Various explanations of these statements in the Acts have been suggested.
(1) This baptism into or in the name of Jesns Christ is that which was practised by Christ's disciples during His ministrj' (Jn 4'-'). HaWng been accustomed to this form, they continued lo u»e it ' probably through life,' although Christ had expressly ordered tlie Trinitarian fonn, and althouuii the Holy Spirit was not always imparted when this imperfect form was employed, wliereas the gift of the Spirit alwaj's accompanied ba]>ti.-<m
• It 1« worth n^tinR tlmt In all th« Instances of Inptlsm ' In * or ' Into Ihu iiatiie " the verb is in tlie jiassive. Exctipt in Die or'tdnal rtinrK''. the phraee 'to haptizi' inu> the nanie*<loea n<<t occur; It Is always tn be baplizrd int^» tho nanic'or'in tiio name.' This hold's fi'Hxl of 1 Co li^ aiso, wliero ii< ri i^, «,«u« ^"«cri#« is a fiilse reading, and ifiawrirthtri (MAHC" /Kfrj-ptt. Viilg. Ann.) is rlRht. In the Eastern Churches the formula Is not ' I tmptizo tlR'e,' but ^airW^irccj i itixit Tou 6itv ; and this Is probably more ancient ttian tlie Westeru furuiula familiar to us.
vou 1.— 16
in the name of the Trinity {Dirt, of Chr. Biog. i. p. '241). This is scarcely credible. The Ephesian disciples were rebaptized because their original baptism was inadequate. Can we suppose that they then received a baptism that was also de- fective ? And would the disciples have adhered to a form which experience proved to be less uniformly efficacious, even if we allow that they would ignore the express command of Christ? It is admitted that this inferior form of baptism went out of use at an early date^perhaps soon after the First Gospel became current.
(2) Baptism in the name of one Person of the Trinity is virtually baptism in the name of the Trinity, and is valid. 1 his seems to be the view of Ambrose. Quod verba taciturn fuerat, expressu-m est fide. Cum enim, dicitur : In nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, per unitatem norninis impletum mysterium est: nee a Christi baptismate bpirit-as sejiaratur, . . . Qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem sujnavit. Si Christum dicas, et Deum Patrem a quo unctus est Filius, et ipsum qui unctus eat Filium, et Spiriium Sanctum quo unctus est desig- nasti (be Spiritu S. L 4. 43, 44; Migne, xvL 714, 715, where see note a). Ambrose is here comment- ing on Ac 19'; and it is ra.sh to say that 'he is probably speaking of the confession of the recipient, not of the formula.' Bede understands Anibro.se to be writing of the baptismal formula, and accepts the solution that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is really in the name of the Trinity (Super Acta Exp. X. 48 ; Mimie, xcii. 970). See also Peter Lombard (Sent. iv. Dist. iii. 4), Hugo Victor (De Sacram. i. 13), and Aquinas (Su?nma, iii. 66. 6). This Wew was conlirmed by the Council of Erejus (A.D. 792), and apparently by Pope Nicholas L (858-867) in his Responsa ad liulijaros.
(3) Wlien St. Luke says that people were 'iKiptized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jesus,' he is not indicating the formula which was used in baptizing, but is merely stating that such persons were baptized as acknowledged Jesus to oe the Lord and the Christ ; in short, he is simply telling us that the baptism w.as Christian. Wiien Peter heals the crijiple at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, the form of the words used is quoted : ' In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.' No such form of words is quoted in any of the passages in which persons are said to be baptized in {)r into the name of Je.sus Christ. There is no evidence against the .suppo.sition that in these and in all other cases the formula u.sed was that which Christ enjoined. This is perhaps what Cyprian means when he .says on Ac 2*' Jesu Christi vicnlionem facit Petrus, non quasi Pater omitteretur, sed ut Patri Filius quoque adjungeretur (Ep. Ixxiii. 17). In 1 Co 10'^, where the Israelites are said to have been 'b.aptized into Moses' (ds t6v Moiuo-^i'), the meaning is that they were baptized int« obedience to him and acknowledgment of his authority, not that his name was called over them in some formula. See Lightfoot on 1 Co 1".
(4) The original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ ' or ' the Lord Jesus.' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later develop- ment. After the one mention of it, Mt 28'°, we do not find it a^ain until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in tne Gospel : (V dvofiarot yiip rov varphi tCiv SXitiif Kal SfffwoTov Otov Kal Tou aujTTjpos ii/j.u)v *Ii;ffoC Xpiarov Kal irvevuaTos dyiou rb iv Ti^i f'Sari rdre \ovTpbv voiorvrai (ApoL i. (>1 ). It is probable that, when the Trinitarian formula had become usual, it was regarded as of divine authority, and was hy some attributed to Christ Himself. This tnulition is represented in Mt '28", and is perhaps an in<lication that the Firsi Gospel in its extant form is later than the destruction of Jerusalem. That in the apostoUo
J4'2
BAPTISM
BAPTISM
age there was no fixed formula ia sho^vn, not only by the diflerence between Matt, and the Acts, but by the dirt'erence between one passage in the Acts and another, and also by traces of other differences in the Epistles. Baptism ' into the name of the Lord Jesus ' (Ac 8'" 19'), or ' in the name of Jesus Christ' (2^ 10"), or 'into Christ Jesus' (Ro 6'), or 'into Christ' (Gal 3-''), had sufficed. Comp. Trplv yap, iprjai, (popiaat Tbv S.v6pw7roy t6 6vo/Mi Tov vlou Tov $€0Uf vcKptts iffTiv (Hcmias, SItii. ix. 16. 3); where, however, toC i/IoC ia possibly an insertion (A omits).