TERTULLIAN
There is no dispute that Tertullian did mention trine immersion; but he referred it only to tradition. This is denied by the trine immersionists, but the proof is decidedly against them. Eld. Moore publishes an appendix of Caution on this point. He says:—TOB 149.1
“In the writings of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg, Tertullian is accused of stating that, ‘we are immersed three times, fulfilling somewhat more than our Lord has decreed in the gospel.’ This, however, is simply an incorrect translation of the Latin text, the Oxford translation of which reads as follows: ‘Then are we thrice dipped, pledging [not fulfilling] ourselves to something more than the Lord has prescribed in the gospel.’ Before the candidates were baptized they pledged themselves to some things not mentioned in the gospel, and to these Tertullian refers.”TOB 149.2
These words of Eld. Moore are not warranted by the facts. Tertullian does not speak of what was done before baptism, but in baptism. And the version of Campbell, Hinton, Fuller, and Wiberg, is most accurate in following the original, which is both followed and given by Stuart, whom we quoted elsewhere. The words of Stuart in full on this passage are as follows:—TOB 149.3
“Tertullian himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine immersion as something superadded to the precepts of the gospel; for thus he speaks in his book, ‘De Corona Militis,’ § 3: ‘Thence we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answering, i. e., fulfilling, somewhat more (amplius aliquid respondentes) than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.’”TOB 150.1
Stuart is surely as literal as may be in rendering respondentes, answering; and no one can possibly object to his making it equivalent to fulfilling, in this case; while the whole sentence in Tertullian points unmistakably to the action of trine immersion, and not to anything before baptism.TOB 150.2
But there is a decisive test to which we shall now bring this matter. Bingham, “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” is one of the witnesses cited by Eld. Moore, in his historical evidences. Bingham has treated the whole subject at length, though he does not directly give his own opinion of the correctness of the method. Of the derivation of trine immersion he says:—TOB 150.3
“Some derive it from apostolic tradition; others, from the first institution of baptism by our Saviour; whilst 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 any divine appointment. Tertullian, St. Basil, and St. Jerome put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.”—Book 11, chap. 11, § 7.TOB 150.4
We here learn that the early advocates of trine immersion were not at all agreed as to its origin. Some ascribed it to the institution of the Saviour, but these were not its earliest advocates. Others ascribed it to tradition; and still others considered it an indifferent matter. There was not among them such an agreement on the subject as the trine immersionists would have us believe.TOB 150.5
It will be noticed that “apostolic tradition” is distinguished from that which was appointed by the Saviour. Tertullian, the very earliest witness for trine immersion, and the prince of traditional innovators, “put it among those rites of the church which they reckon to be handed down from apostolic tradition.” This shows that Eld. Moore’s “Caution” is utterly futile, and that his construction of the words of Tertullian is wrong.TOB 151.1
The first name given by Bingham among those who held that trine immersion came from the appointment of the Saviour, is that of Chrysostom; but Chrysostom lived two centuries this side of Tertullian, in a day when traditions were more firmly established as authority in the church. In a review of the whole ground we shall refer to both Tertullian and Chrysostom again. We will briefly noticeTOB 151.2