Considering, as we are at the moment, the means of grace that are available in the Church and administered by the Church for the upbuilding and the strengthening of the Christian believer, we have come to a consideration of what are called the sacraments. And we dealt with them in general last Friday evening. We pointed out that the word itself is not actually scriptural. And yet, as it has been traditional and customary to use the word, perhaps it is convenient for us to do so. However, we saw that there are two ordinances which were commended by the Lord himself. And they are baptism and the communion of the Lord's Supper. And they are the only two that, as Protestants, we recognize as sacraments. May I, for the sake of Convenience remind you that our main conclusion with regard to the function and the purpose of sacraments were these. That a sacrament is first and foremost a sign. It indicates something. It points to something. It's a representation of something. But secondly, we saw that it was also, and this is much more important, a seal. Something that seals blessings to us. We use the illustration of the ring given either in engagement or in marriage to illustrate that. And thirdly, of course, it is a kind of badge of church membership. It's a way in which we are entitled to claim church membership and at the same time are able to make a confession of our faith. Well, now then, bearing all that in mind, We come now to a detailed consideration of the two ordinances which were commended by the Lord and which we regard, therefore, as obligatory, baptism and the Lord's Supper. And we take them in that order. We take, first of all, the biblical doctrine of baptism. Now, I've had occasion to say on many, many Sunday nights, as we've met together, to consider these biblical doctrines. I've had occasion to say with regard to many subjects that it is a subject about which there has been great disputation. It is unnecessary even for me to say that tonight as we consider this question of baptism, because whereas many people might perhaps have been comparatively ignorant at Inuit about some of the other things concerning which I've said that, everybody at some time or another, I am sure, who is even a professing Christian, has been engaged in discussion and disputation on the question of baptism. Therefore, it behoves us once more to say that we must approach the subject not only with caution, but still more important, in a Christian manner and in the spirit which we claim that we have received and to whom we submit ourselves. Never is it more important than when considering a subject like this to avoid mere labels and glib generalizations and dogmatic pronouncements. Is it not perfectly obvious, before we go any further, that this subject cannot be decided finally? If it could have been, there would never have been all this controversy, and you would not have had denominational distinctions. Obviously, this is not one of those subjects concerning which you can give an absolute proof, something which is quite unmistakable. Equally saintly, equally spiritual, equally learned people are to be found in the various schools and holding the various opinions. As we saw last week, this matter is not essential to our salvation. No sacrament is essential to salvation. At least if you say it is, you're putting yourself with the Roman Catholics. Protestants have always said that while these things are commands of the Lord and we should therefore practice them, they are not essential to our salvation. They don't add grace. They simply point it and bring it to us in a special way. So that therefore I say we must approach it with this caution and with this Christian spirit. And if that has always been necessary, I feel it is particularly necessary today. Because this subject at the moment is in a greater state of flux than it has possibly ever been. I think I'm right when I say that almost every Christian body and every Christian denomination has at the moment a commission of inquiry into this question of baptism. They're all unhappy about it. They're all a bit troubled in their minds. The old dogmatism is giving way to a readiness at any rate to reopen the question and to consider it anew and afresh. Not only that, there is one rather striking and notable fact. There is a very great theologian living in Switzerland at the present time. I suppose we can all agree in saying that in many ways, though this doesn't mean that I agree with his essential position, nevertheless we can say that in many ways the greatest theologian in the world today is Karl Barth, Professor Karl Barth. Now this man is a great reformed theologian, brought up in the typical Presbyterian manner, but he's undergone a great change in his view of baptism. Having been brought up to believe in infant baptism, he's written a book to say that he no longer believes that. He believes in adult baptism. So you see, as I'm saying, the whole matter is again in a state of flux and is being carefully investigated. So it ill behoves us to be over dogmatic and to give the impression that there is only one possible point of view. That is most certainly not the case, as I hope now to try to show you. Well, having said that, let me recommend some books, if you may be interested some of you to read certain books on the subject. A book was published about 18 months ago, which puts the case for infant baptism, I think as strongly as it can be put, it bears the title, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. It's by a Frenchman called Marcel, M-A-R-C-E-L, translated into English by Philip Hughes. I believe there are one or two copies available in our bookroom. I'm sorry to hear that it seems to have got out of print rather hurriedly and quickly. But there is no better case of the statement for infant baptism than that. There is another one by an American, Professor John Murray, called the Reform Doctrine of Baptism. I don't think that is published in this country. But again, it's the statement for infant baptism at its best. Then, more generally on the question of baptism, there is a volume in Dr. Louis Perry Schaeffer's eight volumes of Dogmatic Theology. One of the volumes is called Pneumatology. Unfortunately, a small portion of the original recording of this lecture is missing at this point. We now join the doctor as he goes on to look at the historical evidence for infant baptism, the first record of which, he says, is found in the year A.D. 175. No specific reference until A.D. 175. That doesn't prove that it wasn't practiced, but at Inuit there was no reference to it until then. Another important bit of evidence is this. There was a great man in the early church at the end of the second century called Tertullian. Now he changed his views on this subject and he was an opponent of infant baptism. And there is surely a very strong case for saying this, that if it could have been established that infant baptism was taught and practiced by the apostles, a man like Tertullian would never have spoken against it in the way that he did. However, he did speak against it. There is that bit of evidence. Another very interesting bit of evidence, it seems to me, is this. The great Saint Augustine, who was the child of Christian parents, was not baptized as an infant. Now again, you can't play too much weight on that argument, but it is a significant and important fact that there was a man who was born the child of Christian parents, but was not baptized in infancy. At any rate, it demonstrates this, that it was not the universal practice. Then to go on through the centuries, you will find in general that right up until the Protestant Reformation, You had nothing but infant baptism. Then you remember that the main Protestant reformers continued that practice, but a new body arose which were called Anabaptists, and Ana means again. They believed in re-baptizing on confession of faith and when one was old enough to be able to make a statement. And since then, of course, you have had these two main positions as I've outlined them. Now that in the main is a brief historical survey of the matter, especially with regard to the baptizing of infants. Very well, that leads us to the next question, which is this. What is the meaning of baptism? as one finds it taught in the scriptures. Here, the significant thing to observe is that the phrase that is generally used is baptize into. You've got the famous command, for instance, in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, the 28th chapter, verse 19. Go we therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in or into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Baptizing into. You've got exactly the same thing in a most interesting way in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the first chapter and in the 13th verse, where the apostle puts it like this. He says, is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized into the name of Paul? You notice it's baptized in or into. And you've got exactly the same thing in 1 Corinthians 10 too, where we are told that the people, the children of Israel, were baptized into Moses. I shall refer to that later on. And of course there are those famous statements in Romans 6, Verses 3 to 6, where Paul argues, knowing not that so many as were baptized into Christ have died with Christ, and so on. But the point is that he says, baptized into Christ. And you've got the same thing in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, that we are all baptized into one spirit, whether Jews or Gentiles and so on. And the same in Galatians 3, 27 and 28. We considered a number of these statements when we were dealing with the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. And again it's in Colossians 2, verses 11 and 12. Well now then, what do we learn from this? Well, we learn from this, surely, that the first thing and the important thing about baptism is that it suggests union. being placed into something, baptized into the Holy Ghost, baptized into Christ, baptized into Moses, it suggests a union. So that it is very important that we should bear in mind that the primary meaning of baptizing is not cleansing, but union, that you become identified with a certain medium that you are put into a certain atmosphere. We are baptized into the body of Christ and so on. Now that's the first meaning. And of course here in this quotation I've given you from Matthew, we are told that we are baptized into the blessed Trinity, into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. So the primary meaning is union. But it isn't the only meaning. There is also, in addition, that other sense of cleansing and of purification. But you put that secondly and not in the first position. Now, we are cleansed and purified from the guilt of sin. Texts for that are Acts 2, 38. Peter's reply to the men who cried out and saying, men and brethren, what shall we do? And he suggests that they should be baptized for the remission of sins in the name of Christ, etc., having confessed their sins. You've got it also in Acts 22, 16. And you've also got it in 1 Peter 3, 21, which is an important verse, and therefore I read it to you. 1 Peter 3, 21. He's talking about the people in Noah's Ark, and he says, the like figure, where unto even baptism doth also now save us? Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. In other words, it's an assurance that we are delivered from the guilt of sin. And also, we are delivered from the pollution of sin. The statements of these are many. In 1 Corinthians 6.11 we are told that many of the members of the church at Corinth had been guilty of certain terrible sins, but he says, but he are washed, but he are sanctified, but he are justified. And no doubt the washing there partly does refer to this question of baptism. And the same thing is true of Titus 3.5 where you get the mentioning of the washing of regeneration. which is undoubtedly again a reference to the same thing. Very well then, we can say that the meaning of baptism is that it puts us into this position of union. But in order that we may be there, we need to be cleansed and purified from the guilt and the pollution of sin. Very well then, what exactly is the purpose of baptism, if that is its meaning? You see, we try to establish the meaning, and that then takes us on to the purpose. Here we must start with the negative. We must indicate that the function, the purpose of baptism, is not to cleanse us from original sin. Now that is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church, and not only the Roman Catholic Church, but the Lutheran Church also, and indeed certain sections of the Church of England, teach quite specifically that the purpose of baptism is to cleanse us from original sin and to regenerate us. So they speak of baptismal regeneration. Now, people often don't realize that the Lutheran Church definitely teaches that. And as I say, it is rarely, in a sense, the official teaching of the Church of England, though there are many in the Church, of course, that repudiate the suggestion. But we take the position of saying that the business of baptism is not to deliver us and to cleanse us from original sin, nor to regenerate us. Well, what is its function? Well, as I indicated last Friday, it can be summarized in this way. It is a sign and a seal of certain things. First, the remission of sins and our justification. You remember how we defined the seal? It is something that speaks to me. As the ring on the finger speaks, Baptism speaks to the one who is baptized and it gives him an assurance that his sins are remitted and are forgiven and that he is justified. He is not justified because he's being baptized. He is baptized because he's justified. It is not the means of his justification. It is an assurance to him that he is justified. It seals it to him. It's a sign of it and a seal of it. remission of sins, forgiveness, justification. But more than that, and I would say especially, it is a sign and seal of regeneration and our union with Christ and our receiving the Holy Spirit. Now again, you notice I say it is a sign and a seal. I do not become regenerate as I am baptized, I only have a right to be baptized because I am regenerate. It tells me that I am regenerate. It certifies to me that I am born again, that I am united to Christ, and that the Holy Spirit dwells in me. It is, I say again, the sealing of that to me. It's a special way that God has appointed and chosen and commanded that those who are regenerate and born again may know in this way that they are. It's his way of giving them a pledge. He put a pledge in the sky, you remember, the rainbow in connection with the flood. He gave a sign and a seal in the matter of circumcision to the chosen race, his own people. And here he gives us a sign and seal of our regeneration in the act of baptism. And then thirdly and lastly, of course, it is a sign of membership of the church, which is his body. It is a separating from the world and an introduction officially in an external manner into the body of Christ, into his visible body. We are already in the invisible, but here we enter into the visible. and it is a sign or a badge of that. Very well then, let me summarize this again and re-emphasize it by putting it like this. The purpose, the function of baptism primarily is to seal all that to the believer. So you see that it is not primarily something that you and I do. It is primarily something that is done to us. It is something that we receive and in which we are passing primarily. Our witness and our testimony follows that and is subsidiary to that. Now I'm emphasizing this because I think you will agree that so often it is put the other way around and that the thing that is emphasized about baptism is our action, our bearing witness, our giving a testimony. That's second. The main thing and the first thing about baptism is that it is something that God has chosen to do to us. It is God giving us this seal of our regeneration. And as we are baptized, he is speaking to us and he is telling us that we are regenerated. He is sealing it in that way. But of course, as we do that, we are incidentally bearing our witness to the fact that we have believed the truth. Otherwise, we would never have asked for baptism. We would never have sought it. So that secondarily, it is a bearing of witness and of testament. But again, we must point out, as we pointed out in dealing with sacraments in general last week, It doesn't give us any blessing that the word itself cannot give us. It doesn't add to grace. It doesn't do something to us which cannot be done in any other way. We are regenerate, I say, before we are baptized. All it does is to seal it. Go back again to the illustration of the ring, and there I think you see it. So that we don't say that it is essential. But we do say it is of the greatest possible value and in any case it is obligatory because our Lord has commended it and we rob ourselves of this peculiar sealing of the promises of God to us as regards regeneration if we do not submit to it. It is meant therefore primarily to assure us and to reassure us and to strengthen our faith and to increase our faith. And I say it is very wrong just to represent it as an occasion for bearing witness and testimony and an evangelistic medium and failing to emphasize that it is first and foremost God in his infinite grace and kindness stooping to our level, doing something objective, doing something that can be seen and thereby sealing to us. the promises as regards forgiveness and our regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Very well. That brings me now to something more controversial, which I'll put in the form of a question. Who is to be baptized? And here, of course, there is this great division, as between those that say that Infants are to be baptized, and those who say that only believers, conscious believers, are to be baptized. And of course here we come to the very center and nerve of this great controversy. Now let's try to approach it like this. What are the arguments that are produced in favor of infant baptism? I will mention them and try to give the answer to them. I'm trying to be as objective as I can. Now the arguments that are generally adduced in favor of infant baptism are these. First, the incident of when the people brought the little children to our Lord to bless them. And indeed, as Luke tells us, they were actually infants. And he took them up in his arms and blessed them, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Now that's one argument that is brought forward. Now the reply to that, of course, is that there is no mention of baptism at that point at all. The question of baptism doesn't really seem to arise. And therefore it is one thing to say that our Lord can bless children. It's a very different thing indeed to say that he therefore taught that children should be baptized. There are blessings and blessings. The second argument that is produced, of course, is Acts 2.39. I've already referred to it partially. Peter preaching on the day of Pentecost, And the people cry out and say, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you into the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And they put it like this, they say, The promise is unto you, and to your children." They said, there it is. They are told that it applies to their children as well as to themselves. But I notice that whenever I read this argument in any book, they always leave out the rest of the verse, which goes on like this, the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. So that clearly what is meant here by children is this, not their physical descendants, not their own personal children. What the apostle is saying is, the promise is not only for you who are immediately here now, it's for the next generation, and the generation after that, and after that, it's going to continue down the running centuries. And not only for Jews, but also for those who are far off the Gentiles, those who are outside the commonwealth of Israel. Indeed it is for as many as the Lord our God shall call. not your children because you were baptized, but those who come in subsequent generations and all others whom God is going to call throughout the generations. The next bit of evidence that is produced is the one that is contained in the verses that I read at the beginning, Acts 16, 15 and 33. We are told, you remember, about Lydia, that she believed on the Lord, and what followed was this. And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us saying, if you have judged me to be faithful, come into my house and abide there. And we are told in the case of the jailer that he was baptized, he and all his straightway. And it is argued, of course, that this must mean of necessity that the children and perhaps even the infants in both the cases and both the households were also baptized. To which, of course, the answer is that we are not told that there were any children at all in either household. There may have been, I don't know, but nobody else knows. There is no statement to the effect that there were children or infants. There is no statement that there were not. A household can consist of grown-up children. Indeed, it doesn't even necessitate that. The household may well have consisted of the servants. There is clear indication in the case of the jailer at Inuit that they must have been adults for this reason. That we are told that the word was preached not only unto him but also unto his household. They said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house. And they speak unto him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house. They seem to be capable of listening and hearing and receiving the truth. So that there again, obviously, there is no clear case. The next bit of evidence is found in 1 Corinthians 1 verse 16, which reads like this. Paul says, I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. But he does say, you notice, that he baptized the household of Stephanus. And again, the argument is that they must have been children. But if you go to 1 Corinthians 16, 15, you'll read this. I beseech you, brethren, ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. In other words, the household of Stephanus, who had been baptized, have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Surely a suggestion that they were not children, but that they were all grown-up believers who had believed the truth and were now helping and ministering to the saints. And then the last bit of evidence at this point is 1 Corinthians 7. where you are told, of course, that the children of believing parents are sanctified by their parents. But here the reply is that that does not of necessity mean that they should be baptized. It just means that they be allowed to enter into the church services and have certain common privileges belonging to the church. Indeed, there seems to me to be a conclusive evidence at this point. Because we are told that an unbelieving husband, in the same way, is sanctified by his believing wife. Or that an unbelieving wife is sanctified by her believing husband. The same term is used about an unbelieving husband or wife as is used about the children. So that clearly, there is no suggestion here that they should be baptized. It doesn't seem to me to be dealing with that at all. Well, then I think we can sum up by saying that in the New Testament there is no clear evidence whatsoever that a child was ever baptized. I can't prove that children were not baptized, but I am certain that there is no evidence that they were. It's inconclusive. The statements are such that you really cannot make a dogmatic pronouncement. I've given you the evidence and I've presented to you the reply. It can't be proved one way or the other. But the second line of argument in favor of infant baptism is the analogy that is based upon the Old Testament and circumcision. Now we are told that baptism in the New Testament corresponds to circumcision in the Old Testament. And that in the case of circumcision, whenever a child was born to a Jew, he was circumcised almost at once. You remember the Apostle Paul brings that evidence out about himself, circumcised the eighth day. The argument is this, you see that in the case of Israel, all children born to Israelite parents were circumcised. They were introduced into Israel officially, they were given that sign in that way, and therefore when you come over to the New Testament, surely the parallel should be carried out. There is no doubt that in many ways this is a very powerful argument. But if you're interested in my own personal view about it, my difficulty is this. It seems to me that it ignores the essential point in that argument, which is this. Surely the vital thing is the mode of entry into the kingdom. Now the mode of entry into the kingdom of Israel was by physical descent and by that alone. That was the way. You were born a child of Jews. Physical descent determined your entry into the kingdom. But surely that is no longer the case. In the New Testament, it is spiritual. The great contrast between the old and the new is the difference between the material and the spiritual. And in the spiritual, the mode of entry is not by physical descent, but by spiritual rebirth. We need to be born again. We must be born of the spirit before we enter the kingdom of God. and we mustn't tie it to physical descent. So it seems to me that that particular argument fails and breaks down at that particular point. They also adduce the whole question of the covenant, but you see, they base their doctrine of the children in the covenant upon that verse in Acts 2.39, which I've already suggested to you is a misinterpretation, because it doesn't mean their physical children, but the subsequent generation. Very well then, there I suggest once more is another inconclusive argument, unless indeed it is a fallacious argument. But now let me say something on the other side. There are people who seem to think that they can solve this problem very simply in this way. They say infant baptism must be wrong because we don't know whether a child is regenerate or not as yet. And therefore you mustn't baptize a person until you know that that person is regenerated. It would be very wrong to do so. You say it is the seal and the sign of regeneration. And therefore obviously you can't baptize an infant because you don't know what it's going to be. But that is a very dangerous argument surely for this reason. Are you certain that your adult is regenerate? He certainly gets up and says he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. Does that prove that he's regenerate? No, you can't prove that he is regenerate either. If you make the statement that you are certain that he is regenerate because he has said that he believes, well then what you do about him later on when he denies the faith entirely as many have done? No, we cannot be certain that anybody is regenerate. It is not for us to decide who is born again and who isn't. We've got presumptive evidence but we can't go beyond that. Therefore, we mustn't base our argument on that. In the same way, people say something like this very often. They say, look at the thousands of children that were baptized when they were infants, and then they are accepted into the Christian church, and subsequently they lapse, proving that they were never really Christians at all. Well, again, the answer, of course, is exactly the same. That has happened, alas, thousands of times in the case of people who were baptized on confession of faith when they had reached an adult age. In other words, we've got to be very careful as we handle these arguments. Those things can be said equally on one side as well as on the other. So we mustn't base our arguments on observations like that, but rather more as we've been trying to do on the scripture. Well then, what do we say finally at this point? Surely, it seems to me, the conclusive argument is this. What is baptism meant to do? What does it signify? What's its purpose? Well, I've already answered the question. If the great thing about baptism is that it is a sealing by God of that which I know has already happened to me, well then, surely, it is something for an adult believer. It can't seal it to an unconscious infant. That's impossible. If baptism were only a sign, well, then I could see a great argument for baptizing an infant. But as everybody has agreed, even those who put up the case for infant baptism, that much more important than the sign is the sealing. Well, then surely it is something that can only happen to a person who is conscious. and who is aware of what is happening. It's no seal to an unconscious infant or even to an unconscious adult. The essence of the seal is that the person is aware of what is happening. And it does seem to me that as you look at the case of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Apostle Paul himself, both of whom seem to have been baptized more or less in private, that the important thing about baptism is the seal. However, as I say, we can't go beyond that, but as far as I myself am concerned, that last argument is a conclusive one. That brings me to my last main heading, and do bear with me as I try to complete this this evening. What is to be the mode of baptism? How do you administer baptism? Well, again, you're familiar with the great discussion. Two main schools, sprinkling, immersion. What is history to say about this? Well, it has a great deal to say, but unfortunately it doesn't decide anything. This much, however, can be said on historical grounds. For the first thousand years of the history of the Christian Church, the common mode of baptism was immersion. You may be amazed to hear and to read that even the Roman Catholics still say that it is right that a person may be immersed. They don't put it in the first position, but they say that it's legitimate and they give instructions as to how it should be done. I wonder how many knew that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church still practice immersion and say that immersion is the way. Many of our Baptist friends will be surprised when they hear that they are not the only believers in immersion. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church believe the same thing. Indeed, in the prayer book of Edward VI, immersion was put before sprinkling in the Church of England. They only allowed sprinkling as an alternative to immersion in the case of illness or some such reason. And the present practice was only rarely introduced in the Prayer Book of 1662. The Westminster Confession says that the right way to baptize is by sprinkling, and it excludes immersion. But it's very interesting to note that when the Westminster Divines were discussing it here in the Jerusalem chamber in Westminster Abbey for so long, they had a final vote about this. 25 voted for excluding immersion, 24 voted against excluding it. It was carried by a majority of one. Well, that's something of the history for you. But what are the arguments? Well, you've heard about the word baptizer, haven't you? And there are people who say that the word baptizer absolutely proves it. My friends, the answer is it doesn't. The scholars are equally divided. The word baptizer does not prove anything. Here is an interesting bit of evidence for you. If you read Luke 11, 37 and 38, you will find that the Pharisees were very surprised it came to pass that as he spake these Well, just a minute. Verse 37 and 38. And as he speak, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to meet. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner. The word used there is baptizer. And clearly it doesn't mean that they were surprised that he didn't go and have a complete bath. No, it was the custom of the Pharisees, before they sat down to meet when they'd come from the market, to hold their hands under running water. That was their custom, that was their practice, they thought it was essential. And they were surprised that our Lord, instead of holding his hands under the running water, immediately sat down. But the word used is baptizer. You see, there is a suggestion of sprinkling. Well, again the argument is brought forward. on the basis of Romans 6 and those parallel passages that I mentioned at the beginning. But here again the reply is that there is not of necessity any reference to the rite or the ceremony of baptism. What Paul is arguing in all those cases is our union with Christ. Not only that we are buried with him, but that we've been crucified with him, that we've died with him. Baptism doesn't indicate that at all, does it? Now that they say, but it does indicate the burial and the rising, of course, but Paul argues about the dying and the crucifixion also. So that you're pressing the argument further than the apostle himself takes it. And then there is another argument about our Lord's baptism and that of the Ethiopian eunuch, where we are told that they went up straightway out of the water. And we are told about the Philip and the eunuch that they came up out of the water. They say that is conclusive proof that it must be by complete immersion. But of course it doesn't say that. All it really tells us is that Philip and the eunuch stood in the water, and they came up out of the water. Because we are told that both of them came up out of the water, and if that is meant to prove that Philip had been totally immersed, that if the eunuch had been totally immersed, well then Philip also must have been totally immersed. They both came up together out of the water. Surely it simply means that they were standing in the water, and it doesn't really tell us exactly how Philip did baptize them. And the same applies in the case of our Lord. Then there is this other bit of evidence which seems to me to be very important. In the Old Testament it was always sprinkling. The books were sprinkled with blood. The vessels of the temple were sprinkled with blood. Sin was remitted, you remember, by taking that water into which the ashes of a heifer had been put, and it was sprinkled. It's always sprinkling. In the Old Testament, things were set apart and purified and consecrated and sanctified always by sprinkling. And as you'll find, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews uses that very argument. He talks about having our consciences sprinkled. and they are purified by sprinkling with the blood of Christ or with pure water. It's always this question of sprinkling. So that I say that that is rather a significant and important statement. And there is finally this argument for what it's worth. You remember the thousands that went to John the Baptist, attended his preaching and were baptized by him. Surely the whole physical problem involved does enter into this argument, if it does mean baptism by immersion in the sense that is generally accepted today. Very well, shall I try to summarize it? Well, let me put it like this. It seems to me more and more that on the evidence of the scriptures themselves and what was undoubtedly the practice in the early, in the church for the first thousand years, that what seems to have been done at Enneret was something like this, that the person to be baptized and the one baptizing stood together in the water. If it was the River Jordan, they stood in the Jordan. And that then the one who was baptizing the other placed his hand in the water and sprinkled the water over the one who was to be baptized. Now I'm unable to give you all the evidence obviously, but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that in the writings of various fathers and so on. And it seems to me to fit in perfectly with what happened in the case of the eunuch that he and Philip went to the water and there Philip baptized him in that way. But let me end by putting it in this manner. Here I say we surely cannot arrive at any finality. And therefore the only view it seems to me which one is justified in taking is this. that one should be prepared to allow and to sanction both methods. The mode of baptism is not the vital thing. It's the thing signified that matters, the sealing that counts. And for myself, I would be prepared to immerse a believer or to sprinkle a believer. If there is an adequate supply of water, such as a river, I think the best method is to stand in the water and to baptize in that way. I would not refuse even to immerse completely. But it is not essential. What I am certain of is this, that to say that complete immersion is absolutely essential is not only to go beyond the scriptures, but is indeed to verge upon heresy unless it is to be actually heretical. It is to attach a significance to the nerd which can never be substantiated from the scriptures. And certainly, it puts you out of line with a practice that was consistent right throughout the Old Testament. So that as far as I am concerned, the position seems to be this, that those who are to be baptized should be adult believers. I cannot see the case, as I've tried to show you, for infant baptism. So it must be adult baptism. But as to the mode, It can be sprinkling or immersion or a combination of the two, which I personally believe is the more scriptural one and the one for which great evidence can be produced throughout the first thousand years of the history of the Christian Church. But my dear friends, having said that much about who is to be baptized and how such a person is to be baptized, Let us again emphasize that the important thing is that by this means God has chosen not only to signify but to seal to us our redemption, our forgiveness, the remission of our sins, our union with Christ, our being baptized into him, and our receiving of the Holy Ghost. And thus God stoops to our weakness and authenticates our faith, and gives us assurance, and strengthens us, and fortifies us when we are attacked by the devil, who would try to tempt us into unbelief. It is God's appointment. And whatever the mode you may imply, let us remember the thing that is signified, the thing that is seen.