BAPTISM.
Earth's noon arrived! The Savior came!
And was by John of ancient fame,
Baptized in Jordan's sacred tide,
A righteous law to thus abide—
Example setting to all men
How they must all be born again:
Born of water—people hear it!
If God's kingdom they'd inherit.
There are several things connected with baptism which should be well understood before the candidate yields obedience to it. The mode, the object and the necessity of it.
First, then, the mode. Is sprinkling the correct way to baptize? Jesus was the great exemplar. Was He sprinkled? John the Baptist baptized by immersion. Did John baptize in the right way? Certainly he did. Would Jesus have gone to an impostor for baptism? Would He have demanded baptism by immersion of John, if sprinkling were the correct method? And if immersion had been the incorrect method, would the Spirit of God have descended like a dove upon Him, and His Father have uttered His approval in these words: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased?" I think not. John baptized a great many in the river Jordan. He baptized Jesus there. "And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." (Matt. iii, 16.) "John baptized in Aenon near to Salim because there was much water there." (John iii, 23.) Philip, acting under the direction of the apostles, baptized by immersion. In baptizing the eunuch, "They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more." (Acts, viii, 38, 39.) If sprinkling were all that was necessary, Paul and Silas need not have taken the jailor and his household out of their house just after midnight to baptize them; for they could have performed the ordinance in the house, and a half pint of water would have been plenty for the purpose. (Acts, xvi.) Paul tells the Romans, "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." (Rom. vi, 3, 4, 5.)
Now why represent the death of the Savior, by becoming dead unto sin? Or His burial, by being buried in water in baptism? Or His resurrection, by being raised from the liquid grave in baptism, to walk in newness of life?—Why all this, if sprinkling were the proper mode of baptism? And these remarks and quotations apply to the erroneous principle of pouring as well as to sprinkling. Does either sprinkling or pouring represent a death, a burial, or a resurrection? Not in the least. But immersion does, and it is an actual burial in water.
Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii, 5.) Does sprinkling or pouring represent a birth? No! but immersion does. Coming out of the element of water into the element of air, is a fair representation of a birth, and the words of the Apostle, Orson Pratt, are very appropriate here. He wrote thus upon this subject: "As the embryo must first be immersed in water before it can receive the quickening of the human spirit, so a man must first be immersed in water before he has the promise of the quickening or life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. As the infant is born, or comes forth from the watery element into a new kingdom or world of existence, so a man in baptism comes forth from the liquid element of water into the kingdom of God's dear Son, which is a new state of existence."
The New Testament scriptures do not furnish any authority for administering baptism by a sprinkling or pouring; but the evidences therein contained show most conclusively, that immersion was the proper mode of baptism as administered to Jesus, and practiced by His apostles—and who but God has authority to change this ordinance? And where is the proof that He has ever changed it? It cannot be found; and immersion stands to-day, unchanged and unchangeable, as the proper mode of administering the gospel ordinance of baptism for the benefit of believing and repentant candidates for salvation in the kingdom of God.
The object of baptism next claims our attention. And what is this ordinance administered for? Is it simply "an outward sign of an inward grace?" Baptism was instituted for the remission of sins. John went "into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Luke iii, 3.) After the crucifixion of the Savior, He appeared unto the Eleven and gave them the mission to preach the gospel to every creature; (Luke xvi, 15-18.) and on the day of Pentecost, after being filled with the Holy Ghost, according to the promise of the Father, they commenced their great mission. On this occasion they preached to the assembled thousands of many nationalities, baptism for the remission of sins, and about three thousand souls were baptized on that day for the special purpose of obtaining the remission of their sins. The testimony of Paul concerning himself is this: that Ananias said unto him: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." (Acts xxii, 16.)
Thus it is clearly established, and that, too, by evidence which no Bible-believer can controvert, that the ordinance of baptism was established for the remission of sins.
The necessity of baptism must be understood. It is taught by some that the observance of this ordinance is optional on the part of the candidate for celestial glory. This is dangerous doctrine. There is no authority for it in the scriptures, Jesus and His apostles never taught it. It is contrary to their teachings. Jesus never included a non-essential principle in the great plan of salvation. Had not baptism been necessary, He would not have said to His apostles: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," (Mark xvi, 16). Neither would He have said to them: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Luke xxviii, 19.)
Baptism is as necessary as remission of sins. It was instituted and placed in the great system of salvation as the ordinance of remission. It was taught, accepted and administered as such, on the day of Pentecost, to the joy of three thousand souls.
Paul, after the light of heaven shone upon him, and the Lord said unto him: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" was blind, repenting, fasting and praying for three days; and why did not the Lord have compassion upon the poor sinner in this deplorable condition, and forgive him, without sending him to Ananias to have the ordinance of baptism administered to him? Because Paul was a sinner. He needed remission of sins. He needed the birth of the water to admit him into the kingdom. And Jesus honored the law of remission by sending him to one who could administer it effectually, which Jesus never would have done if it had not been necessary for Paul's salvation. (Acts ix.)
It is believed by many that a good man will certainly be saved without baptism—the Lord would not be just if he did not save him, even if he were not baptized. Now, I presume that but few men can be found who are better, in a great many respects, than was Cornelius of old. He was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway." (Acts ix., 2.) The Lord had so much respect for him on account of his goodness, that He sent an angel to him, who said to him: "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." (Acts x, 4.) Certainly, he was a good man; and, according to the notions of many religionists, such a man ought to be saved, and will be, independent of any ordinances. But wait a little. What more did the angel say unto him? Said he: "And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter; he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea-side, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." (Acts x, 3, 4).
What! Is it possible that a good man like Cornelius needed to do anything more than he was doing, in order to be accepted and justified before God? It appears that the Lord thought so; and it was of such importance, too, that He sent an angel to tell him what his further duty was. And what was it? Peter preached the gospel to him and his household, after his arrival among them. The Holy Ghost fell upon them to bear testimony to Peter's words, and as an evidence to Peter of the favor they enjoyed with the Lord, and then "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts x, 4, 8.)
Now, suppose that Cornelius and his house had disregarded Peter's command to be baptized, could they have been saved? No. Why? Because the angel told him that Peter should tell him words whereby he and all his household should be saved. (Acts xi. 14). It is very evident, therefore, that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary unto salvation.
Infant baptism, as it is erroneously termed, or infant sprinkling, should receive a brief notice here. This is not authorized in the scriptures, neither have any of the New Testament writers alluded to it. Some have supposed because in a few instances whole households were baptized, that possibly there were some infants among them. But this supposition is a very weak foundation upon which to establish an important principle of salvation. In the households of Lydia, Cornelius and the jailor, there were no infants—at least, we cannot learn that there were from the history given of them in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. In the case of the jailor, Paul and Silas taught him, and all that were in his house, the word of the Lord. (Acts xvi, 32.) In the household of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell upon them which heard the words of Peter, and they spoke with tongues and magnified God. (Acts x.) And in the household of Lydia it is evident there were no infants any more than there were in the other two households, for these reasons: The gospel is to be preached to individuals. What is the use to preach to infants? They cannot understand it; they cannot have faith in it; they cannot repent, for they have not sinned; it is no use to baptize them, for there are no sins to remit. Sin is a transgression of the law. They have not transgressed any law, therefore, they are without sin. And even had infants any sins to remit, they could not be remitted by baptism alone, for faith and repentance must be exercised in connection with baptism, but infants cannot exercise either. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostles would attempt to teach or baptize infants in the households referred to, or in any other households—they knew better than to act so foolishly in the sight of God.
There are others who have supposed that the baptism of infants is in the place of circumcision. But this is merely a conjecture of impostors to deceive the ignorant. The scriptures do not substitute infant baptism for circumcision. There is no connection or similarity between the two principles. They are no more alike than truth and error, or darkness and light, or heaven and hell. Circumcision is an ancient ceremony or operation performed exclusively on male infants at eight days old; but baptism is an immersion in water, of both male and female, when they have reached an age to be capable of sinning, believing the gospel when it is taught them, and repenting of their sins, so that they may have their past sins remitted according to the laws of God. These evidences should be conclusive to all Bible-believers.