Water Baptism
Zion's Advocate, Vol. 39, No. 12, December, 1900.The testimony of Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, who lived in the days of the apostles, concerning John's baptism, is important, as it expresses what he understood the design of baptism to be when first administered.
"Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." - Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII., Chap. 5, Sec. 2.
Thus we have the testimony of both sacred and profane history that baptism, as practiced by John the Baptist, Christ and his apostles, was a ceremonial washing or dipping of such as had previously experienced a literal, spiritual purification of the soul. We dare not mutilate or pervert this holy ordinance. To do so would be to insult the wisdom and holiness and perfection of our God. He has given it to us, and we dare not change or ignore it. We must observe it as it was instituted and first practiced, if we would retain our identity with the primitive church and enjoy the approving smiles and sweet blessings of our divine Master.
The wisdom of God is shown in the selection of a symbol so replete with meaning, and yet so plain and simple. By it are reflected most gloriously the inflexible demands of the law and the triumphant achievements of grace. Submerging the candidate in the watery grave indicates that the guilt of the sinner was so great as to require an entire satisfaction, or complete atonement, and a thorough washing away of sins by the blood of Christ, and shows a separation from the world in gospel service. It is required of all true believers as the first overt step in submission to the authority of Christ, and is a pledge of obedience to all his other commandments. By this act the raiment of christian service is put on, and the candidate arises to "walk in newness of life." This is the sweet privilege of the lowly, trembling children of God, as well as their reasonable duty. What a favor it is o be admitted as a welcome guest into the royal court and banqueting house of such a high and holy King!
4. Who are authorized to baptize. This is a subject about which there has been much disputing. Many contend that the lack of authority on the part of the administrator does not invalidate the baptism; or rather that no one person has authority to baptize to the exclusion of any others. Mr. A. Campbell laid down the following as a rule of his faith: "There is no law in the christian Scriptures authorizing any one class of citizens in the christian kingdom to immerse to the exclusion of any other class of citizens." He found no precept or example, however, even when pressed by Mr. Rice in their noted debate, in proof that all "citizens of the kingdom," ministers and laity, men and women, adults and children, have equal authority to baptize. We once heard a preacher, who pretended to be a Baptist, outstrip Campbell himself in stating this loose practice. Just before the Pence-Burnam party left the Danville Association, of Indiana, one of their leading preachers, J. W. Shirley, in a session of that Association when this question was being discussed, arose and made this startling statement: "If the devil himself should transform himself into an angel of light, and deceive and baptize one of the Lord's children, that baptism would be valid." We give this merely to show to what extremes people may be led by heresy.
This doctrine, like the heretical dogmas of baptismal regeneration and infant sprinkling, had its origin in the Roman Catholic church. When the belief arose in that church that all who die unbaptized are lost, it became necessary to provide for exigencies, for which the Saviour made no provision, because they grew out of a doctrine he never taught. Thus in a multitude of cases a minister could not be obtained to baptize the dying, and it was thought better that a layman should baptize than that a soul should be lost! Women were allowed to administer the ordinance in extreme emergencies, and even persons who had not been baptized themselves were permitted to administer baptism where no baptized person was present. It is easy to see that some might have believed that the devil could have performed the ceremony acceptably.
Our position is that the authority to administer baptism is restricted, by the inspired word, to certain persons to the exclusion of all others. In the first place it is restricted to the church. The commission to preach and to baptize was given by the Saviour to his disciples. Then they constituted his church. On the day of Pentecost "they that gladly receive his word were baptized" and thus added to the church. From that day to the last recorded fact given us in the Acts of the Apostles there is not an instance to be found where this holy rite was performed by any one not connected with the church of Christ. As this was the practice of the Apostles, we must follow their example in order to be apostolic in this respect. Those who tarried at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high received their authority from Christ. The authority to baptize, therefore, was committed to the church, to whom the Lord gave apostles, teachers, prophets, &c., for the work of the ministry. The office of bishop or elder was formed, and to such as were deemed worthy and competent to fill that office was given authority to administer the ordinances of the church. Paul instructed Timothy to commit the things he had heard among many witnesses to faithful men who were able to teach others. II. Tim. ii. 2. He also commanded him to "lay hands suddenly on no man;" that is, he was to be careful whom he ordained. I. Tim. v. 22. Titus was left in Crete to "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city." Titus i. 5. After Paul and Barnabas had preached at Derbe, "they returned to Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts xiv. 21-23. The terms Bishop and Elder are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and are, therefore, but different names for the same officer. To such as were ordained to fill this office was authority given to administer baptism, and to ordain others to this important work. Thus the officers of the church, as well as the church, was designed to be perpetuated.
A plea is sometimes made in behalf of spurious baptisms that it is impossible to prove a regular succession of authorized administrators from the apostles to the present day. This plea assumes that "the gates of hell" have prevailed against the church, which is a palpable contradiction of the Saviour's declaration. If there has been a period, long or short, at which the church set up by Christ became extinct, then the King has been dethroned, his work has been a failure, his purpose has been overturned, his promise has failed, and his word has proved false! How preposterous! This plea assumes that to be true for which there is not only no proof, but which is in direct opposition to all the facts pertaining to the case. The reason the idea of church succession is so bitterly opposed by the Arminian churches is that they know that the proof of it gives them no right to claim authority.
Again, the plea is sometimes made that the candidate is baptized upon a profession of his own faith, and it matters not what the faith and order of the administrator is. It is true that when one is scripturally baptized, he is baptized because he holds right views and sentiments, but it is also true that he is baptized into the faith of the church. His baptism is a public acceptance, on his part, of the doctrine of the church. When a person is baptized into the Methodist church by a Methodist preacher, that act declares him to hold to the doctrine of that church, and so of the Presbyterians, and any other sect. If he does not believe the doctrine of the church into which he is baptized, his baptism declares a falsehood. It follows that the doctrine or faith of the candidate and of the church into which he is baptized must be right to render his baptism valid gospel baptism.
For centuries the Old Order of Baptists have been hated and derided for their practice of baptizing those who came to them from other churches. How much more popular they would be with the world if they would abandon this distinguishing practice and receive the works of men! But is it not much better to be consistent than popular? Early in the fourth century, and during many subsequent centuries, the Baptists, who were opposed to the Roman Catholic party, were called anabaptists by their enemies, which means re-baptizers. Their practice of baptizing those who came to them from the Catholics gave them this appellation. They denied being re-baptizers, however, asserting that the members thus received had never been baptized. If the Roman Catholic church is not the church of Christ its ministers have no authority to administer an ordinance for the church of Christ. The same is true of any church.
We have baptized a great many who came from other churches, not that we thought there were no christian preachers except in our church, but for reasons already stated. We have heard many say they were satisfied with their baptism but not with their church, and that they would join the Baptists if they would receive their baptism. Such are not strong enough Baptists to be Baptists, and they had better wait till they are tired of their Babylonish garment and are ready to throw it off. Joining the wrong church is a step in the wrong direction, and being baptized in that church is a step in the same direction. If two steps are taken in the same direction, both are wrong if the first is wrong.
J. R. D.
Copyright c. 2003. All rights reserved. The Primitive Baptist Library.
