Trine Immersion by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 8, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 18.

Trine Immersion.

By Editor

WHY do we make two ceremonies of the Lord's Supper, and condemn the Dunkards for dividing the ordinance of baptism, when the grammatical construction of the words in each ordinance is so nearly alike? J. C.

ANS. In one we have the most explicit statement of the action of our Lord giving thanks twice; in the other we have neither Scripture, reason, nor the "grammatical construction of the words" to justify the dividing of the ordinance.

Matt. 26:26, 27, says: "Jesus took bread and blessed (gave thanks, margin; see other texts), and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them," &c. It is one ordinance, that is, the Lord's Supper, but thanks were given over each part of it.

Mark 14:22, 23: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and gave thanks, and break, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them."

1 Cor. 11:23-25: "The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup," &c. Now the quotations from Matthew and Mark plainly show that this expression, "after the same manner," refers to the act of giving thanks over the cup, as he had done over the bread. This plain testimony is our warrant for our practice of twice giving thanks. We do not twice give thanks for the bread, nor twice for the cup, but once for each different element used. So you see we do not rely upon any "grammatical construction of the words" in this case, but upon the clear statement of the facts. Now we may ask, Is there any relation of facts warranting three immersions, or three baptisms, as the Dunkards practice? There certainly is not. Therefore their claim and their argument cannot run parallel with ours.

Nor does the construction of the language warrant their practice; but, as we think, proves the contrary. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so closely united in the gospel—in the perfection of the "one body" in the "one hope"—that what is done in (into) the name of one is also in the name of the other. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;" the Son came not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him; in the process of this work, he prayed the Father and he sent the Holy Spirit in the name of his Son, who takes the things of Christ and shows them to his disciples; and eventually our mortal bodies shall be quickened by his Spirit which is given to us in Jesus' name. Thus the work of salvation, of sanctification, and redemption, is the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And we cannot see why it is more reasonable to perform three immersions to baptize or immerse a disciple in these names, than to make three collections to collect a bill due to a firm of three persons. One collection in the name of the three would be all that would be admissible if they were united in business—in partnership. Whereas to collect once for each separate name would be proof in itself that they were not united in business or interest.

Again, "the construction of the words" will not admit of that practice, for baptism and immersion are synonymous terms. Baptism means immersion literally. Therefore trine immersion, that is, three immersions, is equivalent to three baptisms. To deny this is to deny that immersion means baptism. But if immersion does mean baptism then whatever is added to immersion is also added to baptism, and trine immersion is trine baptism, something of which the word of God takes no account. Trine, according to Webster, means threefold; and there is as great difference between baptism and threefold baptism as there is between a house and three houses; or if there is not, we cannot tell why. But Paul says, "there is one baptism." Let that suffice. Nor will it answer to say, as some do, that it is one baptism with three immersions; for that is as unreasonable as to say it is one immersion with three baptisms, or one immersion with three immersions, or one baptism with three baptisms, which all mean precisely the same thing.

We should not have answered at such length, but the subject of three baptisms has often come before our people, and we trust that this may help them.