2. The Christian Church generally, on the other hand, denies that immersion is essential to the ordi- nance of baptism, and admits any of the three modes, sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. The Greek ( Ihurcb requires trine immersion in its rubrics, but in Russia baptism by sprinkling or affusion is regarded as equal- ly valid. The lioman ritual favors affusion thrice re- peated, but admits also of immersion. In the " Office fur tbe Public Baptism of Infants" in the Church of Eng'and it is directed that the "priest shall dip the clulil in the water if the sponsors shall certify him th it the child may well endure it ;" but " if they ccr- tify that the child, is weak, it shall suffice to pour wa- ter upon it." In the " Office for the Private Baptism of Infants" it is directed that tbe baptism shall be by affusion, the infant in such cases being always certi- fied to be weak. In the "Office for the Baptism of Adults," it is left altogether to the discretion of the minister to dip the person to be baptized in the water or to pour water upon him. The framers of the Office evidently, by the discretionary power left to the offi- ciating minister, have decided that the mode in this respect is immaterial. The ritual of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in like manner, leaves the adminis- trator free; and he is so, in fact, in most (but not all) Protestant Churches. The substantial question, there- fore, between the Baptists and the Christian Church generally, is whether immersion is essential to baptism or not. The negative is maintained by the following arguments (besides others for which we have not space), viz. :
(1.) As to the meaning of /3rt7rn'sw, it is allowed, on all hands, that it is (at least sometimes) applied to acts involving the process of immersion both by profane and sacred writers (see above). But the best lexi- cographers agree that this is not its exclusive mean- ing, and none but a daring controversialist would as- sert that it is. The word /3«7rri^u> is derived from fiairroc., the verbal adjective of /3aVrw, to icet thorough- ly, and its etymological meaning is to put into a dnnc/t- ed or imbued condition (Meth. Quart Tiev. i860, p. 406). In the New Testament it generally means to purify by the application of water. (See Beecher on B.ip- t sm ; Mnrdock, in Bib. Sac. Oct. 1850, on the Syriac words for baptism.) "As the word fiairTi'Coi is used to express the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, etc. (Heb. ix, 111), for the cus- tom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, etc., it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done — that is, washing, or the application of water in some form or other. It nowhere signifies to dip, but in denoting a mode of, and in order to, washing or
047 BAPTISM
cleansing; and the mode or use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute, just as in the Lord's Sup- per the time of day, the number and posture of the communicants, the' quantity and quality of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any part of Christians. If in baptism there be an expres- sive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration, for that is the scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences (Matt, iii, 11; Mark i, 8, 10; Luke iii, 16-22; John i, 33; Acts i, 5; ii, 38, 39; viii, 12, 17; xi, 15, 16). The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purification (Isa. Iii, 15 ; Ezek. xxxvi, 25 ; Heb. ix, 13, 14), and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification" (Watson). So far, then, as the word /3«7rri£w is concerned, there is no foundation for the exclusive theory of the Baptists.
(2.) As for the fact that John baptized " in Jordan,' it is enough to reply that to infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this particle would, in many instances, be false and absurd. Indeed, if immersion were intended, the preposition should be- tie and not iv. The same preposition, Iv, is used when it is said 'they should be " baptized with fire," but few will assert that the)' should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says he came not, iv, "by water only," but, iv, "by water and blood." There the same word, iv, is translated by; and with justice and propriety, for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water, but this is no proof that he was im- mersed, as the Greek term e'nro properly significsyVom ; for instance, "Who hath warned you to flee /row," not out of the "wrath to come?" with many others that might be mentioned. Again, it is urged that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered that here also is no proof of im- mersion , for if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The preposition tig, translated into, often signifies no more than to or unto, see Matt, xv, 24 ; Rom. x, 10 ; Acts xxviii, 14 ; Matt, iii, 11 ; xvii, 27; so that from none of these cir- cumstances can it be proved that there was one person of all the baptized who went into the water ankle deep. As to the apostle's expression, " buried with him in baptism," that has no force in the argument for im- mersion, since it does not allude to a custom of dip- ping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has an)' such reference. It is not the sign, but the thing signified, that is here alluded to. As Christ was buried and rose again to a heavenly life, so we by baptism signify that we are separated from sin, that we may live a new life of faith and love. (See above.)