REASONS FOR THREE IMMERSIONS.
By James White
A most important point remains to be noticed. It is that of the reasons offered for three immersions. It will generally be found that in regard to religious rites and institutions, scriptural reasons and scriptural methods stand or fall together. When any people give an unscriptural reason for their practice, the presumption is that their practice is itself unscriptural, or a perversion of Scripture. Very early in the Christian church, reasons were assigned for three immersions which are either contrary to the Scriptures, or others than those given in the Scriptures. While on the other hand, wherever we find "one baptism" literally and strictly followed, there we find the scriptural reason assigned for the action. 1. Paul says we are baptized into the Saviour's death, and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. But this reason was not only ignored, but condemned, by those who advocated three immersions. This speaks more against the theory and practice than whole volumes of history can speak in its favor. It brands it as an innovation, setting aside both gospel faith and gospel practice. Speaking of trine immersion, Bingham says:— "Two reasons are commonly assigned for this practice: 1. That it might represent Christ's three days' burial. . . . 2. Another reason was that it might represent their faith in the holy Trinity." Pope Gregory the Great wrote to one who inquired of this:— "Concerning the three immersions in baptism, you have judged very truly already, that different rites and customs do not prejudice the whole church, whilst the unity of faith remains. The reason why we use three immersions (at Rome) is to signify the mystery of Christ's three days' burial, that whilst an infant is thrice lifted up out of the water, the resurrection on the third day may be expressed thereby." This reason is unscriptural and inconsistent. We are baptized into Christ's death; he died but once. We are raised in the likeness of his resurrection; he was raised but once. "Thrice lifted up out of the water" cannot be made to represent his resurrection, even though a great pope says it; while the Scriptures say nothing at all of the three days being represented by baptism. The very first witness claimed by trine immersionists as speaking in favor of the practice, gives the same unscriptural reason. This is Clement of Alexandria. We believe that the testimony is apocryphal; but if it is not, it only serves to show how very early this erroneous view was grafted into the Christian faith. These are the words ascribed to Clement:— "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." Thus this testimony, whatever its origin, stands self-condemned, as being directly outside of the scriptural ideas of baptism. It is based on a false view of the ordinance. And the famous fiftieth "Apostolical Canon," which does such good service in the cause of trine immersion, says:— "If any bishop or presbyter do not perform three immersions of one initiation, but one immersion which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deposed." The word of the Lord is yea and amen, not yea and nay. If we had no other evidence that the three-immersion theory is based on a false construction of our Lord's commission, this is sufficient, that it could only be maintained by setting aside the words of Paul in Rom. 6. There is no discrepancy in baptizing into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and baptizing into the death of Christ, if we preserve, in the action, the likeness of his burial and resurrection. But it was clearly seen by the originators and early advocates of three immersions, that that practice could never be harmonized with the words of Rom. 6. Therefore an order of deposition was issued against any one who baptized into the death of Christ, notwithstanding that such was the baptism of the gospel according to the writings of the apostle Paul, not according to "apostolical tradition." And not only the early advocates of three baptisms denied the words of the apostle on this subject, but their followers of the present day maintain the same unscriptural position. Thus Mr. Moore, speaking of the words imputed to Clement, says:— "Christ was placed in the grave, they in the water; Christ three days, they three times." It is only by a wondrous strain of the language that any analogy can be found between three immersions and lying three days in the grave. If Christ had been buried once each day, or had three times died and been buried, then they would have a case. But as he died once, and was buried once, and was raised up once, we can be baptized into the likeness of his death and raised in the likeness of his resurrection only by a single burial or immersion, and a single rising out of the water. And all the flourish about "the fathers" well understanding the Greek language, amounts to nothing on this question. The Greek can never be forced to favor "three baptisms," three burials, or three resurrections. Good common sense and reverence for the exact words of Scripture are quite as essential as a knowledge of the Greek. We know that these same fathers were advocates of innovations and absurdities in both faith and practice. And we are assured that if they speak not according to the law and the testimony their words are not light, but darkness. Again: Mr. Moore makes the Scriptures conflict with themselves in the following language:— "The law of holy baptism demands that all persons should be baptized 'into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' while the contrary law requires baptism 'into the death of Christ.'" We know not in what words to express our surprise that a man should quote the exact words of Scripture which refer to baptism, and denounce them as a "contrary law" and a perversion of the doctrine of baptism! The words of Rom. 6:3-5 are as follows:— "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." These words, according to Eld. Moore, contain the "contrary law" which he and his associates refuse to follow! We fully agree with him that it contains a rule clearly and explicitly contrary to "trine immersion." But we never shall admit that these words of Paul are contrary to the commission of the Saviour while we retain any reverence and respect for the Bible. One thing is now most clearly proved, which is this: ROM. 6:3-5 IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS PUT UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE TRINE IMMERSIONISTS. This is proved by their arguments and their own admissions. The conflict is evident and the issue is a plain one. And one question alone remains: Which is correct, Rom. 6:3-5, or their construction of the commission? We are at no loss for the answer. We do not see how any one can have confidence in their view of the commission while it involves such a plain contradiction of the Scriptures. The trine-immersion theory stands self-condemned.