01.06. Sermon III. The Mode of Adminsering Baptism

SERMON III. THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized? — Acts 10:47.

Writers wish to express the idea of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men, either to sanctify their hearts, or to furnish them with miraculous powers, the figure of "pouring out" is, in almost all cases, adopted, and that of immersion never; but, further, when they use the specific term which expresses the ordinance before us; when they speak of the "baptism of the Spirit," how do they explain it? Hear the explanation by the Master himself. The Savior, after his resurrection, told his disciples, that “John truly baptized with water, but they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost" not many days from that time, (Acts 1:4-5.) and directing them to remain in Jerusalem until this promise should be fulfillled on the day of Pentecost. And how did the Holy Spirit baptize the people then? By immersion? Not at all; but by being "poured out." Accordingly, the apostle Peter, in giving an account to his brethren of what occurred in the house of Cornelius, declares: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them,, as on us at the beginning, (that is at the beginning of the New Testament economy, on the day of Pentecost.) Then remembered I the words of the Lord, when he said, John, indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 11:15-16.) The baptism of the Holy Ghost, then, consisted in the pouring out or effusion of the Holy Ghost. This was the baptism predicted by the prophets. This was the baptism which our Lord himself promised. And this was the baptism realized on the day of Pentecost. I ask, again, was this immersion? Yet it was baptism. And here^ we may add, is an indubitable example of the word baptism being used in a sense which cannot possibly imply immersion.

Surely it is not without design or meaning, that we find language of this kind so generally, I might almost say, so uniformly used. Can a single instance be produced from the Word of God in which the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit are symbolized by dipping or plunging into water, or into oil or blood? Or can a single example be found in which believers are represented as being dipped or plunged into the Holy Ghost? No such example is recollected. Whenever the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit being imparted to the children of men, either in his sanctifying power, or his miraculous gifts, they never represent the benefit under the figure of immersion; but always, unless my memory deceives me, by the figures of "sprinkling," "pouring out," "falling," or "resting upon" from on high. Now, if baptism, so far as it has a symbolical meaning, is intended to represent the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, as all agree; it is evident that no mode of applying the baptismal water can be more strikingly adapted to convey its symbolical meaning, or more strongly expressive of the great benefit which the ordinance is intended to hold forth and seal, than sprinkling or pouring. Nay, is it not manifest that this mode of administering the ordinance, is far more in accordance with Bible language, and Bible allusion, than any other? Surely, then, baptism by sprinkling or affusion, would have been treated with less scorn by our Baptist brethren, if they had recollected that these are, invariably, the favorite figures of the inspired writers when they speak of the richest covenant blessings which the Spirit of God imparts to his beloved people. Surely all attempts to turn this mode of applying the sacramental water in baptism into ridicule, is really nothing less than shameless ridicule of the statements and the language of God’s own word!

3. The circumstances attending the several cases of baptism, recorded in the New Testament, render it highly probable, not to say morally certain, that the immersion of the whole body could not have been the mode of baptism then commonly adopted. The baptism of the three thousand converts made by the instrumentality of Peter’s preaching, on the day of Pentecost, is the first remarkable instance of Christian baptism which occurs in the New Testament history. Christ had promised, before he left his disciples, that he would send to them his Holy Spirit, and the favorite expression by which he was accustomed to designate this gift, was that he would pour out the Holy Spirit upon them. Accordingly, in ten days after his ascension to heaven, he was pleased, in a most extraordinary manner, to fulfill his promise. The spirit was poured out with a power unknown before. And, what is remarkable, the apostle Peter assures the assembled multitude, that what they then witnessed was a fulfillment of the prediction by the prophet Joel, that the Holy Spirit should be imparted in a manner prefigured by the term pouring out, or affusion. Three thousand were converted under the overwhelming impression of divine truth, dispensed in a single sermon; and were all baptized, and "added to the church" in a single day. From the short account given of this wonderful transaction, we gather, that the multitude on whom this impression was made, was convened in some part of the temple. They seem to have come together about the third hour of the day, that is, nine o’clock in the morning, according to the Jewish mode of computing time. At least, when Peter rose to commence his sermon,, that was the hour. Besides the discourse of which we have a sketch in the chapter containing the account, we are told he exhorted and testified with many other words. All these services, together with receiving the confession of three thousand converts, must unavoidably have consumed several hours; leaving only four or five hours, at the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. But they were all baptized that same day. We read nothing, however, of the apostles taking the converts away from “Solomon’s Porch," or wherever else they were assembled, to any river or stream for the sake of baptizing them. Indeed, at that season of the year, there was no river or brook in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, which would admit of immersing a human being. Besides, is it likely that this great multitude, most of whom were probably strangers in Jerusalem, could have been furnished with such a change of raiment as health and decorum required ^ or that they could have been baptized without clothing altogether; or remained on the ground, through the public exercises, in their wet clothes? Surely all these suppositions are so utterly improbable that they may be confidently rejected But, above all, was it physically possible,, supposing all the apostles to have officiated in the administration of this ordinance, for twelve men to have immersed three thousand persons in four or five hours; which we have seen must have been the case, if, as is evident, the preaching, the examination of candidates, and the baptizing of the whole number took place after nine’ o’clock in the forenoon? Those who have witnessed a series of baptisms by immersion know how arduous and exhausting is the bodily effort which it requires. To immerse a single person, with due decorum and solemnity, will undoubtedly require from five to six minutes. Of course, to immerse one hundred, would consume, at this rate, between nine and ten hours. Now, even if so much time could possibly be assigned to this part of the work, on the same day, which is plainly inadmissible, can we suppose that the twelve apostles stood, for nine or ten hours, themselves, in the water, constantly engaged in a series of efforts among the most severe and exhausting to human strength that can well be undertaken?{14} To imagine this, would be among the most improbable, not to say extravagant imaginations that could be formed on such a subject. Yet even this supposition, unreasonable as it is, falls far short of providing for even one half of the requisite number. The man, therefore, who can believe that the three thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accommodating his belief to his wishes. With regard to the baptism of John, many of the same remarks are entirely applicable. Our Baptist brethren universally take for granted that John’s baptism was performed by immersion; and on the ground of that assumption, they speak with great confidence of their mode of baptism as the only lawful mode. Now, even if it were certain that the forerunner of Christ had always baptized by immersion, still it would be little to the purpose, since it is plain that John’s baptism was not Christian baptism. Had this been the case, then, it is evident, that a large part of the population of “Jerusalem and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan," would have been professing Christians. But was it so? Every reader of the New Testament history knows it was not; that, on the contrary, it is apparent from the whole narrative, that a great majority of those whom John baptized, continued to stand aloof from the Savior. But what decides this point, beyond the possibility of appeal or cavil, is the statement in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where we are told that some who had received John’s baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Some opponents of this conclusion have suggested that in the narrative given of this transaction, (Acts 19:1-6.) we are to consider the 5th verse, not as the language of the inspired historian, but as a continuation of Paul’s discourse, as recorded in the 4th verse. Professor Stuart, in his remarks on the ’’ Mode of Baptism," in the “Biblical Repository," (No. X. 386.) has shown conclusively that this gloss is wholly inadmissible; and even leads to the most evident absurdity. But there is no evidence, and I will venture to say, no probability, that John ever baptized by immersion. The evangelists informs us that he baptized great multitudes. It appears, as before suggested, that "all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan,’’ flocked to his ministry, and “were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Some have supposed that he baptized two millions of people. But suppose the number to be one-twentieth part of this computation. The smallest estimate that we can consider as answering the description of the inspired historians is, that he baptized one hundred thousand individuals. And this, in about one year and a half. That is, he must have immersed nearly two hundred, upon an average, every day, during the whole of the period in question. Now, I ask, is it possible for human strength, day after day, for more than five hundred days together, to undergo such labor? It cannot be imagined. The thing is not merely improbable; it is impossible. To accomplish so much, it would have been necessary that the zealous Baptist should spend the whole of every day standing in the water, for a year and a half, and even this would have failed altogether of being sufficient. I say again, with confidence, it is impossible. But that John baptized by immersion is utterly incredible on another account. Can we imagine that so great a multitude could have been provided on the spot with convenient changes of raiment to admit of their being plunged consistently with their health? Or can we suppose that the greater part of their number, would remain for hours on the ground in their wet clothes? And if not, would decency have permitted multitudes of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the administration of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of entire nakedness? Surely we need not wait for an answer. Neither supposition is admissible. Nor is this reasoning at all invalidated by the statement of one of the evangelists, that John “baptized at Enon, near Salem, because there was much water there;” or, as it is in the original, “because there were many waters there.” For, independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped from day to day, to witness the preaching and the baptism of this extraordinary man; together with the beasts employed for their transportation.

Only figure to yourselves a large encampment of men, women, and children, consisting almost continually of many thousand souls, continuing together for a number of days in succession; constantly coming and going; and all this in a warm climate, where springs and wells of water were comparatively rare and precious; only figure to yourselves such an assemblage, and such a scene, and you will be at no loss to perceive why it was judged important to convene them near the banks of abundant streams of water. Had not this been done, they must, in a few hours, have either quitted the ground, or suffered real distress.

It is evident, then, that often and confidently as the baptism of John has been cited as conclusive, in favor of immersion, it cannot be considered as affording the least solid ground for such a conclusion. There is not the smallest probability that he ever baptized an individual in this manner. As a poor man, who lived in the wilderness; whose raiment was of the meanest kind; and whose food was such alone as the desert afforded; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He, therefore, seems to have made use of the neighboring stream of water for this purpose, descending its banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a handful, to answer the symbolical purpose intended by the application of water in baptism. The circumstances attending the baptism of our blessed Savior by John, have been often adduced by our Baptist brethren as strongly favoring the practice of immersion; but when they are examined, they will be found to afford no real aid to that cause. In our common translation, indeed, the Evangelist Matthew tells us, (Matthew 3:16.) That Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, &c.; and the Evangelist Mark tells us, (Mark 1:9-10.) That Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan; and straightway, coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, &c. This is considered by many superficial readers as decisive in establishing the fact that .immersion must have been used on that occasion; but the moment we look into the original, it becomes evident that the language of both the Evangelists imports only that Jesus, after he was baptized, went up from the water, that is, ascended the banks from the river. Nothing more is, unquestionably, imported by the terms used; and this leaves the mode of administering the ordinance altogether undecided. Laying aside his sandals, he might only have stepped a few inches into the river, or he might have gone merely to the water’s edge, without stepping into it at all.{15} The baptism of Paul, by Ananias, is another of the scriptural examples of the administration of the ordinance in question, which yet affords not the smallest hint or presumption in favor of immersion; but rather the contrary.

We are told that Paul, the infuriated persecutor, while “breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," was met on his way to Damascus, and by the mighty power of the Savior whom he persecuted, was stricken down, and fell prostrate and blind to the ground. In this feeble state he was lifted up, and "led by the hand, and carried into Damascus; and he was there three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink." In these circumstances, Ananias, a servant of God, is directed to go to him, and teach him what to do. "And Ananias," we are told, “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 now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. 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."{16} The attentive reader will, no doubt, take notice that in this narrative there is not a single turn of expression which looks like baptizing by immersion. There is no hint that Paul changed his raiment; or that he and Ananias went out of the house to a neighboring pond or stream. On the contrary, every part of the statement wears a different aspect. Paul, when Ananias went to him, was evidently extremely feeble. He was sitting or lying in the house, perfectly blind, and having taken no sustenance for three days. Can it be imagined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances, would have had him carried forth, and plunged into cold water, which, in his exhausted state, would have been equally distressing and dangerous? It cannot be for a moment supposed. Nothing like it is hinted. Ananias simply directs him to “stand up and be baptized." “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." It was after the baptism, as we learn, that he received sustenance and was “strengthened." It would really seem as if no impartial reader could receive any other impression from this account, than that Paul stood up, in the apartment, in which Ananias found him, and there received baptism by pouring or sprinkling on him a small quantity of that water which is applied in this ordinance as a symbol of spiritual cleansing. Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, when duly considered, will be found equally remote from affording the smallest countenance to that conclusion in favor of immersion, which has been so often and so confidently drawn from it. The eunuch was travelling on the public high way, when Philip met him. They had been reading and commenting on a prophecy of the Messiah, in which mention is made of his sprinkling many nations. When they came to a rivulet of water, the eunuch said, “See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip had, no doubt, been explaining to him the nature, design, and obligation of this ordinance, or he would not have been likely to ask such a question. The servant of God consented to baptize him; and, as they were travelling, and probably destitute of any convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the stream, they both went down to the water, probably no further than to its margin; far enough to take up a small portion of it to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch. The narrative, in the original, ascertains nothing more than that they both went to and from the water. In our translation, indeed, it is said, they both went down into the water, and came up out of the water. But, when we look into the original text, we find the strict meaning of the terms employed, to be, that Philip and the eunuch went down the banks to the water, and coming from the water, reascended the banks again, to the place where the chariot in which they rode had been left. The same form of expression is used as in the case of Peter and the tribute money, (Matthew 17:27.) “Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook," &c. Here we cannot suppose that our Lord meant to command Peter to plunge into the sea, but .only to go to the water’s edge, and cast in a hook. The same form of expression is also employed in many other passages of the New Testament, where immersion is wholly out of the question: As in John 2:12, where it is said, Jesus went down to Capernaum; Acts 7:15, Jacob went down into Egypt; Acts 18:22, He went down to Antioch, &c. Surely, no one will dream of immersion in any of these cases. There is nothing, then, in any of the language here used, which necessarily, or even probably, implies immersion. At any rate, the terms employed apply equally to both. There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that the eunuch was. It is said they both went to the water. Nor can we consider it as at all likely that, in the circumstances in which they were placed as travelers, they were either of them immersed. It is plain, therefore, that all the confidence which our Baptist brethren have so often expressed, that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is a certain example of immersion, must be regarded as presenting no solid evidence in their favor, and as really amounting to a gross imposition on popular credulity. The next remarkable instance of baptism recorded in the New Testament, is that of Cornelius and his household. Cornelius, a “devout man, who feared God," was directed, in a vision, to send for Peter, the apostle, who should impart to him the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Peter, on his arrival, having ascertained wherefore Cornelius had sent for him, unfolded to him, and to all who were convened in his house, the way of salvation. “While he was yet speaking, the Holy Ghost fell upon all of them which heard the word. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." In this passage, there is nothing that has the remotest appearance of immersion. No hint is given of the candidates for baptism being led out of the house, to a river or pool, for the purpose of being dipped. The language of Peter has an entirely different aspect. “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?" That is, “Can any man forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be applied by pouring or sprinkling?" He had just spoken of the Holy Ghost being poured out upon them; and what could be more natural than that he should apply water, the emblem of spiritual cleansing, in conformity with the same striking figure? "They were not dipped into the Holy Ghost; but the Holy Ghost was poured upon them. They were not applied to the Holy Ghost; but the Holy Ghost was applied to them. He "fell upon them;" and the introduction of water, to be applied in a corresponding manner, was immediately authorized. The baptism of the jailer and his household, at Philippi, still more decisively leads to the same conclusion. If we examine the circumstances which attended this baptism, they will be found to preclude, not merely the probability, but I may say with confidence, the possibility of its having been performed by immersion. Paul and Silas were closely confined in prison when this solemn service was performed. While they were engaged in “praying and singing praises to God," a great earthquake shook the prison to its foundation, and the bonds of the prisoners were immediately unloosed. The jailer, awaking from his sleep, called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." This whole transaction, you will observe, occurred a little after midnight, and in a prison, that is, in the outer prison, for the jailer seems to have brought them out of the dungeon, or “inner prison," into some other apartment of the edifice. For it was not until next morning, some hours after the baptism, that the magistrates gave the keeper permission to let them out of the prison. He and his family were evidently baptized “the same hour of the night," that is, between midnight, when we are expressly told the earthquake occurred, and day; and while yet in the place of confinement. Now, I ask, how can we imagine it possible that the jailer and his family should be baptized by immersion, in the circumstances in which they were placed? We cannot suppose that there was a river, or a pool of water, or a baptistery within the walls of the prison, adapted to meet an occasion as unexpected as any thing could be, which had never occurred there before, and was never likely to occur, in like circumstances again. He who can believe this, must be ready to adopt any supposition, however extravagant, for the sake of an hypothesis. As little can we imagine that Paul and Silas would be dishonest enough to steal out of the prison by night, and accompany the jailer and his family to the river which runs near the city of Philippi, for the purpose of plunging them; especially as we know, on the one hand, how backward they were, the next morning, to quit the prison, unless brought out by the magistrates who had illegally imprisoned them; and, on the other hand, how much terrified the jailer was at the thought of the prisoners escaping from confinement, and of his being responsible even with his own life, for their safe keeping. In like manner, we might go over all the other cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show that, in no one case, have we any evidence that the ordinance was administered by immersion. Now, as the disciples of Christ baptized such great multitudes — even more, at one period than John; can we imagine, if the constant, or even the common mode of baptizing had been by plunging the whole body under water, and especially, if they had laid great stress on adherence to this mode; can we imagine, I say, that amidst so many cases of baptism, some term of expression, some incidental circumstance would not have occurred, from which the fact of immersion might have been clearly manifested, or irresistibly inferred? One thing is certain. The inspired writers of the New Testament could not possibly have regarded immersion in baptism in the same light in which it is regarded by our Baptist brethren. The latter, consider their mode of applying water, as essential to the ordinance. They dwell upon it with unceasing fondness; introduce it into every discussion; and lose no opportunity of recommending and urging it as that, without which an alleged baptism is a nullity; nay, an offence to the Head of the church. While the former, though speaking, directly or indirectly on the subject, in almost every page of the New Testament, and under a great variety of aspects, have not stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evinces that they either preferred or practiced immersion in any case. They have stated, indeed, some facts which can scarcely, by possibility, be reconciled with immersion; but in no instance, have they made a representation which is not entirely reconcilable with the practice of perfusion or sprinkling. On the supposition that the doctrine of our Baptist brethren is true, this is a most unaccountable fact! What! not one evangelist or apostle, though taught by the Spirit of God what to say — kind enough, or wise enough, to put this matter beyond a doubt! The unavoidable inference is, that the inspired writers did not deem the mode of applying water in baptism, an essential matter; and did not think it necessary to state it precisely; and, of course, that they differed entirely from our Baptist brethren.

4. Even if it could be proved (which we know it cannot be,) that the mode of baptism adopted in the time of Christ and his apostles, was that of immersion; yet if that method of administering the ordinance were not significant of some truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plainly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from which we may depart when expediency requires it, as we are all wont to do in other cases, even with respect to positive institutions. For example, the Lord’s Supper was, no doubt, originally instituted with unleavened bread; and this was, probably, at first, the common custom. But as being leavened or unleavened had nothing to do with the design and scope of the ordinance; as bread of either kind is equally emblematical of that spiritual nourishment which it is intended to represent; most professing Christians, and our Baptist brethren among the rest, feel authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with leavened bread without the smallest scruple.

Again: the manner of sitting at the Lord’s Supper, was, in conformity with the then prevailing posture at feasts,, to recline on the elbow on a couch. There can be no doubt that this was the uniform posture at the convivial table, at that time; and in the narratives of the evangelists, we have abundant evidence that the same posture was adopted by our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacramental Supper. But as it was only a circumstance connected with the habits of those days, we do not feel bound; and our Baptist brethren among others, do not feel bound, in administering this ordinance, to conform to the original mode. We consider the sacrament as completely and validly dispensed, if bread and wine be reverently received, in commemoration of the Savior’s death, with any posture of the body. Nay, the example of our Savior himself, plainly shows that, under a change of circumstances, non-essential modes, originally used, may be dispensed with. The prescribed ritual of the Passover required that the lamb should be eaten with shoes on the feet, and with staves in the hand; but this custom was not followed by Him or his disciples, and, perhaps, never was observed after the entrance into Canaan. But was the Passover rendered either less perfect, or less useful, for all practical purposes, by this omission? Surely we need not wait for an answer.

Now, unless it can be proved, that plunging the body into water, and lifting it out again, was designed to be emblematical of something which cannot be otherwise expressed, we have full liberty given us by the example of our Lord himself, to consider this mode as an unimportant circumstance. If the cleansing element of water be applied, in any reverential mode, to the human body, the whole symbolical expression of the ordinance is attained, provided convenience and decorum be duly consulted. If the cleansing or purifying quality of the element used, be the idea intended to be set forth in the emblem; and if the greater part, as we have seen, of the typical purifications prescribed under the ceremonial economy were effected by sprinkling; it is plain that the emblem is complete, however the cleansing element may be applied.