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).