Trine Immersion by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 2, 1882

Trine Immersion.

By Editor

SOMEBODY has sent us a number of the Brethren at Work, the organ of the Dunkers, in which is an extract from our article on the subject of trine immersion, or three baptisms, with comments, as follow:—

"If the example of the church in the first centuries is of any weight or importance as indicating our duty in regard to baptism, it can only be because they preserved it in purity. For if they did not preserve it pure—if they perverted and corrupted it—then their example should be avoided and not followed. We shall now give abundant reasons for not only distrusting the acknowledged teachers and leaders of the early centuries, but for turning away from them with feelings of pity for their blindness and folly, if, indeed we are not led to indulge in stronger feelings than those of pity." —J. H. Waggoner, in the Signs of the Times.

REMARKS.

"After penning the above, Mr. Waggoner proceeds to fill nearly three columns naming errors that prevailed among the churches in the first centuries, but not one line of evidence does he produce to prove that trine immersion is an error. His manner of reasoning reminds us of the man who undertakes to prove that a small lump of gold is dirt just because it happened to be found in a shovelful of dirt taken from a gold mine. All the dirt in the universe piled around a lump of gold would not prove that gold is dirt. Why does not Mr. Waggoner set aside immersion because he finds its practice in the first century associated with errors? Why does he not use the same process of reasoning and thereby set aside faith, repentance, and every other command mentioned in the Bible? While Mr. Waggoner is searching so diligently for the practice of the early Christians, why does he not find just one case of backward single immersion before the year A. D. 1522? He claims to find sprinkling, pouring, and many other errors, but not one trace does he find of backward or single immersion before the above date."

Before answering the queries of Mr. Moore directly, we will ask a question. Why does he place the Apostolical Canons "at a very early date," and give to "some of them a date much earlier than A. D. 200," and quote them as denouncing those who practiced single immersion, if a not a single case of single immersion occurred before 1522? Was a practice which arose in the sixteenth century condemned by church authority in the second and third centuries? Perhaps some would ask, Why is not Mr. Moore consistent with himself in advocating his theory of three baptisms? We do not, however, ask this question, as we have very carefully examined his work and know why, without further inquiry.

We do not set aside immersion, though it was practiced in the first centuries associated with errors, because it is commanded in the Scriptures. And so of faith, repentance, etc. If these were so entirely dependent on historical evidence as trine immersion is, we should not regard them as evangelical truths. We do not receive immersion because it was practiced in the early centuries. We do not care what they did in the early centuries, so far as our duty is concerned. We know what they ought to have done in the early centuries, because we have "the law and the testimony," from which alone we derive our knowledge of moral and religious obligation. If they in the early centuries had strictly followed the Scriptures, and rejected philosophy and traditions, they never would have accepted pouring, sprinkling, trine immersion, or substituted the day of the sun for the Sabbath.

Mr. Moore speaks as though we tried to prove that trine immersion was not right, because errors existed in the early churches where it was practiced. If he had a little more power of discrimination we should say he knew better than to present us in such a light. We never attempted to prove or disprove the correctness of any belief or practice by the faith or actions of the early churches. We directly disavow any such intention in our work on baptism, as Mr. Moore must know if he reads it with any care. But the trine immersionists do attach great weight to the supposed fact that trine immersion was practiced in the early centuries. The strength of their argument, their chief dependence, is on history, as every one knows who is acquainted with their literature. An intelligent man in Oregon, who has been a trine immersionist for many years, said to us last summer, that he gave it up on reading our book on the subject. "When you took away our history," he said, "you took away our ground." Knowing the great importance which trine immersionists attach to the practice of the early centuries, we undertook to show by many other practices of those centuries that nothing should be accepted on such ground. Perhaps Mr. Moore cannot discern the difference between this position and

that which he imputes to us; but we are willing to rest it with the average reader for a decision. To carry out Mr. Moore's illustration : He claims that a certain object is gold because it was found in a certain hill. We claim that the reason is not sufficient, as it would argue that all the hill is gold. But it is dirt. Change your method of proof, sir, and all will be right. Drop your dirt-hill argument and trust to the crucible.