THE GREEK CHURCH

Though it is a matter of minor importance, yet Eld. Moore is not strictly correct in dating the age of the Greek Church prior to its separation from the communion of Rome in the latter part of the ninth century. Prior to that, they were considered one body; after that, the Greek and Roman churches became distinct. So far, however, as their practice is concerned, it is not, probably, affected by this circumstance. The Greek Church is often referred to as an example on the subject of baptism. It is said they ought best to understand their own original tongue: therefore it is safe to follow them in their definition of baptism.TOB 161.2

We have said, We safely follow them in the definition of the word; but we dare not follow them in their construction of the ordinance. For this we can show a reason. In giving to baptizein the definition, to immerse, they follow the usage of the language in which the New Testament was written. But, having established the identity of baptism and immersion, if they follow tradition, and practice three immersions, which is in truth three baptisms, they then depart from the Greek text of the New Testament, which plainly says one baptism. And here truth compels us to leave them. Eld. Moore quotes Alexander de Stourdza as declaring that the Greek Church “administer baptism after the similitude of that of Christ,” and as they practice trine immersion he infers that is after that similitude. We here repeat other words of this author as follows:—TOB 162.1

“The church of the West has, then, departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign; in short, she commits an abuse of words and of ideas, in practicing baptism by aspersion, this very term being, in itself, a derisive contradiction. The verb baptizo, immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and always to plunge. Baptism and immersion, therefore, are identical; and to say, baptism by aspersion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of this nature.”TOB 162.2

This is surely a strong presentation of the case; but if it be true, which we all admit, that immersion and baptism are identical, it will take a wiser than Alex. de Stourdza to show that three immersions and three baptisms are not identical! And, inasmuch as baptism and immersion are equal, if three baptisms and three immersions are not equal, it is because three are not equal to three! There remains no dispute about the equality of baptism and immersion; the whole matter turns on the question, Is the number three equal to itself? Here is the absurdity of the trine immersion theory reduced to a mathematical demonstration. For it is an axiom that if equals are added to equals the results are equal. Then, as three are equal to three, if they be added respectively to immersion and to baptism, which are also equals, the results are equal. Hence three immersions equal three baptisms. We would be pleased to see somebody try to establish the converse of this proposition. But three baptisms are contrary to the Scriptures; therefore three immersions are contrary to the Scriptures.TOB 163.1

Mr. Moore quotes Dr. Carson to confirm the view that the three immersions (properly designated three baptisms by Dr. Carson) have respect to the action, while one baptism (properly one immersion) has respect to the rite. Dr. Carson said:—TOB 163.2

“The three immersions are, in the estimation of those who used them, only one rite.”TOB 163.3

Dr. Carson was a very conscientious man. He sacrificed everything that a man of the highest culture and best worldly prospects could sacrifice to introduce immersion into the practice of the church. But he never uttered one word in favor of three immersions, as we would expect him to do if he believed that to be the sense of the Scripture injunction.TOB 164.1

There is, moreover, an error in distinguishing between the action and the rite. A rite is necessarily an action; the sense of one determines the sense of the other. The distinction assumed, “in the estimation of those who used them,” as Dr. Carson said, we assert is unjust. Mr. Moore says of Alexander Campbell’s advocacy of one baptism:—TOB 164.2

“The one baptism, or one immersion, seen by Campbell, was not the action by which the rite was performed, but the rite itself.... The three immersions seen through his historical glasses were the same thing, only under a different appearance.”TOB 164.3

And it is only by the magic power of “historical glasses” that anybody can see three immersions. The real value of the sight we have tried to lay before our readers. We have noticed for some time that historical spectacles are a panacea with a certain class given to theological squinting. We consider it a device of empirics, injurious to the moral vision, sometimes resulting in total Bible obscuration.TOB 164.4

Constantinople was the central city of the Greek Church, as Rome was and is of the Latin. The present head of the Greek Church, so-called, is the Czar of Russia. They were of one communion till the ninth century; but it was decided by Pope Gregory the Great that a diversity of practice in regard to baptism did not invalidate the ordinance. We have seen that the Greek Church do not act consistently with the New Testament in practicing three baptisms; have we any other reasons for distrusting their testimony and their example? We have.TOB 164.5

1. They practice infant baptism, which is plainly a corruption of the ordinance. They profess to found this also directly on the teachings of Christ; affirming that baptism is the birth spoken of in John 3:5, which only can secure their entrance into the kingdom of God. Thus we see that we cannot safely trust to their example, nor to their claim that they derive it from the Scriptures.TOB 165.1

2. They practice infant communion, which is also a corruption of the gospel. But they profess to draw this also from Christ’s own words in John 6:53, 54. They affirm that in the communion is the flesh and blood of Christ, which infants also must eat and drink, or lose eternal life. This, another perversion of Scripture, proves that they are not safe guides in faith and practice.TOB 165.2

3. They acknowledge the authority of tradition, holding it equal to the Scriptures. It is well known that the authority of tradition was placed beyond question in the whole Catholic Church, long before the separation of the Greek and Latin parts. But we need not argue the point on this occasion, for Eld. Moore himself says: “Indeed, the scriptural and traditional authority are with the Greeks equally binding.” This decides the question as to the value of their practice as example for us. The Scriptures are our only rule. We can harmonize with others as far as they harmonize with this rule; when they leave it, or corrupt it, or exalt tradition to an equality with it, we cheerfully take another direction, and separate from their company.TOB 165.3