E have in the previous chapter given ample proof of the total want of documentary evidence, prior to the time of Tertullian, in favor of trine immersion. It might still not be perfectly safe to conclude that this mode of baptism rests exclusively upon tradition. The documentary evidence might be lost. We hence propose to show further that the weight of testimony, even in the times when trine immersion was so widely practiced, is in favor of its traditionary origin.

      A clear and distinct understanding of terms is one of the first requisites in all discussions. We should, therefore, first of all know what is meant by the word tradition; and especially that we clearly perceive the import of the term Apostolic tradition. The Greek verb paradidonai and the Latin verb tradere are synonymous. Their general meaning is to deliver from one to another, to transmit; or, as Dr. Hinsdale has defined the conjugate nouns, "the act of giving up, handing down, transmitting " (Tradition, p. 10). The instrument of transmission is oral language. Hence Webster's definition of tradition: "The unwritten or oral delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites, and customs [57] from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; the transmission of any opinions or practices from forefathers to descendants by oral communication, without written memorials."

      Apostolic tradition is commonly regarded as the oral deliverances of the Apostles contained in the writings of the Fathers. But what is peculiar about the tradition concerning trine immersion, the baptism of infants, &c., is that the Apostolic Fathers have no record of any such tradition. Hence, if we were to adhere to the first principle laid down by the Reformers as a body, even in a slightly modified sense, we could have no ground upon which to base trine immersion. They held that the word of God alone, by which they meant the written word or the Scriptures, could safely be accepted as a rule of faith. If the Fathers could be received at all, it is only in the light of witnesses, and fallible witnesses, to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We regard this as a sound principle. But judged by it, trine immersion must fall, since the Apostolic Fathers do not even appear as witnesses in favor of the interpretation of Scripture to sustain trine immersion.

      That we are not unsupported in the positive affirmation which we have made, that trine immersion rests wholly on tradition, will appear evident from quotations made from several eminent authors. Dr. Schaff, a man of great learning and an acknowledged authority on ecclesiastical history, says: "The old practice of a threefold immersion, which is first mentioned by Tertullian, is a venerable usage, but cannot be traced to the Apostolic age." Robinson says: "Trine immersion is of uncertain origin." Bingham, one of our best authorities on Christian antiquities, says: "Some [among ancient authors] derive it from Apostolic tradition, others from the first institution of baptism by our [58] Savior, while 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 Divine appointment." Mr. Chrystal, in his History of the Modes of Baptism, quotes some of the Fathers of the Church whose testimony, he states, indicates "that the number of immersions had come down by tradition." But he is equally positive that they do "not mean also that immersion, itself did."

      But these modern authors must derive their knowledge on this subject from works which have come down to us from the Fathers. We can therefore accept their testimony only when sustained by the proper documents, and as a confirmation of our interpretation of the terms of these documents. What we demand of others we cannot be slow to furnish ourselves. We hence produce the necessary testimony to show that anciently trine immersion was based (1) upon constructions of the text of Scripture; and (2) upon tradition.

      Theodoret speaks of "the law of holy baptism which had been handed down from the beginning from the Lord, and from the Apostles." Sozomen to the same effect, but in different and plainer terms, speaks of corrupting the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles." It will be noticed that both these authors, according, to the translator, employ the very words by which Dr. Hinsdale defines tradition--"handing down."

      Jerome (died A. D. 420), a contemporary of Chrysostom, Basil and others quoted in previous chapters, confirms the testimony of Sozomen. He rendered immense service to biblical criticism and exegesis; but he does not find any basis for trine immersion in the word, nor in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. His testimony is as follows: [59] "Many other things which are observed by tradition in the churches have acquired the authority of written law, as, for instance, to immerse the head thrice in the laver" (Adv. Lucif., chap. IV).

      Basil (died A. D. 379) furnishes strong testimony for our position. With others of the Fathers of the Church he speaks of immersion as having been established as an ordinance by the Lord, but that trine immersion was derived through tradition. Thus he says: "There is but one death for the world and one resurrection from the dead, of both which baptism [or immersion, as Chrystal renders it, an advocate of trine immersion] is a type. Therefore has the Lord, the dispenser of life, established the rite of baptism [immersion--Chrystal] for us, that it might afford a figure of death and life." But when he refers to the threefold baptism, or triple immersion, he states that it was derived through tradition (De Spirit. Sanct., c. XXVII).

      We have other witnesses to the same effect, but we do not deem it necessary to cite them all. There is one more, however, whose testimony it is needful to examine, as great reliance is placed upon what he says by those who advocate and practice trine immersion. We refer to Tertullian, who first mentions this mode of baptism. Our opponents contend that Tertullian does not say that in being "immersed three times [we] fulfill somewhat more than our Lord has declared in the Gospel." Mr. Chrystal contends "that Tertullian believed that all the baptisms of the New Testament performed after the words of the Commission were uttered, were performed by trine immersion," and "that he believed that Christ enjoined this mode" (Hist. Modes of Bap., p. 62). On the contrary, we have been led to believe that Tertullian intimates that it is of human origin in his belief when he says: "Then we are three [60] times immersed, answering [or fulfilling] somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the Gospel." This is Dr. Conant's translation, who is fully able to determine the meaning of Tertullian's words. And as quoted by Dr. Wall, Tertullian distinctly admits that the practice of trine immersion is without scriptural authority. He argues in favor of it precisely upon the same ground that he argues for other practices not of Apostolic origin; that is, uninspired tradition. An examination of his testimony will, we think, make this clear: The eleventh volume of the Ante-Nicene Library contains the first volume of the writings of Tertullian. The thirteenth division of this volume gives us the treatise entitled De Corona, important in its bearings both upon morals and doctrine. The very object of this treatise is to show that it is lawful to do things religiously which are not commanded in the Scriptures. Thus in the first paragraph he says: "But now, as they put forth also the objection: 'But where are we forbidden to be crowned?' I shall take this point up as more suitable to be treated of here, being the essence in fact of the present contention" (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. XI, p. 334). In the second paragraph he says: "Consider, then, whence the custom about which we are now chiefly inquiring got its authority." He admits that his opponents demand scriptural authority for the custom he was advocating, and he retorts: "Indeed, in urgently demanding the warrant of Scripture in a different side from their own [of their opponents] men prejudge that the support of Scripture ought no less to appear on their part" (Ibid, p. 335). But in these mutual demands for Scripture authority no progress can be made toward a solution. There must be a different principle of adjustment laid down, Tertullian would say. Hence in the third paragraph he says: "And [61] how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line [of each demanding Scripture of the other], when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state [of the question]. If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it" (Ibid, p. 336). But his opponents were not yet satisfied, for he proceeds: "Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded" (Ibid, p. 336). This he controverts. He declares that their practice in other respects shows that tradition, without written authority, is sufficient: "Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no case of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone" (Ibid, p. 336). In other words, if you deny us the right to observe certain practices upon tradition alone, then you must deny the right to all others. Then he brings forward certain matters based upon tradition, but which his opponents observed, saying: "To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel. Then, when we are taken up [as new-born children], we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all [alike]. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead [62] as birthday honors. We count fasting, or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day, unlawful" (Ibid, p. 336). The following paragraph, referring to these practices, opens thus: "If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer" (Ibid., p. 337).

      Trine immersion is introduced only in this connection, where Tertullian is speaking of practices for which "you will find no Scripture injunction." He also wrote a treatise (De Baptismo) on baptism, but he nowhere therein refers to the triple immersion. We have here a definite and positive reason for holding that Tertullian, the first to mention trine immersion, classes it among those practices for which if "you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none." Hence, also, he further says: "These instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition when it has been established by custom" (Ibid., p. 337).

      Others refer to the Commission in confirmation of the practice of trine immersion as of divine origin. This is the case with Monulus, A. D. 256, and Chrysostom, A. D. 400. But this is in no way reliable, and serves more as evidence that there was no early documentary proof of the practice.

      Concerning tradition as a valid ground for the practice of any rite, little need be said to the student of ancient ecclesiastical history. It is worthless for the purpose of establishing the Apostolic origin of any doctrine or practice. Indeed, it is rather good evidence to the contrary. The learned and acute Neander saw this, and hesitated not to avow it. Speaking of infant baptism he says: "We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from Apostolic [63] institution; and the recognition of which followed somewhat later, as an Apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis."

      Besides, no reliance is to be placed upon the claims of a practice based upon even so-called Apostolic tradition. That many customs and practices in the second, third and fourth centuries laid claim to the authority of the Apostles and Apostolic tradition, without a particle of evidence, is well known. Tradition, in these respects, has proved itself proverbially unreliable. Then, it is well-known that the term Apostle, as used by the Fathers of the Church, was not as definitely restricted as it now is. Thus Canon Farrar speaks of the "wider sense of the word Apostle, "as used in the writings of the early church (Early Days of Christianity, p. 46). Clemens Alexandrinus (died A. D. 220) calls Clement of Rome an Apostle, and Jerome says he was an Apostolical man. Accordingly, also, many things were reputed as scriptural which are not found in the accepted canon of the New Testament. Almost the entire Apocryphal was accepted as Scripture by some writers. Irenæus expressly quotes The Shepherd of Hermas under the very name of Scripture.

      It is, hence, sufficient reason for the rejection of a practice when we can find no better authority for it than can be produced in favor of trine immersion. It has been conclusively established that it rests wholly on tradition, and that even no record of it as a tradition can be found before the time of Tertullian. This is a notable fact. The institution of baptism is well authenticated. It rests directly upon the divine command, and is confirmed by an unbroken practice in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods. That baptism and immersion are synonymous is also abundantly verified, and that this was the practice of the Apostles and [64] Fathers is not subject to reasonable doubt. Why, then, should the threefold immersion fail to be recorded in a solitary instance before the close of the second century, if baptism was thus administered? And why should we then meet it in an apologetic attitude, begging for quarters because other practices, without divine or Apostolic warrant, were observed? Why should we then for the first time find even a record of the tradition upon whose authority alone it survived? Were there the least warrant for it in the word of God we should joyfully accept it, for that word is the supreme law of the Christian. But as there is no authority for it in God's book we are bound to reject it as of human origin. [65]

[TCO 57-65]