HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 16, 1878

HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)*

Eld. Moore highly indorses Quintner’s efforts in favor of their system, but his own pamphlet is much more ample in historical references.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

JUSTIN MARTYR,

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. 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 fair construction can trine immersion be inferred from his language.

The next witness quoted nearest to the time of the apostles is

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.

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 must say of this as we said of Theodoret: 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 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 this 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.

We do not look upon this, however, as upon the testimony cited from Justin. If this should prove to be genuine, which we have good reason to doubt, we must remember that trine immersion was recognized in Africa earlier than anywhere else; and that Africa was, at that very time, the very hot-bed of superstitious innovations in the Christian faith. See Milner, as before quoted.

TERTULLIAN.

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’s 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 text 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.

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.

The first name given by Bingham among those who held that trine immersion came from the appointment of the Saviour, is that of Chrysostom; but Chrysostom lived two centuries this side of Tertullian, in a day when traditions were more firmly established as authority in the church. In a review of the whole ground we shall refer to Tertullian again. We will briefly notice

MR. REEVES.

This is a witness of great importance to trine immersionists. It is his opinion which makes the “fair argument” that Justin Martyr believed in trine immersion. Mr. Reeves has stated the strong argument, in his own mind, for that practice, in the following words:—

“The ancients carefully observed trine immersion, insomuch that, by the ‘Canons Apostolical,’ either Bishop or Presbyter who baptized without it was deposed from the ministry.”

That somebody believed in and practiced trine immersion at an early age in the Christian church, we do not deny. But we wish the reader to bear in mind that we are now searching for the authority for the practice. Mr. Reeves has been quoted with great confidence, and he refers to his authority. This same authority is elsewhere given by Eld. Moore, so we will now notice

“THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS.”

Of these Eld. Moore says: “These ‘Canons, which consist of eighty-five ecclesiastical laws, contain a view of the church government among the Greek and Oriental Christians in the early centuries of the Christian religion’ (Mosheim, vol. 4, p. 44), and can be relied upon in tracing Christian baptism back to a very early date. Some learned men, who have made profound researches respecting the origin of these Canons, have assigned to some of them a date much earlier than A. D. 200.

“The fiftieth of the Apostolical Canons reads as follows: ‘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; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O Bishops, immerse thrice—into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ by the Spirit.’—Quintner and McConnell’s Debate, p. 114.”

This is that to which Mr. Reeves refers; but he does not say one word as to its date, origin, and authenticity. It was of course written by somebody, and that somebody believed in three immersions. But who it was, and when he wrote, nobody knows. It was a very common practice in those days of pious forgeries to label their writings apostolical, or to ascribe them to some worthy Christian, to give them weight among those who did not stop to discriminate between the true and the false.

These Canons are from unknown sources. They did not all come into notice at one time. Notice that Mr. Moore says: “Some learned men . . . have assigned to some of them a date much earlier than A. D. 200.” But of the one in question, the fiftieth, he says nothing. He must have known some of the facts respecting it, and to endeavor to give authority to this by speaking a good word for “some of them,” savors much of the same spirit which originated them. Of the Canons Dr. Schaff says:—

“They are evidently of gradual growth, and were collected either after the middle of the fourth century, or not till the latter part of the fifth, by some unknown hand, probably also in Syria.”

These Canons are found, with notes, in a “History of Christian Councils,” by Bishop Hefele, of Germany. Appended to Canon 50, the one quoted above, is this remark:—

“This Canon is among the most recent of the collection. It is not known from what source it is derived.”

For the present we dismiss the Canons Apostolical, willingly according to the trine immersionists all the honor they acquire by the use which they make of them.

Preceding these Canons, in point of chronology, comes the testimony of

MUNNULUS, BISHOP OF GIRBA.

His words, claimed in favor of three immersions, were spoken in the seventh Council of Carthage, held under Cyprian, A. D. 256. There were eighty-five bishops present. The sole object of this council was to settle the question of the validity of baptism administered by heretics; and the unanimous testimony was that those who had been baptized by heretics must be baptized again, if they would enter the Catholic or orthodox church. Not one word was spoken against their mode or form of administering it; only that it was invalid, or no baptism at all, because it was by the hands of a heretic. Cyprian preserved on record the decision of each member of the council. We give specimens that the animus of the council may appear. Januarius of Muzzuli said:—

“I am surprised, since all confess there is one baptism, that all do not perceive the unity of the same baptism. For the church and heresy are two things, and different things. If heretics have baptism, we have it not; but if we have it, heretics cannot have it. But there is no doubt that the church alone possesses the baptism of Christ, since she alone possesses both the grace and the truth of Christ.”

Alypius of Ausvaga said: “We have received one baptism, and that same we maintain and practice. But he who says that heretics also may lawfully baptize, makes two baptisms.”

The following we copy from Eld. Moore’s book:—

“A. D. 256, while at the famous Council of Carthage, Munnulus made use of the following language in one of his speeches, preserved by Cyprian: ‘The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church, hath always, my brethren, been with us, and doth yet abide with us, especially in the article of baptism, and the trine immersion wherewith it is celebrated; our Lord having said, “Go ye, and baptize the Gentiles, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”’—Works of Cyprian, Part 1, p. 240.”

The following, as the words of Munnulus, we copy from Cyprian’s records of this council, in his Works, vol. 2, p. 204:—

“The truth of our Mother, the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, ‘Go ye and baptize the nations in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Since, then, we manifestly know that heretics have not either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, they ought, when they come to the church our Mother, truly to be born again, and to be baptized; that the cancer which they had, and the anger of damnation, and the witchery of error, may be sanctified by the holy and heavenly laver.”

We fear the same liberty was taken with the words of Munnulus that was taken with the history of Sozomen. That which was called by him “the trinity of baptism,” is, by those who use his testimony to uphold a tradition, called “baptism, and the trine immersion,” &c. The difference is material, there is a reduplication of the term baptism, or immersion, and the duplicate thus becomes a word of explanation, just such as we find inserted in the words of Sozomen.

But the query may arise, What did he mean by “the trinity of baptism”? He explains this himself; we, says he, baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Spirit, while heretics have neither Father, Son, nor Holy Spirit. Thus, instead of three immersions he refers to the three persons involved in the act of baptism. And the same idea is still more clearly expressed by other early authors. Thus in Clement’s “Recognitions,” Book 3, chap. 67, as follows:—

“But every one of you shall be baptized in ever-flowing water, the name of the Trine Beatitude being invoked over him.”

And again twice in his “Homilies,” thus:—

“Washing in a flowing river, or in a fountain, or even in the sea, with the thrice blessed invocation, you shall not only be able to drive away the spirits which lurk in you,” &c.—Hom. 9, chap. 19.

“For there is something that is merciful from the beginning borne upon the water, and rescues from the future punishment those who are baptized with the thrice blessed invocation.”—Hom. 11, chap. 26.

We are well aware that the “trine beatitude,” or “thrice blessed invocation,” drawn directly from the words of the Scriptures, was soon made the foundation of three-fold baptism, not at all based on the Scriptures, but resting on tradition only. We do not care to follow the historical testimony further, because volumes of tradition have no weight with us, and this is proved to have no other origin.

(To be Continued.)*