SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS
The apostle Paul twice speaks of baptism as a burial. This expression is just according to the meaning of the word immersion. But the term is not well chosen if it is intended to represent sprinkling or pouring. It is likened to the burial and resurrection of Christ, to which the ordinance has undoubted reference. “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.” Romans 6:4. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Colossians 2:12. The most eminent scholars, among those who advocate and practice sprinkling, have been constrained to admit that these illustrations have undoubted reference to the primitive practice of immersing in the rite of baptism.TOB 38.1
The reader will pardon us for noticing the effort that has been made to evade the force of these scriptures. Because this baptism is a burial, and cannot be made a sprinkling, it has been denied that it refers to water baptism. Perhaps, said the objector, it refers to the fact that the disciples were buried in the love of God! Were that the truth, it would not destroy the force of the statement that baptism is a burial. The meaning of the word is the same, no matter what element is used. But that cannot be true, for this consideration: In whatsoever a person is buried, when he is raised he is raised out of the same. If we are buried in the earth, we are raised out of the earth; if buried in water, we are raised out of water; and if buried in the love of God, we are raised out of the love of God! Said the apostle to his brethren, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” Were they raised out of the love of God? Would such a resurrection lead them to seek those things which are above? See chap. 3:1. Again we ask pardon for noticing such an objection. And we must express our astonishment that men of eminence and learning have presented this idea as against immersion. It is sometimes necessary to show how utterly idle is the effort to evade the force of the plain testimony of the word of God. And this shows what positions men are willing to take, and what conclusions they will risk, to support their theories against the plain reading and evident meaning of the Scriptures.TOB 38.2
Under this head should be considered 1 Corinthians 10:2. Dr. Clarke sanctions the idea that the Israelites were sprinkled by the cloud over them, and that this indicates that sprinkling is baptism. It is to be deplored that one so ripe in scholarship—so able as a critic—should so suffer himself to be blinded by the theology of a church. The language and the facts do not admit of such a construction. Shall we read it, “Sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea”? We cannot. “Sprinkled in the cloud and in the sea”? That is impossible. Prof. Stuart is much more reasonable on this point; he says:—TOB 39.1
“The suggestion has sometimes been made, that the Israelites were sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea, and this was the baptism which Paul meant to designate. But the cloud on this occasion was not a cloud of rain; nor do we find any intimation that the waters of the sea sprinkled the children of Israel at this time. So much is true, viz., they were not immersed. Yet, as the language must evidently be figurative in some good degree, and not literal, I do not see how, on the whole, we can make less of it than to suppose it has a tacit reference to the idea of surrounding in some way or other.”TOB 40.1
Granting that they were not immersed, certainly they were not sprinkled. And granting that the word baptize is used figuratively in some good degree, yet the figure must be so construed as most nearly to conform to the actual meaning of the word, i. e. immerse. And this is done by the idea of surrounding, as Prof. Stuart has it; and it meets the conditions stated far better than any other construction.TOB 40.2