HISTORY OF TRINE IMMERSION.
By James H. Waggoner
JUSTIN MARTYR—CLEMENT—TERTULLIAN.
ELD. MOORE highly indorses Quinter's efforts in favor of their system, but his own pamphlet is much more ample in historical references. He says he has traced it directly to the apostles. The three writers nearest to the apostles given by him are Tertullian, A. D. 160–220; Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 150–220; and Justin Martyr, A. D. 100–165. These are the most important of all the witnesses, because they lived nearest to the apostles, and those who followed them must have depended on them more or less for any “tradition handed down from the apostles.” We shall take them in reverse order and notice first Because he was nearest to the apostles. Mr. Moore quotes and comments as follows:— “Justin wrote ‘An Apology for Christians, Addressed to the Emperor, the Senate, and the People of Rome.’ In this work he describes the doctrines and ordinances of the church of Christ; and on baptism has the following passage: ‘Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were baptized; for they are washed in the water in the name of God the Father, Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.’ “Justin's works were written in the Greek language, and are translated by Mr. Reeves, who, when speaking of the confession usually made in those early times, says of the above passage: ‘The candidates were thrice plunged under the water at the naming of the Three Persons in the blessed Trinity.’ “This is the candid opinion of the learned translator, that when Justin writes of the Christians being washed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he means nothing short of trine immersion. We give Mr. Reeves' convictions and candid opinion as a fair argument in support of the fact that the above passage refers to trine immersion.” Mr. Moore makes his quotations in the above from Pengilly on Baptism. And here, reader, we have the first stone, the very corner-stone of the edifice of trine immersion; the first witness—the one nearest to the apostles—to prove that trine immersion existed in the very days of the apostles. Here we have several points of interest. 1. Justin says nothing at all about trine immersion! We are reminded of the case of the lawyer who said he had five reasons to give why his witness was not in court. First, he was dead. The Judge here excused him from giving the other four. So we might stop right here with a clear case, but we will examine a little further. 2. It is Mr. Reeves' candid opinion that Justin meant trine immersion, though he says nothing about it. Upon what this opinion is based, and what it is worth, we shall presently see. 3. Mr. Reeves' opinion is offered as a fair argument in favor of the fact that the passage refers to trine immersion. It must be remembered that no other author of Justin's day is cited to prove the existence of the fact assumed. The whole burden of evidence lies in Mr. Reeves' opinion. In the “Ante-Nicene Library,” published by Clark, Edinburgh, the works of Justin are translated by Dr. Dods. From chap. 61 of his first Apology we copy as follows:— “I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God, when we had been made new through Christ; lest if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. And as many as are persuaded and believe that what we say and teach is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’” If the translation of Dr. Dods is correct, and Dr. Schaff gives it the same way, then the term baptism is used by Mr. Reeves only by implication. However, the idea of baptismal regeneration is strongly favored by the language of Justin; so early did erroneous views of baptism begin to find their way into the church. But by no possible construction can trine immersion be inferred from his language. Chrystal, in his examination of “the Fathers,” for whose testimony he entertains a most profound reference, offers this as proof for immersion, but claims nothing on it in favor of trine immersion. Thus Mr. Moore's first witness utterly fails him. The next witness quoted nearest to the time of the apostles is Mr. Moore quotes and comments as follows:— “Clement is addressing himself to the churches planted by the apostles—churches composed of members, many of whom were baptized by the immediate successors of the apostles—when he uses the following words: ‘Ye were conducted to a bath just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed, to signify the three days of his burial.’—Wiberg on Baptism, p. 228.” We cannot say positively that Clement never wrote these words, yet we are left strongly to doubt. No reference is made to any work where they may be found. We think we have had access to and have examined all the writings that are usually ascribed to Clement, but these words are not in them. We have seen what liberty was taken with Sozomen to make him testify to their purpose, and what a strong argument is made out of nothing in the case of Justin; and why, if this quotation is genuine, are we not told whence it is taken? That which is offered in proof must be shown to be proof. We have a right to call in question such loose quotations. Chrystal, who examines the words of the Fathers at length, and sets down everything he can find in favor of trine immersion, even quoting from writings which he confesses are spurious, makes no mention of this quotation. We cannot think he would omit it if it were to be found in the works of Clement. We have no confidence (as we have no reason to believe) that the quotation is genuine. If it were, yet the reason it offers is contrary to the Scriptures, and it would then only be another proof that trine immersion was recognized in Africa earlier than anywhere else; and Africa was, even at that time, the hot-bed of superstitious innovations in the Christian faith. See Milner as before quoted. There is no dispute that Tertullian did mention trine immersion; but he referred it only to tradition. This is denied by the trine immersionists, but the proof is decidedly against them. Eld. Moore publishes an appendix of Caution on this point. He says:— “In the writings of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg, Tertullian is accused of stating that, ‘we are immersed three times, fulfilling somewhat more than our Lord has decreed in the gospel.’ This, however, is simply an incorrect translation of the Latin text, the Oxford translation of which reads as follows: ‘Then are we thrice dipped, pledging [not fulfilling] ourselves to something more than the Lord has prescribed in the gospel.’ Before the candidates were baptized they pledged themselves to some things not mentioned in the gospel, and to these Tertullian refers.” These words of Eld. Moore are not warranted by the facts. Tertullian does not speak of what was done before baptism, but in baptism. And the version of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg, is most accurate in following the original, which is both followed and given by Stuart, whom we quoted elsewhere. The words of Stuart in full on this passage are as follows:— “Tertullian himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine immersion as something superadded to the precepts of the gospel; for thus he speaks in his book, ‘De Corona Militis,’ § 3: ‘Thence we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answering, i. e., fulfilling, somewhat more (amplius aliquid respondentes) than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.’” Stuart is surely as literal as may be in rendering respondentes answering; and no one can possibly object to his making it equivalent to fulfilling, in this case; while the whole sentence in Tertullian points unmistakably to the action of trine immersion, and not to anything before baptism. But there is a decisive test to which we shall now bring this matter. Bingham, “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” is one of the witnesses cited by Eld. Moore, in his historical evidences. Bingham has treated the whole subject at length, though he does not directly give his own opinion of the correctness of the method. Of the derivation of trine immersion he says:— “Some derive it from apostolic tradition; others, from the first institution of baptism by our Saviour; whilst others esteem it only an indifferent circumstance or ceremony, that may be used or omitted without any detriment to the sacrament itself, or breach of any divine appointment. Tertullian, St. Basil, and St. Jerome put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.”—Book 11, chap. 11, § 7. We here learn that the early advocates of trine immersion were not at all agreed as to its origin. Some ascribed it to the institution of the Saviour, but these were not its earliest advocates. Others ascribed it to tradition; and still others considered it an indifferent matter. There was not among them such an agreement on the subject as the trine immersionists would have us believe. It will be noticed that “apostolic tradition” is distinguished from that which was appointed by the Saviour. Tertullian, the very earliest witness for trine immersion, and the prince of traditional innovators, “put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.” This shows that Eld. Moore's “Caution” is utterly futile, and that his construction of the words of Tertullian is wrong.