These words plainly indicate, that by baptism, we have been brought into Christ, into his death, burial and resurrection. Christ, before his death, was living ; hence to be in Christ, is also to be in his life ; thus we see that by baptism we are in Christ, hence too in his life, and in his death, burial and resurrection. That baptism is the means by which we are brought into Christ, into his death, burial, &c. at once elevates baptism to a very high degree. This text, though explicit in itself to evince the benefit of baptism, has not escaped misrepresentation by some of those who deny that baptism is the means of regeneration. Such, in order to evade the natural force of this text, assert that we by baptism are not really brought into Christ, into his death, burial, &c. but that baptism is only a representation thereof. The Baptists claim this text particularly as proving the mode of their baptism, which is performed by immersion. They infer it, from ' being buried with Christ in baptism,' &c. ' How can a man,' say they, ' be buried in baptism, if he be not wholly covered with water ?' Because they consider baptism an emblematical institution, they conclude that their mode must be exclusively right. In a former argument, I have already proved the futility of the idea that there are emblems or types under the gospel dispensation ; yet, I shall endeavor to elucidate this further. We have three things ; 1, a baptism into Christ, (and if in him, then also in his life ;) 2, into his death ; 3, into his burial ; to which may be added, his victorious resurrection. Now if baptism is to be a representation or an emblem of Christ's burial, and that we must therefore be immersed, why then is not baptism also performed in such manner as to represent his life and death, as well as his burial ? Christ must live before he can die, and he must die before he ought to be buried ; hence if his burial, which is the consequence of his death, is represented, why should the representation be incomplete ? We have equally as good a reason to represent his life and death, as we have to represent his burial. I repeat it, if his burial has an allusion to the mode of baptism, certainly his life and death must have an allusion to the same, for they are also included in the text. And if all these are to allude to the mode, what at last must be the mode ? The life of Christ was action, his death was a crucifixion, his burial was the inclosing of a body in a rock. The mode therefore, (if baptism be emblematical) must represent action, crucifixion, and the inclosing of a body in a rock. Immersion therefore, would not be a sufficient representation, for that would only represent his burial, but not his life and crucifixion. I do not know whether all pope-dom can afford ceremonies superstitious enough to make all this emblematical nonsense. It will soon be necessary that all protestants should make the sign of the cross to represent Christ's crucifixion. But yet, I do not know what is to represent his life, except it be salt, oil and spittle, which the Romanists apply. It is, therefore, in vain for the Baptists to infer immersion from this text, as being exclusively right, unless they also make the sign of the cross to represent Christ's crucifixion, and invent some other baptistical superstitious ceremony to represent his life.

Back: Section VII.

Next: But, it is by no means true,...