E have given our readers assurance that the requisite testimony connecting the practice of trine immersion, in the third century, with Apostolic example cannot be produced. We do not ask them, in so critical a matter as this, either to rely simply upon our affirmation, or to depend upon such historical testimony as we might be disposed to place before them. We shall hence proceed to furnish the testimony cited by our friends who believe in trine immersion, and then show of how much weight in a controversy this testimony really is. They frequently cite Doctor Wall, Doctor Hinton, and other modern authors. But these we dismiss at once, for their testimony is wholly second-handed. They must rely upon ancient authors to confirm their testimony; and we prefer to have these ancient authors cited at once. It is a recognized principle in all rules of evidence, that in testifying to a question of fact no man is a competent witness who lived after the fact, except in so far as he cites authorities or witnesses who lived at the time. Doctor Wall is only a witness to facts in his time, and is no better as an authority than any other person of requisite information. The same is true of Doctor Hinton. He lived long after the age in which trine immersion is said to have prevailed, and so cannot be [18] a competent witness to a matter of fact in the third century.

      In thus rejecting the testimony of authors in modern times we do simply what we have a perfect right to do, and what is done by controvertialists everywhere. This is in fullest accordance with the rules governing all proceedings in courts of justice. That which they affirm is not called in question; but their affirmations must be based upon the testimony of older witnesses, and we demand that these latter be produced. If this is not possible, whence did these modern witnesses derive their information? In matters of opinion or of exegesis the testimony of learned men of our times is as good as, and perhaps better than, that of the Fathers; but in matters of fact we must throw out all who were not eye-witnesses. In confirmation of this view we can cite authorities in abundance, and among them the very men who would be most benefited by a contrary rule. Common sense dictates that testimony to a matter of fact can only be received from those who witnessed the fact. Testimony to the existence of an opinion or belief is subject to the same rule, since opinions and beliefs are facts. What weight should be attached to an opinion in a case like the present, touching the origin of trine immersion, we shall examine later.

      With this matter definitely settled, we are prepared to hear testimony. On trine immersion, Sozomen, after modern authors, is usually the first witness cited. Can he be allowed to testify? Only as to facts of which he was a witness, and to the existence of opinions and traditions in his time. With Sozomen, the historian is usually coupled Theodoret, the theologian, because their testimony bears on the same point, and was delivered nearly at the same time. They were living cotemporaneously. [19] Sozomen was a lawyer, at Constantinople, as well as a church historian, and closed life and labors about A. D. 440. Theodoret was bishop of Cyrus, in Syria, closing his useful career about A. D. 457. We have already laid it down as a settled point that trine immersion existed more than a century before these dates; also, that single immersion had been revived some time before this, and so might reasonably dismiss these witnesses. But that our readers may see what weight is to be attached to their testimony, we shall produce it, and also briefly examine it.

      The testimony of Theodoret is as follows:

      "He (Eunomius) subverted the law of holy baptism, which had been handed down from the beginning from the Lord, and from the Apostles, and made a contrary law, asserting that it was not necessary to immerse the candidate for baptism thrice, nor to mention the names of the Trinity, but to immerse once only into the death of Christ."

      Sozomen says: "Some say that Eunomius was the first who dared to bring forward the notion that the divine baptism ought to be administered by a single immersion; and to corrupt the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles, and which is still observed among all. But whether it was Eunomius or any other person who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism," &c. This quotation gives the essential part of what this author says on the subject. Others are equally indefinite with reference to the author of the change spoken of.

      Now, what is this testimony worth ? What does it establish ? We will notice,

      1. A few facts concerning this testimony and these witnesses. Theodoret died in the year A. D. 457. How long before this his work on the History of the Church was written is not definitely known; but it closes with the year [20] 427. The most important part about it, touching our present subject, is that it embraces only a century; or, to be more precise, one hundred and two years, from 325 to 427. Hence, his testimony is not so valuable, since he does not inquire into historical facts which fall within an earlier period. As to baptism by a threefold immersion, he testifies that it was abandoned by Eunomius, though it "had been handed down from the beginning from the Lord" by tradition. Whether it was a true or false tradition he did not inquire. The history of Hermias Sozomenus covers nearly the same period. or from A. D. 323 to 423. Sozomen died A. D. 440. His testimony as to facts, beliefs and opinions touching trine immersion does not carry us beyond A. D. 323, or but two years further than the history of Theodoret. But facts to which they testify, which could not have come under their own observation, we need only accept upon the testimony of others who witnessed them. And, at best, their histories do not take us further back than the time in which we have already granted that trine immersion was practiced.

      2. Church historians at that early day were comparatively numerous, but most of them, like in the case of Sozomen and Theodoret, extended their histories over but brief periods. Socrates, also a jurist of Constantinople, composed a history extending from A. D. 306 to 439. He does not, we believe, cast any light on this question. It was, like the works of Sozomen and Theodoret, "a continuation" of an earlier history. Eusebius is called the father of church history. He wrote in the first half of the fourth century. His church history begins with the birth of Christ, and closes with the year 324. It is quite valuable in many respects, but it does not help our opponents in this controversy. While in several places he speaks of [21] baptism, he nowhere alludes to trine immersion as the original and Apostolic mode. He was preceded by Hegesippus, who lived in the middle of the second century. Only a few fragments of his work have been preserved; but these, while they refer to the Hemerobaptists, and to various points in the practice of the church, do also maintain complete silence on the subject of trine immersion. Now, it is rather singular that these earlier historians are so wholly silent on this point, if trine immersion was then practiced. Does it not seem apparent that their silence militates against the assumption that such a practice existed in those early ages of the church to which their histories specially relate? At any rate, later historians did not derive the information from them that trine immersion was handed down from the Apostles. It looks very much as if that were an opinion based upon exegesis, and not a fact of authentic history.

      3. Though already partly answered. we will still raise the question touching Sozomen and Theodoret, To what are they capable of testifying? To facts that came under their personal observation. If they testify to events before their time it must be upon the authority of others who were witnesses. They both testify that Eunomius favored single immersion; but Sozomen's testimony is of such a character as to cast doubt on the statement that Eunomius re-introduced single immersion. Hence, as far as this testimony is concerned, single immersion may have been practiced long before the time of Eunomius. For Sozomen says, "Some say that Eunomius was the first who dared to bring forward the notion that the Divine baptism ought to be administered by a single immersion." Further on he says: "Whether it was Eunomius or any other person." Observe that Sozomen lived seventeen years nearer [22] the time in which Eunomius flourished than did Theodoret, yet he was not as positive in his testimony that Eunomius introduced single immersion as Theodoret. Besides, Sozomen lived nearer to Cyzicum, of which Eunomius was bishop, than did Theodoret. Between the people of Constantinople, where Sozomen lived, and those of Cappadocia and Cyzicum, where Eunomius flourished there was constant communication, Cyzicum being not over seventy miles from Constantinople. But between Cappadocia and Syria there was little intercourse. It was also at Constantinople where Eunomius was tried for heresy. And being formally condemned for teaching the anomian doctrine of the Trinity, it is quite possible that errors and practices were ascribed to him incorrectly. Hence the uncertainty of the historian most likely to know. And, at any rate, if these two witnesses could not agree touching a matter of such recent occurrence, what dependence is to be put upon their testimony in reference to a matter of fact four hundred years old?

      4. It is also of moment to observe that neither of these witnesses testifies as to the practice of trine or single immersion outside of what was then already called the Catholic Church. Sozomen expressly designates the body of which he writes "The Catholic Church." It is well known that large bodies of Christians were then already regarded as outside the Catholic Church, and that the truth, in many instances, is to be found among them. It was common, as it yet is, among writers in the Catholic Church, to ignore these outside bodies altogether, or to make claims of antiquity for their own practices and ordinances not borne out by impartial history. Theodoret and Sozomen may Justly be classed among such historians, and their testimony may relate exclusively to practices in the Catholic Church, and to the [23] claims of Apostolic authority for the same. This may appear more clearly when further investigation has been made. Hence, outside the Catholic Church, and before its organization, and so before the time of Eunomius, single immersion may have prevailed for aught these witnesses say.

      5. Since these two witnesses do not positively testify as to who introduced single immersion, it follows that the documentary proof then extant was either conflicting or silent on this point. Then, too, there could be nothing positive as to time when single immersion was introduced into the Catholic Church. Sozomen declares that "some say" Eunomius introduced single immersion. He does not know; does not pretend to determine; could not determine who. He, a writer of an ecclesiastical history, born near the time when Eunomius was adjudged guilty of heresy, and living in the very city where the trial took place, and within seventy miles of the church of which Eunomius was bishop, was not able to determine the assumed fact that Eunomius introduced single immersion! Theodoret, living across the mountains in Syria, and among a people who had no intercourse of moment with the Cappadocians, was one of the "some" who said it was Eunomius. Other "some" asserted differently. Here, then, is one witness, unconfirmed by documentary evidence, who says it was Eunomius; while another witness, of his own time, declares that others believed differently. Now, it is somewhat strange that Sozomen, a historian, did not know in A. D. 440 who introduced single immersion, claimed to have had an existence less than a century, and that some modern authors should know it so positively, and yet should only have the testimony, such as it is, of Sozomen and Theodoret! [24]

      Weak and defective as the testimony is which we have been examining touching the origin of single immersion, we are willing to accept it as proving that trine immersion was generally practiced in the Catholic Church in the latter half of the fourth century. But there still remains a period of nearly four hundred years about which these witnesses do not, and cannot, testify, except upon documentary evidence. If they did, their testimony would be rejected as worthless in any court of justice, or according to the universally accepted rules of evidence. If they cannot agree as to a matter of fact of such supposed recent date as the introduction of single immersion by Eunomius, how are they to know of a certainty of much older facts? Tradition is utterly unreliable. They must be supported by documentary evidence. Eminent authorities support us in this view. Writing of diocesan episcopacy, Dr. Miller, formerly professor of ecclesiastical history in Princeton Theological Seminary, says on a point every way similar to this: "Suffer me, my brethren, again to remind you of the principle upon which we proceed in this part of our inquiry. If it would be demonstrated from the writings of the Fathers, that in one hundred, or even in fifty years [in four years or four centuries, he remarks in another place], after the death of the last Apostle, the system of diocesan episcopacy had been generally adopted in the church, it would be nothing to the purpose."

      It is, therefore, of no account to prove that trine immersion prevailed in the Catholic Church, A. D. 440, or during the hundred years preceding, if Christ did not institute it. And as for tradition respecting its Apostolic origin, that has no weight, as we shall have occasion to show in a subsequent chapter. [25]

[TCO 18-25]