If a person wants to be baptized, but is unable to be immersed into water due to being ill, disabled, elderly...etc. - what should be done?

There is a case in scripture of people being baptised who were not immersed and also of people being immersed who were not 'baptised.' I refer to the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites "they went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground", whilst their pursuers who "went in after them to the midst of the sea" were overthrown therein by the Lord and the "waters returned and covered them". Exodus 14:22-28.

Let us remember that scripture does not tell us how much water should be used. Romans 6 to which reference is often made does not speak of "the mode of baptism" but of the significance of baptism. The apostle Paul does not say anywhere that baptism is an external sign of an internal reality, as baptists everywhere teach. The word used in the Greek for baptise, according to Young, signifies "pouring out on" or "putting into" so there seems equal ground here for sprinkling or immersion. As to the mode, I, personally, would immerse. Another has said "I would immerse if I could got enough water. But if not, I would take as much water as I could get and pour it over the person being baptised". However, let us keep in mind that Romans 6 teaches the significance of baptism. A significance it has whenever, wherever, by whomsoever, and to whomsoever, it is applied. (More on this later.)

p409 [F G Patterson] [To the same.] MY DEAR BROTHER, - As regards immersion, I have a little doubt from 1 Corinthians 10 whether it was strictly dipping; but I do not think it was originally sprinkling. In the English system, at first, it was only allowed on certifying weakness in the child. In the Greek it is not allowed at all. Buried and death is the idea which implies something like immersion - at least, going into the water, and then being covered with it by pouring, as was in the sea and the cloud. But I should not think of repeating a bonâ fide baptism because of the greater or smaller quantity of water, any more than I should think I had not taken the Lord's supper if the pieces had been partially cut up before celebrating the supper. But I should follow what I believed the fullest figure of the truth when I could.

As to the mode of baptism, that it should be by immersion results from the primary meaning of the word, connected with the thought of "burial" which we have plainly given to it. Yet that even sprinklings are called "baptisms" in Hebrews destroys that argument often made that only immersion can be called that. It is plain also that the word is used in other places where there was none, as at the Red Sea, and that the stress is laid not upon mode, but upon what it effects. It would be impossible, I believe, to prove in any single instance that immersion was the scriptural mode, much more to show that all depends upon this.

Scripture gives no definite teaching as to the mode of baptism, the great point being what the recipients of the ordinance were baptised to: cf. Acts 19:3. The idea conveyed by the word is 'washing,' as with the priests of old (Ex. 29:4), rather than 'sprinkling,' as with the Levites.

It is evident that immersion was the proper Scriptural procedure but sprinkling has become common and christian profession is recognised thereby. The water (much or little) signifies association with the death of Christ. Baptism has no reference to a subjective state in the soul. Baptism does not confer any virtue, it is purely objective. In the Cornelius incident of Acts 10, the Spirit came first because of the natural prejudice of the Jews. There are only two things in Christianity, evident to the eye, viz., Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The former is initial and non-recurrent, but the Lord's Supper is recurrent. "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death, till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26). I did not baptise myself, but in partaking of the Supper, I have the privilege of confirming my baptism. Every time I put my hand to the cup I am symbolically taking the Lord's side against the world!

As the early history of these variations, and not controversy, is our object, we will avoid giving any opinion on the long agitated question. For more than sixteen hundred years the controversy has been maintained with great determination, and by able men on both sides. No controversy in the history of the church has been of such continuance, or conducted with such confidence of victory by both parties. As there is no express mention of infant baptism in scripture, the baptists think that their position is beyond question: and the paedobaptists as firmly believe that it may be inferred from several well-known passages that infant baptism was practised in the days of the apostles. There has not been so much controversy as to the mode of baptism. The Greeks Latins, Franks, and Germans, appear to have baptised by immersion. "Baptism is a Greek word," says Luther, "and in Latin it may be rendered mersio, immersion; .... and though among the greater part of us this practice has fallen into disuse, nevertheless they that are baptised ought to be entirely immersed, and forthwith lifted out of the water, and this the etymology of the word indicates, as also in the German language." Neander's testimony is to the same effect: "Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of resurrection with Christ; and both, taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life." Cave, Tillotson, Waddington, etc., speak of the mode of baptism in a similar way. And as all these testimonies are from paedobaptists, we may dismiss this part of the subject as fairly proved in church history; nevertheless faith can only stand on the word of God. We follow not the Fathers, but Christ.

The primary meaning of the word baptisma is acknowledged to be "immersion," and though one cannot always insist upon this, as has been already urged, yet in the meaning of "burial" given to it both here and in Romans there seems good reason for accepting immersion as the mode which harmonizes with the thought. It may be said that in raising one from the water, the figure of resurrection is necessarily found. But though this follows, it is not really in itself part of the baptism.

The doctrine of baptism is conclusively stated in Rom. 6:3-4, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death? Therefore, we are baptised with Him by baptism into death." The preposition in the A.V. text translated "into" really bears the construction of "unto the significance of" His death. The eunuch in Acts 8, clearly apprehended the implication of Philip's preaching and the bearing of the prophetic teaching of Isaiah 53, concluding with the statement "His life is taken from the earth." He saw that if the only One who had a perfect title to live here had His life taken from the earth it was time for him to be associated with that One in the place of death and burial symbolically set forth by baptism. That would close the record of his life as a man of the world. Moreover, it should be noted that the eunuch was a man of marked distinction in the world's affairs. Baptism for him would imply that he could not again be recognised as one of the world's grandees! That is no less incumbent on all others who follow the same course, hence the sequel for every baptised person is to be true to the implication of his or her baptism. We should not be found striving for a place in the world which cast out our Lord.

(The scriptural mode of baptism was undoubtedly immersion in water). Some hold that baptism appertains to the Jew and does not apply to the Gentile urging that the commission in Matt. 28, was given as an antecedent to the Kingdom to be instituted. But in the Acts, the Apostles preached and enacted baptism repeatedly; indeed it is one of the fundamental principles in the initial stages of the Christian era. So that anyone ignoring baptism is not really on Christian ground. He may be right for heaven, but he is not right for earth!

What then is the significance of baptism? It means identification with Christ in His death. It means that we are buried with Him, and that the obligation is placed upon us to walk in newness of life, even as He was raised up into a new order of things. This is its meaning and this the obligation it imposes, and our loss is great if we know it not. We greatly fear that the tremendous controversies which have raged over the manner and the mode and the subjects of baptism have led many to overlook entirely its meaning. Argumentations about baptism have been carried on in a very unbaptised way, so that no one would have thought the contestants "dead to sin."

Baptism is however a rite, an outward sign. It accomplishes nothing vital, and alas, millions of baptised persons will find themselves in a lost eternity. It points however to that which is vital in the fullest sense, even the Cross, as we shall see.

Let us notice the closing words of verse 4, "newness of life," for they give a concise answer to the question with which the chapter opened. Instead of continuing in sin, which is in effect continuing to live the old life, we are to walk in a life which is new. As we go through the chapter we discover what the character of that new life is.

The same tendency to lay much stress on outward, visible ceremony, while overlooking the inward, spiritual import, is with us today. Take the ordinance of baptism, for instance. We are not furnished with an exact, detailed description of just how it was administered, hence the much discussion and argument as to the outward ceremony. If as much attention had been paid to the spiritual meaning of the ordinance, as stated in the early verses of Romans 6, we should have gained far more profit. Dead and buried with Christ - our old life, as in Adam, judged — and "newness of life," now to characterise us.