, let it not pass by an object that is important for 1 Commentary on Romans. the sake of one that is of little account. Of course Baptism signifies a great deal that it does not symbolize, as you will see by referring to the excellent definition of Baptism that is given in the Shorter Catechism. It is not in the least necessary that the symbolism of Baptism should cover all that is implied in the ordinance.

If Baptism is an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, as the Baptists maintain, it is a strange thing that there is no direct reference to this aspect of the ordinance in the New Testament. If the leading object of Baptism the object that determines the mode in which it is to be administered is to symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, surely a truth of so much importance would be worthy of something more explicit than a couple of indirect and incidental figurative allusions. There is no uncertainty in reference to the ordinance that does in reality symbolize the Saviour’s death. We are not left to elucidate a metaphor in order to discover the mode in which the Sacrament of the Supper should be observed. In this connection we have directions that leave nothing to be desired in point of fulness and clearness and definiteness. And if Baptism had been intended to supplement something that was defective in the Supper, and to symbolize the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord, we have no doubt that this object would have been stated on its own account, and with unmistakable plainness and precision.

We have seen that immersion cannot be a symbol of the Saviour’s death, because it does not suggest crucifixion. We might go farther and say that it cannot, in strictness, be a symbol of the Saviour’s burial, because the body of our Lord was not lowered into a grave after the manner of interment that we are familiar with. It was placed in a receptacle (loculus) prepared for such a purpose in the wall of a rock chamber or tomb which had never been used before. Immersion would not suggest burial to the Jews or Greeks or Romans, or, indeed, to any of the Christians to whom the Epistles to the Romans and the Colossians were, in the first instance, addressed.

But, apart from this difficulty, there is a difficulty in combining, without confusion, the two emblems that, according to the Immersionists, are united in the act of Baptism. Baptism is beyond all question a symbol of purification. That is recognised by the Baptists as well as ourselves. But in addition to this, and in supremacy to this, the Baptists hold that it is a symbol of burial. That is to say, it is at one and the same time a symbolic washing and a symbolic burial. But it is obvious that these two emblems are inconsistent with each other, and cannot properly be associated in the same symbolic act. As Dr. Wilson observes, “ The washing of Baptism cannot coalesce with the corruption of burial.” 1 And why should this impossible exten- 1 Infant Baptism, p 303. sion of the symbolism of Baptism be attempted?

Why should purification and burial be thus violently forced together in an unequal yoke?

Why should it be considered necessary to make Baptism encroach on the province of the sister Sacrament? The death of Christ is symbolically brought before us in the Sacrament of the Supper, and does not need further symbolical representation. It is the purifying work of the Holy Spirit that is symbolically brought before us in the Sacrament of Baptism. As we have seen, it is the work of the Spirit that is referred to in the two controverted passages in Romans and Colossians. In this connection it is worthy of note that the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted in immediate view of our Lord’s death, to which reference was made at the time, and that the Sacrament of Baptism was instituted in immediate view of the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, to which reference was made, by implication, at the time. For no discipling or baptizing was to be done until the Holy Spirit should be given, and from that time on to the end of the world Christ promised to be present by His Spirit with His Church, in connection with the discipling, baptizing and teaching of the nations. Both Sacraments are of perpetual obligation. One is to be observed “ till He come,” the other is to continue “ to the end of the world.”

Each has its own province. One has reference to the work of Christ, the other has reference to the work of the Spirit. Therefore we prefer the natural and rational and Scriptural view, which restricts the symbolism of Baptism to the purifying work of the Holy Spirit, leaving to the symbolism of the Supper what can be emblematically represented in connection with the death of our Lord.

BAPTISM UNTO MOSES.

There are two other passages of Scripture to which I shall very briefly refer. The first of these is 1 Corinthians 10:1-2 : “ For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant how that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” The reference here is not, of course, to Christian Baptism, and so this passage might have been noticed earlier; but it will be convenient to take it in close proximity to the other passage that remains to be considered. The one thing that is clear in connection with this Baptism is that it was not an immersion. Dr. Carson says the Israelites got a “ dry dip.” This shows us to what extremities he is driven in order to accommodate his theory to the facts. But the absurdity of this suggestion is apparent on the face of it. We do not know how the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea. We know from Exodus 14:19-22, that they went over on dry ground.

It is suggested that they were baptized by the spray from the sea and by the rain that fell on them as they were crossing. It is supposed, and the supposition seems to be justified, that there is a reference to this in Psalms 77:16-20: “The waters saw Thee, God; the waters saw Thee.

They were afraid; the depths also trembled. The clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound; Thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of Thy thunder was in the whirlwind; the lightnings lightened the world; the earth trembled and shook.

Thy way was in the sea, and Thy paths in the great waters, and Thy footsteps were not known.

Thou leddest Thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” At any rate one thing is certain, and that is, that the Israelites were not immersed. That distinction was reserved for the Egyptians. So that in this case the baptized were not immersed, and the immersed were not baptized.

ANTITYPE BAPTISM. The other passage is 1 Peter 3:20-21, “ Wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved through water; which also after a true, likeness doth now save you, even Baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In this case also those who were immersed perished, and those; who were not immersed were saved. The safety of Noah and his family answers to the salvation secured by Baptism, that is, Spirit Baptism. The water, by influencing Noah and his household to go into the one place of safety, saved them. And the Baptism that is symbolized by water not water Baptism but Spirit Baptism influences men and brings them into Christ, and in Him, and through His resurrection and by His Spirit, they are lifted up into newness of life, as the ark, by being lifted up, lifted up those who were in it.

IMMERSIONISM INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION.

Thus we have examined all the Scripture references that might be supposed to throw any light on the question of Mode in Baptism, and the result of our investigation, which, I venture to think, has been conducted in a spirit of fairness, is, that we cannot find in the Word of God any basis whatever for the doctrine that Baptism is immersion, and nothing but immersion. And that is only what we should expect. We live in these days under the Dispensation of the Spirit, and enjoy a freedom from the bondage of form which was unknown under the Old Economy. It would have been inconsistent with the breadth and freedom that are characteristic of the Gospel Dispensation to bind men down to one particular form in the external mode of an external rite. And we have seen that, as a matter of fact, no such yoke of bondage has been placed on the neck of Christ’s people. And where Christ has left us free we shall Dot permit men to bind us with their earthborn traditions and their earth-born theories.

Those in whom the slave spirit has found a home may submit to an exclusiveness in outward form that is destitute of Scriptural sanction, but those who have risen to the stature of a higher Christian manhood will not tolerate a tyranny that cannot invent a decent apology for its existence. We hear a good deal in these days about Ritualism and its doings. What is Ritualism? Ritualism is largely an undue attachment to the outward rites of religion which leads men to lose sight of its inward spirit. Immersionism is Ritualism as far as it goes, and Ritualism of the worst type. And after the manner of Ritualism it leads, in many cases, to the magnifying of what is outward and formal, and the minimizing of what is inward and spiritual. Thus Immersionism, in its practical outcome, shows itself to be so far alien to that vigorous and healthy spirituality which is characteristic of the highest type of Christian life.

IMMERSIONISM OFTEN IMPRACTICABLE.

There are many other points on which one might dwell, but we must bring this lecture to a close.

We might show, for example, that Immersionism is not adapted to a religion that is to become universal. It would not be practicable in the Sudan, where water is scarce. It would not be practicable in Greenland, where water is not always water, but where it is always cold to the point of discomfort. It would not be practicable in the case of those who are delicate or sick. I have heard of at least one case in which a fatal illness was induced by a mid-winter immersion. A respected minister of our Church who now fills a Professor’s chair, and fills it well, told me that on one occasion he was asked to baptize an old man who was on his death-bed, and near the end of his journey. The man, unfortunately for him self, had been brought up in the neighbourhood of a Baptist congregation, and through neglect had never been baptized. As he lay on the bed from which he did not expect to rise, and as he thought of his relation to Christ, he was greatly troubled in spirit because he had not been baptized. He had no superstitious views about Baptism. He did not believe that it would save him. But as a disciple of Christ he was anxious to submit to the ordinance of Christ. In such a case Baptism was not only justifiable but necessary, but it could not have been performed by immersion. Immersion and nothing but immersion would have broken down completely in the face of a searching situation like that. The man was baptized by sprinkling, and after the administration of the ordinance he had great peace of mind. Two hours afterwards he passed within the veil. THE TESTIMONY OF ANTIQUITY. The testimony of antiquity is sometimes appealed to in favour of immersion, but the testimony of antiquity favours a great many things that the Word of God does not favour. The testimony of antiquity has something to say in favour of immersion, but not in favour of exclusive immersion. No doubt immersion was practised from an early time, but sprinkling or pouring was practised all along. It has been stated that immersion was the only mode of Baptism practised for 1300 years. That statement has been circulated in this city; but it is not a statement of fact. It cannot be proved, as we have seen, that there way any such thing as immersion in the Apostolic age. In a document called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was discovered some years ago, and which belongs to the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, there is a directory for the administration of Baptism. In this directory provision is made for Baptism by pouring. THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY.

It has been stated that the Westminster Assembly was divided on the question of Mode in Baptism, and that twenty-five voted for sprinkling and twenty-four for immersion. That statement also has been circulated in this city; but it also is not a statement of fact. What happened was this: The members of the Assembly were agreed that sprinkling or pouring was lawful. On that point there was no division, but there was a division as to whether dipping should be mentioned in the Directory as also a lawful mode. Twenty-five were opposed to dipping in any shape or form. Twenty four were in favour of dipping being mentioned, not as an exclusive mode, but as an allowable mode.

That, however, was not held to be a determining vote. The matter was recommitted and brought up again next day, when, after some deliberation, the wording that appears in the Directory for Baptism, as we have it, was adopted apparently without a vote. 1 1 See Works of Rev. John Lightfoot D.T). (Lond. 1824), Vol. xiii, pp. 299-301.