HEN the concession is made, as in our previous chapter, that in the early part of the third century trine immersion was practiced, and that it became quite general before the close of that century, the question arises, What bearing has this concession, this fact, on the point at issue? In other words: Do the two points which we have been willing to accept as settled furnish the requisite premises from which to draw the conclusion of our opponents that trine immersion is of Divine or Apostolic origin? Certainly not. No logician would tarnish his reputation by making such an affirmation. These points do not settle the question as to the origin of single immersion. They do not even touch it. The fact that trine immersion was not only known, but generally practiced by the end of the third century; the fact that it was practiced, to some extent, at least before the middle or at the beginning of the third century, as we have admitted, does not in itself prove that it was instituted by Christ and practiced by the Apostles. And yet, despite this fact, we shall show that the weight of historical testimony is of even more recent times than the date to which our first point refers. [12]

      But we are not willing to rest the position here taken on a mere affirmation. It is a conceded principle that what holds good in one case equally holds good in all like cases; that like rules govern like facts. Hence, what we are disposed to grant or demand in one case, we shall not hesitate to demand or grant in all similar cases. If we are to accept one practice as Apostolic or Christly in its origin, which existed early in the third century of the Christian era, so will we, for no other reason, ask that our opponents grant a similar origin to any thing else then existing and claiming divine origin. And what we are disposed to ask we shall not feel disinclined to grant. Are our opponents willing to be governed by this principle? They find trine immersion in the third century. They find authors in the third century possibly who claim that it was practiced by the Apostles, but of such practice they can find no examples and can produce no evidence. Upon the strength of the statements made by these authors, and upon their opinions, they insist that trine immersion is of Apostolic origin. They should strive to be consistent. Tertullian is the first author who mentions trine immersion, but he does not claim that it was instituted by Christ. Just what he says, and what weight to attach to his testimony, we do not now inquire. That he testifies to the practice of trine immersion we now state as a simple fact. But Tertullian also testifies to the practice of infant baptism in his time, though advocates of this practice call him "that ancient adversary," because he argues in favor of delaying it, though we believe he nowhere speaks of it or opposes it as unscriptural or as an innovation. Irenæus, who lived before Tertullian, is also said to have written of infant baptism. He was a scholar of Polycarp, "through whom he may be regarded as having sat at the feet of St. John, the Apostle [13] and Evangelist." But these authors speak of infant baptism as a matter of fact, and are not giving opinions. They testify as strongly to its Apostolic origin as others do to the Apostolic origin of trine immersion. Now, if their testimony in the one case is good, why is that of others not good in the other? If the existence of trine immersion in the third century, together with the then existing tradition that it was of Apostolic origin, is to be accepted as conclusive of such origin, why are not similar testimony and tradition conclusive in the case of infant baptism? Our answer is as follows: The conclusion in the one case is as legitimate as in the other. We reject both, because we do not find them instituted by Christ or practiced by his immediate Disciples and Apostles. In the case of feet-washing the facts are reversed. There we find a command given by Christ, and this command taught and obeyed by the Disciples. Hence we accept that as an ordinance. Here we consistently reject both infant baptism and trine immersion, because their earliest observance is not connected with a command of Christ or practice by the Apostles. Our opponents on single immersion inconsistently, and for no good reason, accept the testimony of history and tradition for trine immersion, and reject it for infant baptism.

      Now, in view of these evident and conclusive principles, it must be, at least, clearly evident what the force of the admission is which we made in our first point. It will, also, the more be clear that in examining testimony of a historical character, we would not need to concern ourselves with anything that took place in the third century, or since the time of Tertullian, or, at least, after A. D. 300. For when our opponents insist on proving the origin of single immersion, after the close of the third century, they introduce a question about which we do not need to trouble ourselves, at least not in a direct manner. That single [14] immersion was revived in the fourth century, we know; but just when, and how, and by whom, are questions that may be laid aside. It is the origin of trine immersion into which we are inquiring. And here the one great thing, on the part of our adversaries, which is lacking to make their argument conclusive, is the PROOF THAT TRINE IMMERSION IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN, THAT IT WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST. It is a question of fact, and not of opinion, or of tradition. It is too hazardous to accept every practice and doctrine which these early authors represent as having come down the stream of tradition. If we should accept trine immersion because it was already practiced in Tertullian's time, and was claimed soon after as an Apostolic tradition; for the same reason we should have to receive every thing else which marred the symmetry of the church in those times, and encumbered divinely instituted ordinances. We should then adopt the sign of the cross, the sacramental use of honey, and the anointing with oil in connection with baptism. These rest upon the same authority with trine immersion.

      Neither, in this controversy, can we be called upon to prove a negative, and so to establish the fact that trine immersion was not of Apostolic origin, or was not practiced in the first and second centuries. We need simply to point to the total absence of proof that it was, unless such proof should be produced; to the fact that it finds no place in the New Testament; to the fact that it was defended on the ground of tradition alone, just like many other unscriptural practices. And this, of course, we shall do. But otherwise, until our friends who advocate trine immersion produce some reliable evidence that it was instituted by Christ, and practiced by his Apostles, the advocates of single immersion have but little to do.

      As to the origin of single immersion in post-Tertullian [15] times there is not much dispute, although there is some difference of opinions as to the leading agent. It is generally affirmed that, in the fourth century, single immersion had its origin with one Eunomius, bishop of Cyzicum, probably from A. D. 360 to 394, in which year he died (Lardner). We care not to dispute this point, though it was doubted in a much earlier age. Probably Eunomius in one place, and others in other places and at different times, re-introduced single immersion both before and after A. D. 400; but we deny the implied assumption that trine immersion had been the practice from the days of the Apostles down to that time. We are going up the stream of history, and not down. We have granted all that is claimed as early as Tertullian's time, except the universality of trine immersion. But in making this concession, and especially in granting the agency of Eunomius and others in the revival or re-introduction of single immersion in the latter half of the fourth century and earlier, we in nowise concede anything touching the position of our opponents on the question of the Apostolic origin of trine immersion. We do so upon the primary fact of the absence of a word of command from Christ directing the performance of trine immersion, and the consequent absence of evidence of such a practice by the Apostles; and also upon the generally-conceded fact that the stream of tradition, out of which trine immersion was fished, also brought down to Tertullian's time many other unscriptural practices to which the church has tenaciously adhered.

      There is also another matter of grave moment that should not be overlooked in this connection. We refer to the well-known fact that in Tertullian's time, and even somewhat earlier, there already appeared the germs of the Catholic Church ; and that those who claimed to belong to it [16] often ignored in their writings everything outside of said Church, and vice versa. Herein is one of the reasons of the apparent conflict of historical testimony on many points, and that general chaos which so often seems to reign in the historical documents of those early years. This fact largely influenced the writers of that period in their views and opinions, as is evident in the case of Tertullian himself. He became a staunch defender of Montanism. Before that he was a "Catholic." The Shepherd of Hermas was then already extant. Tertullian had praised this book as a Catholic, but he abused and denounced it as a Montanist.

      Besides this, the important fact should be kept in mind that the churches fin the various countries in which they were established were not in such close communication, nor as thoroughly unified and bound together as a given Church or denomination is at the present time. The church in one country often drifted entirely away from the prevailing practices and doctrines of the churches in other countries. On this account the testimony of a bishop even like Tertullian may be very misleading as to any other country than the one in which he lived and about which he testifies. And even on this question there is at least good ground for advising our readers in advance of this fact. Hence, in so far as our discussion has already carried us, there is nothing logically and conclusively established in favor of trine immersion, and that for the simple reason that the point at issue, being a question of fact, has no authentic testimony in its favor for Apostolic times in tee views and practices of a later period. Our opponents here generally assume the strategical point which they ought to, but which they cannot, prove--the practice, by the Apostles and Apostolic Fathers, in obedience to Christ's word of command, of a threefold immersion for the one baptism. [17]

[TCO 12-17]