AMILIAR mainly with ecclesiastical history of the present time, the accuracy with which dates and events are recorded and preserved, and the tenacity with which established usages are maintained, the change from single to trine immersion as early as A. D. 220 seems to many almost incredible. How could such an innovation become established? That this is possible, not to say natural, seems evident upon a somewhat careful investigation. This is so generally conceded, in the abstract, that no cautious critic of the present age would feel safe to trust to tradition in the absence of Scripture testimony. Nothing is clearer to men thoroughly conversant with ancient ecclesiastical history than that the existence of a practice, or the belief of a doctrine, one, two or three centuries after the days of the Apostles, is no proof whatever that it was instituted by Christ or taught and practiced by the Apostles. The reason for this principle must be evident. Great changes in doctrine, practice and polity took place within almost hearing distance of the Apostles. To this effect it is not difficult to cite a large number of authorities. Dr. Miller, whose learning and integrity as a church historian cannot [66] be called in question, says: "Before the close of the second century the scene began to change, and before the commencement of the fourth, a deplorable corruption of doctrines, discipline and morals had crept into the church and disfigured the body of Christ." Hegesippus, the earliest of the post-Apostolic Christian church historians, born at the beginning of the second century and died about A. D. 180, declares that the "virgin purity of the church was confined to the Apostles." Irenæus even speaks of Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, as the "author of all heresies." He was himself the founder of a sect, though recognized in the New Testament rather as a man of immoral character, but not as a heretic (Acts 8). President Hinsdale, of Hiram College, Ohio, speaking of Human Tradition, says: "Many innovations in the doctrine and polity of the church are traceable to the second and third centuries" (Eccl. Tradition, p. 28). Again, he says: "Doctrines and rites unknown to the Apostles, but invented by men, in continually increasing numbers, were receiving recognition in the church" (Ibid, p. 47).

      These innovations and errors of doctrine were almost invariably based on tradition, though sometimes they claimed the direct and written authority of the Apostles. The circumstances were all favorable for the introduction of innovations in practice and heresies in doctrine. Their very multiplicity, and variety, and want of harmony with divinely delivered doctrines and rites, increase the probability of a departure in the case of baptism from the extreme simplicity of the first institution. And then, too, it is not to be overlooked that this threefold immersion into "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," has the appearance of an emendation. Under the most famous of all canons of criticism, "to choose the [67] harder reading" where there are various readings, this practically emended reading of the Commission becomes increasingly suspicious. It looks like an after-thought, to conform the practice to a supposed necessity of the sacred text.

      But let us instance some of the innovations which came into the church about the time, or before the time, that we find trine immersion first mentioned. By comparison we shall be able readily to see that there is nothing peculiar in the fact that trine immersion should be introduced into the church without a shadow of Divine or Apostolic authority. We have seen that Tertullian is the first to mention trine immersion. He died A. D. 220, and his works were principally written in the closing decade of his life. According to his testimony there were those in his day who utterly rejected baptism. In his treatise De Baptismo, chapter I, he says: "The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism" (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. XI, p. 231). Again he testifies that these rejecters of baptism argued in favor of their position from the fact that Christ did not baptize (Ibid, p. 244); and "that the Apostles were not baptized" (Ibid, p. 245), adding the following: "Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say: 'Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith'" (Ibid, p. 247). Again he says: "But they roll back [upon us an objection] from [that] Apostle [Paul] himself, in that he said: 'For Christ sent me not to baptize'; as if by this argument baptism were done away" (Ibid, 248). [68] These believed, not simply upon tradition, but upon Apostolic authority, that ritual baptism was no longer required.

      But this erroneous doctrine, so sharply repudiated by Tertullian, was not as new as one might suppose from his writings. It had just been introduced in Africa, but in other parts it had been preached at an earlier date. Thus Irenæus, who died about twenty years before Tertullian, speaking of some of the heretical Valentinian Gnostics says: "Some of them say that it is needless to bring the person to the water at all" (Studies on the Baptismal Question, p. 267). That is, they did not regard it needful to baptize their converts. From the testimony of the same author we learn that others of the Gnostics had a substitute for baptism in the form of an unguent made of "a mixture of oil and water" (Ibid, p. 267). In this way innovations were introduced in one part of the church, in some instances, long before they were received elsewhere. And this does not appear singular when the facts are fully known touching, the formation of the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures. The facilities for detecting and exposing errors and innovations which we now possess did not then exist. It was not uncommon for some of these parties in the church to reject large portions of the present New Testament, and even to go so far as to repudiate the Apostle Paul, as the Elcesaites and Ebionites did; or to stigmatize him as a heretic, as others did. Indeed, it was not a determined question as to what the Canon of the New Testament Scriptures really is until after the close of the third century. Some portions of the church had nothing of our present New Testament except a "corrupted recension of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew." Practices and doctrines hence became current in some localities whence they were carried to others as Apostolic and accepted as such. [69]

      One of the most serious departures from scriptural practices found in the patristic period is that of infant baptism. Trine immersion was a harmless innovation and an indifferent modification of an established rite compared with an entire and essential change of the subjects of the rite. And yet this change was partly effected at quite as early a date as the first recorded testimony for triple immersion. And a persistent effort was made even then to base it upon Apostolic teaching and practice. Texts of Scripture were quoted showing that infant baptism was an Apostolic usage; and that, too, by the same authors who testify in favor of trine immersion, but who base it most generally upon tradition. Tertullian is said to have first written about infant baptism. So Venema testifies. He says: "Nothing can be affirmed with certainty concerning the custom of the church before Tertullian, seeing there is not anywhere, in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism." Pengilly positively states that the passage to which Venema alludes, contains "the first mention of infant baptism" (Guide to Baptism, p. 60). The mention of infant baptism by Tertullian occurs in his work entitled De Baptismo, which is supposed to have been written A. D. 204. We concede that this. so far as terms are concerned is correct; but Venema's cautious statement: "Nothing can be affirmed with certainty"--is better. For it is in dispute whether Irenæus, who wrote a little earlier than Tertullian, mentions infant baptism. Among the terms used in the primitive church to designate baptism, in addition to baptizein and derived words, were laver, font, regeneration, seal, illumination, &c. It is hence not uncommon for patristic writers to speak of those who were baptized as having been regenerated--born again. Tertullian does this frequently, as well as other writers of his time [70] (Trench's Synonyms of N. T.; Tertullian de Baptismo, et al.). Irenæus in his book against Heresies ( lib. III, cap. 39 al. 22,) says that our "Lord came (into the world) in order that through himself he might save all men, infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elders, even all who through him are regenerated (born again) unto God." Dr. William Smith says: "No unprejudiced interpreter acquainted with the forms of speech habitually employed by Irenæus himself, and by the early Fathers generally, will doubt that when Irenæus thus speaks of infants and little ones, as well as others of more mature age, being 'born again unto God,' he refers to the fact of their being baptized" (Dict. Chr. Ant., Vol. I, p. 169). We do not propose to decide this question, although we have no doubt that the preponderance of probabilities seems to favor Dr. Smith's positive opinion.

      Evidently our trine immersion friends must agree with Dr. Smith, and hold that "no unprejudiced interpreter acquainted with the forms of speech habitually employed by Irenæus himself, and by the early Fathers generally, will doubt that when Irenæus thus speaks of infants and little ones, as well as others of more mature age, being 'born again unto God,' he refers to the fact of their being baptized." To be consistent they cannot avoid this. They quote Justin, who died about twenty-five years before Irenæus, which they translate as follows: "Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were baptized" (Trine Im. traced to the Apost., p. 26). But Justin did not use the word baptize, but the word regenerate. If regenerate means baptism in the writings of Justin, who died 176, because it is supposed to have a favorable bearing on trine immersion, why does it not also mean baptism [71] in the writings of Irenæus who died A. D. 202? The simple fact that the latter refers to infants is, in itself, no reason for insisting that it does not mean baptism; and more especially so when we know that inside of twenty years after his death infant baptism is acknowledged to have been practiced. We are as ready to believe that the one speaks of baptism as the other; but unfortunately for the advocates of trine immersion, Irenæus then clearly testifies to infant baptism, but Justin does not so clearly speak of triple immersion. For to be "regenerated by the same method of regeneration with which we also ourselves were regenerated" is an expression every way consistent with single immersion. We are hence forced to the conclusion that if there is ample ground in patristic testimony to justify the church in the practice of triple immersion, so is there, also, ample ground to justify it in the practice of infant immersion. We reject both, neither for want of patristic evidence of their practice, nor a difference in the strength of the evidence for the two practices; but because, in despite of this evidence, we can find no proof of Divine or Apostolic authority for such practices.

      Origin, who died A. D. 254, also speaks in unmistakable terms of infant baptism, and calls it "a rite derived from the Apostles" (Hagenbach's Hist. Doc., Vol. I, p. 201). His own words are as follows: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants."

      Ambrose, who died A. D. 390, says: "Infants that are baptized are reformed back again from wickedness to the primitive state of their nature." Chrysostom, as well as many others, testifies in similar terms.

      Cyprian, who died A. D. 258, speaks for himself as follows: "As far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be [72] lost. It is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God; which rule, as it holds to all, so we think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants." In the same year he wrote a letter to Fidus, stating what had been done on this subject by a Council of sixty-six bishops, which was held at Carthage, in Africa. He says: "But as regards the case of infants, who you say should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that respect should be had to the law of the ancient circumcision, whence you think that one newly born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all in our Council thought very differently."

      It is unmistakably evident, therefore, that infant baptism rests on an equally good foundation with triple immersion. By infant baptism, of course, immersion is meant. Other slight innovations in connection with baptism also occurred at this early period. Thus, for instance, self-immersion was practiced by some. Others contended for the validity of baptism in sand in case a man was converted on the desert and in danger of dying before he could reach water. The validity of baptism in wine was also seriously advocated; but it was only allowed in cases of the last necessity. Among a people and in an age where such predispositions prevailed it would rather be a strange thing if trine immersion had not taken the place of the single immersion of Apostolic times.

      But changes in the ordinance of baptism were not limited to subjects, mode and element. The seed was also planted in the third century from which has grown the prepossessing but pernicious tree of perfusion--pouring and sprinkling--resulting in an entire change of the action of baptism. This change in the action of baptism had its origin in clinic baptism, that is, the pouring of water upon sick persons, [73] in their beds, in place of immersion. It was a substitute permitted only in extreme cases, and because of the assumed essentiality of baptism to salvation. The first known instance of affusion was the case of Novatian, some time before A. D. 251. And although there was serious objection taken later to his election as Bishop of Rome, "an objection in which all the clergymen united" (Pergilly's Guide to Baptism, p. 77); yet the act of affusion was permitted to stand for baptism. From that time on (A. D. 250) affusion was permitted and defended, but only in cases of necessity and in prospect of death. Nevertheless, out of it grew the more modern practice of accepting sprinkling for the baptism which Christ instituted. These facts are amply illustrated in the case of the Jew converted to Christianity in passing; through a dry and desert country. It occurred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, near the close of the second century. If genuine, as vouched for by Joannes Moschus, it ante-dates the case of Novatian some fifty years. This Jew, after his conversion, "was seized with grievous illness, and being apparently at the point of death begged his companions to baptize him. They replied that there was neither priest nor water at hand, and that without these baptism could not be had. "But being earnestly adjured not to refuse him, they divested the man, and sprinkled him three times (the triple baptism of Tertullian's time) with sand instead of water, saying they baptized him," &c. Authorities for this will be found in Joannes Moschus. It is also quoted by Bingham (Antiq., book XI, c. ii, § 5).

      Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who died A. D. 258, defends clinic baptism or affusion. Magnus, as well as others, doubted the propriety of this practice, and addressed a letter to Cyprian, asking "whether they are to be [74] esteemed legitimate Christians who are not washed in the water, but only poured about" (Cyprian, Epis. 69). Such a question could never have arisen relative to trine immersion. It was so much less of an innovation, or of a modification of the usual practice, that it created no perceptible opposition. Not so with these other innovations. But Cyprian replied: "I, as far as my poor ability conceiveth, account that the Divine blessings can in no respect be mutilated and weakened, nor any less gift be imparted, when what is drawn from the Divine bounty is accepted with the full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver. For, in the saving sacrament the contagion of sin is not so washed away as in the ordinary washing of flesh is the filth of the skin and body, so that there should be need of saltpetre and other appliances, and a bath and a pool, in which the poor body may be washed and cleansed. For otherwise is the breast of the believer washed, otherwise is the mind of man cleansed, by the worthiness of faith. In the saving sacraments, when need compels and God vouchsafes his mercy, his compendious methods confer the whole benefit on believers. Nor should it disturb any one that the sick seem only to be sprinkled or affused with water when they obtain the grace of the Lord. Whence it is apparent that the sprinkling also of water has like force with the saving washing, and that when this is done in the church, where the faith both of the giver and receiver is entered, all holds good, and is consummated and perfected by the power of the Lord and the truth of faith."

      If Cyprian is good authority for trine immersion, why not for sprinkling? If patristic evidence in favor of three immersions is a good foundation for that mode of baptism, why is it not equally good for this action for baptism? And Cyprian does not stand alone as a witness for this [75] exceptional practice of sprinkling for baptism. Others testify to the same effect. And though for centuries the practice was confined to clinics, it nevertheless was, so to speak, the ovum whence in due time came the practice which to so great an extent has supplanted the valid baptism of God's word. And to-day there are those who will affirm with all the confidence of profound and unconscious ignorance that immersion is not baptism; or that Christ instituted sprinkling as much as immersion sign.

      But these innovations in early times were not confined to baptism. The Communion suffered much in the same way. As early as the time of Tatian a disciple of Justin Martyr, and leader of a sect of the Gnostics, who died near the close of the second century, water was used by the anti-Judaistic Encratites in place of wine in celebrating the Communion. They did not understand Christ to have commanded the use of water at the Communion, but they held the use of wine at any time to be sinful, and hence were called Hydroparastates. And because of this opinion they boldly rejected the example and precept of the Master, and changed a solemn institution of his word (Guericke's Ch. Hist., Vol. I, p. 177). The Ebionites did the same. Once a year, on the feast of the Passover, they partook of the Communion, in remembrance of the last supper of Christ, using unleavened bread and water only (Epiphanius, XXX, 16).

      It is needless to pursue this subject further. A similar process of change, and modification, and innovation could be pointed out in other respects; but what has passed under our observation is amply sufficient to indicate the tendency of the age. It also fully shows the danger of trusting to patristic testimony, in the absence of a Divine institution, as a means of establishing the Apostolic or Divine origin [76] of any rite. And it makes it strikingly manifest, that to be consistent one must either reject both trine immersion and infant baptism because not instituted by Christ; or else accept both because alike sustained by the testimony of the Fathers. It is, of course, understood that by infant baptism here we mean immersion.

      There is also another point that this investigation has made clear. That is that as yet we find no traces of new ordinances or sacraments. There were already certain additions to existing rites which were later separated into distinct "sacraments"; but as yet there is no such recognition of them. If, therefore, we should in a subsequent part of this work find another ordinance in this age of the church, there would in this fact be presumptive evidence in its favor. But for the present we insist on the proposition announced in the opening of this chapter, that the existence of a practice, or the belief of a doctrine, one, two, or three centuries after the days of the Apostles, is no proof whatsoever that it was instituted by Christ or taught and practiced by the Apostles. And as triple immersion rests solely upon the practice of the church from the close of the second century on, and upon the claim of Apostolic tradition in its favor, as stated by witnesses of the third century, but is without authority in God s word or the practice of the Apostles, we cannot receive it as an ordinance of divine institution. Weighed in the just balances of an unbiased logic it is clearly found wanting. [77]

[TCO 66-77]