E have examined the testimony of two church historians touching the practice of trine immersion, in order to discover the extent of their knowledge with reference to the antiquity of this mode of baptism. As their testimony covers a period of one hundred years, from A. D. 323 to 427, during the whole of which they seem to affirm the existence of this practice, it is evident that they cannot speak from personal knowledge. We have, hence, a perfect right to ask for the testimony of other witnesses. We are freely accommodated in this respect, as our opponents recognize the justice of our demand. The first witness cited is Chrysostom. He assures us that "Christ delivered to his disciples one baptism in three immersions of the body, when he said to them, 'Go teach all nations,'" &c.

      It would be a justifiable act to reject this testimony entirely, if it may be dignified as testimony. The reason is, that it does not state a matter of fact at all, but simply gives an opinion. He does not say that trine immersion was practiced in his day, although we are ready to concede that it was. But his testimony is worthless to establish [26] that fact. Chrysostom wrote near the close of the fourth century. He is a competent witness as to what the practice of the church was in his time; but he cannot testify as to what Christ "delivered to his disciples." He is no better witness for a fact which transpired three hundred and fifty years before his time, than a man now is, though over one thousand eight hundred years have elapsed since it occurred. That the opinion cited as testimony was the prevailing opinion in the time of Chrysostom, we are not averse to granting; and yet he does not say so, and hence his testimony only establishes his own opinion. And as touching his opinion, we justly say as Augustine did of the authority of Cyprian: "His writings I hold not to be canonical, but examine them by the canonical writings; and in them, what agreeth with the authority of divine Scripture I accept, with his praise; what agreeth not I reject, with his leave." We are now as competent to determine what Christ delivered to his Disciples, as found in the words that Chrysostom quotes, as he was, and so cannot bow to his authority. So all authorities on rules of evidence decide.

      That we are not putting it too strongly when we say that the words quoted from Chrysostom do not prove that trine immersion was practiced in his day can be readily illustrated. Mark, he does not say it was practiced. Mr. Chrystal, in his History of the Modes of Baptism, declares just as unequivocally as Chrysostom, that "Christ delivered one baptism in three immersions." Yet Mr. Chrystal was an Episcopalians, and practiced as his Church does--sprinkling, and not trine immersion. So, from all that Chrysostom says, he may not have practiced trine immersion; although from other testimony we know that this mode of baptism was practiced in his time and country. He was a fellow [27] countryman of Theodoret, and lived between forty and fifty years earlier.

      The next witness is Augustine. He was nearly contemporaneous with Chrysostom, as the latter died in A. D. 407, and the former was not baptized until A. D. 387. He was baptized by Ambrose at Milan, in Italy, by what is often called the Ambrosian method of baptizing, indicating that it was sectional. He is supposed to have practiced trine immersion, for he says: "After you professed your belief, three times did we submerge your heads in the sacred fountain." This is all of his testimony that we have furnished us; and, supposing he refers to baptism, it is conclusive that he practiced trine immersion. But it will be noted that we are still nearly four hundred years from Christ, in the midst of a period in church history when the church was full of errors and heresies. We have not yet ascended to the age in which the Apostolic Fathers lived, and preached, and wrote. And those most intimately acquainted with the history of those early centuries know how many things were attributed to Christ and his Apostles of which they were not the authors. These men base their views on two things, namely: Tradition, generally so utterly worthless; and the interpretation of Christ's words, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This interpretation is decidedly suspicious the more natural it may appear to some. And especially so when we take into account the fact that there is an entire absence of any indications of such an interpretation until after the time of the Apostolic Fathers.

      The next witness is Ambrose, but fourteen years the senior of Augustine, having been born in A. D. 340. He became Bishop of Milan in A. D. 374. We have already referred to the Ambrosian method of baptizing, and have [28] assumed that this was trine immersion. Yet this is not certain. Ambrose himself speaks only of two immersions, a possible indication that the second and third were gradually added. He says: "Thou west asked, 'Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Thou saidst, 'I do believe,' and wast immersed, that is, thou wast buried. Thou wast asked again, Dost thou believe on our Lord Jesus Christ and his crucifixion? Thou saidst, 'I believe,' and wast immersed again, and so wast buried with Christ." We do not say that three actions were not common under Ambrose; but he certainly does not so testify. An advocate of trine immersion has acknowledged this. He says: "He only speaks of the two first actions in baptism; the other, in the name of the Holy Ghost, must be inferred." In that way it is easy to derive trine immersion by tradition from the Apostles. It is unscientific and misleading. It is known to all readers of church history that the distinct personality of the Son was first defined, and not until a later Council was the equally distinct personality of the Spirit accepted. Hence in the testimony of Ambrose we may have a hint as to the origin of trine immersion. We do not now affirm this, for it is not in evidence as yet; but we have ample reason to believe that such was the origin of the threefold immersion or baptism.

      The witness next cited is Basil, who died eighteen years earlier than Ambrose, but was born but twelve years earlier, in A. D. 328. He was a native of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia. He studied under the heathen philosophers at Athens, and then returned to his native city and became an advocate. He was ordained a Presbyter in A. D. 362; succeeded Eusebius as Bishop of Cæsarea in A. D. 370, and died in 379. He is quoted as saying: "In three immersions the great mystery of baptism is accomplished." Basil agrees [29] with the other witnesses from this region of the world, and so confirms their testimony as to the mode of baptism in his time. We are not aware that he says anything with reference to the re-introduction of single immersion by Eunomius, although he wrote a work of five books against Eunomius, entitled "Concerning the Holy Spirit." We have no occasion at this point to say anything about his testimony, except to note the fact that it speaks simply for his time. He does not indicate what the opinions were which prevailed relative to its origin. Doubtless he regarded it as of Apostolic origin, like the rest, handed down by tradition, as some of them specifically affirm. This point will receive special attention in a subsequent chapter.

      The friends of trine immersion delight in referring us to Cyril, for the reason that he was born at Jerusalem, where he was also successively ordained Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop. His career was a decidedly checkered one, and it is matter of doubt whether the fact of his nativity and official life at Jerusalem can add any weight to his testimony. He was twice deposed from the episcopate and finally banished by the order of the Emperor Valens, A. D. 367. He was elected Bishop in A. D. 351, after which date his testimony was written. His words are as follows: "After these things ye were led to the holy pool of divine baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to the sepulcher. And each of you was asked whether he believed, &c., and made that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and ascended again." This is clear testimony to the practice of trine immersion in the time of Cyril. He, however, gives us no light touching the origin of this mode of baptism. Whether he believed it to have been instituted by Christ or practiced by the Apostles we have no means of determining. [30]

      Next in order our opponents introduce the Apostolic Canons, claiming that they are to be placed somewhere between A. D. 315 and A. D. 200. It is confidently claimed that they "can be strictly relied upon in tracing Christian baptism from the birth of Cyril, A. D. 315, back to A. D. 200." We cannot concur in this opinion. No one who knows the historic facts, as now generally accepted, with reference to these Canons, will put any dependence upon them. One might, with equal propriety, quote the Apocrypha. Neander, the great church historian, says they are "spurious." With him concur nearly all the learned authors of our day. Not only are these Canons "spurious"; but there have been made extensive interpolations. Besides, they are of more recent origin shall our trine immersion friends are disposed to claim. The consensus of opinions on the whole question may be thus stated upon eminent authority: "The Constitutiones Apostolicæ were probably written about the end of the third century; while the seventh book, which is essentially an abridgment of them, may have belonged to the beginning of the fourth century. The Canones Apostolici, which were also recognized by the church, were composed at a later period." Now, it is the fiftieth of the Apostolic Canons which is quoted to establish the practice of a threefold immersion. We have no doubt of the existence of this mode at that time--in the fourth century--for we have other testimony to establish it. But we utterly reject the testimony of these Canons when adduced to prove the practice of trine immersion before the close of the third century, and for the sufficient reason that they were not then in existence. The fiftieth Canon 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 [31] 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."

      Doubtless this was the action of some Synod or Council, which had authority so to speak to Bishops and Presbyters generally within its jurisdiction. But this very Canon, which is cited to prove the existence and general practice of trine baptism in the Catholic Church, also proves that single immersion was then practiced. To what extent no one can affirm. We know, however, that practices were oftentimes imposed almost as innovations by many of the primitive Councils and Synods. And the severity of the penalty for violating the Canon indicates the danger. Single immersion, then, could not have been unknown, or a new thing in isolated communities. Hence, if the claim should be allowed that these Canons are valid evidence for the practice of trine immersion as early as A. D. 200, as is claimed; then are they also evidence for the existence of single immersion at that early date. But it is claimed that Eunomius originated single immersion. He was not ordained a Bishop until A. D. 360. Hence, these Canons could not have existed earlier. Our opponents must hence either reject these Canons as testimony in favor of trine immersion in A. D. 200, or else they will have to abandon their position that Eunomius originated single immersion.

      The next witness is one Monulus. Who he was, and when and where he lived, we have not been able to ascertain. We accept his testimony upon the authority of Cyprian. The latter was converted A. D. 246. He became bishop of Carthage A. D. 250, and suffered [32] martyrdom A. D. 258. It is said by our opponents, that "at the famous Council of Carthage" Cyprian is quoted as reporting Monulus as having used the following language: "The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church, hath always, my brethren, been with us, and doth yet abide with us, and 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.'"

      We have not been able to verify this quotation, though we have diligently examined the works of Cyprian. There are some rather suspicious circumstances connected with it. It is said that this language was used "at the famous Council of Carthage." No Ecumenical Council was ever held at Carthage. Various provincial councils and synods were held there, but they could hardly be regarded as "famous." But if Cyprian quotes these words of Monulus, it is probable they were spoken at a provincial council held at Carthage about A. D. 251, when a formal investigation was made into the case of the "lapsed," who had renounced Christianity during the persecution of Decius. Cyprian wrote a treatise de Lapsis, in which he discusses at length the question whether they should be re-baptized when restored. But then the bearing of this quotation upon such a question is not apparent. However, supposing that there is no mistake about it, and that it is genuine, it only serves to establish the fact that trine immersion existed in A. D. 251, and that it was practiced at Carthage for a considerable period prior to that date. As to its origin the testimony is not clear. Trine immersion is called "the true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic Church." But this "holy mother" has a large [33] family of unholy children, and we are not in doubt as to this one.

      This completes the evidence of trine immersion up to the time of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. With all its weak points and serious defects, we are not in doubt as to the verdict which it justifies. Evidently trine immersion existed during all the period covered by this testimony. But this is only what we conceded in advance. We admitted in the first chapter of this treatise "that trine immersion was practiced in the early part of the third century." The last witness testified in the middle of the third century, but assures us that it existed before that date. These witnesses, then, only prove what we were willing to grant in advance. It now remains to be seen whether we can be driven from our position, that there is no witness for trine immersion before A. D. 200. [34]

[TCO 26-34]