These expressions are the counterpart of our Lord's words in the Fourth Gospel : ' I am in the Father and the Father in me' (Jn U"*). We might try the effect of substituting for ' Son ' and 'Spirit' the names of 'Peter,' 'Paul,' or even of ' Michael,' ' Gabriel,' to see how intolerable all these expressions would be on any but the Trini- tarian hypothesis. St. Paul uses a similar argu- ment in 1 Co P* : ' Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? '
These passages are taken from the NT outside the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel, which is full of the same doctrine, is here passed by. But one passage of the Sj'noptics must be considered. How did St. Paul come by the phraseology of his benediction in 2 Co IS^'* ? Some would say that he invented it, and was the real founder of Christian doctrine (see below, 9). For those who cannot accept this position — and the Apostle betraj's no consciousness of teaching a new doctrine, but, as we have seen (above, 1), professes to hand on what he has received — the only conclusion can be that the benediction is based on teaching of our Lord. In the Synoptics there is one passage (IMt 28^^) Avhich would at once account for St. Paul's bene- diction. According to this, our Lord bade His followers ' make disciples of all the nations, bap- tizing them into the name {d% to dvofxa) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' This passage has been criticized on three grounds. (1) It has been said not to be an authentic part of the First Gospel. This, however, is not a tenable position (see Baptism, § i) ; but it is important to distinguish it from the view which follows. (2) It has been acknowledged to be an authentic part of Mt., but said to have been due to the Christian theology of the end of the 1st cent., to the same line of thought that produced the Fourth Gospel ; and not to have been spoken by our Lord. (3) In support of this it is urged that as a matter of fact, the earliest baptisms, as we read in Acts, were not ' in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,' but 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or the like. But may there not be a mis- take here on both sides ? It is quite unnecessary to suppose on the one hand that the passages in Acts describe a formula used in baptism, or, on the other, that our Lord in Mt 28^^ prescribed one. All the passages may, and probably do, express only the theological import of baptism (for authori- ties, see Baptism as above).* It was not the custom of our Lord to make minute regulations, as did the Mosaic Law. He rather laid down general principles ; and it would be somewhat remarkable if He made just one exception, in regulating the words to be used in baptism. (The justification of the Christian formula is the general consent of the ages, dating from immediately after the apostolic period.) Nor is it necessary to suppose that Mt 28'^ gives us — any more than the other Gospel records do — the ipsissima verba of Jesus. It is al- most certain that such teaching, if given, would be much expanded for the benefit of the hearers, and that we have only a greatly abbreviated re- cord. But that our Lord gave such ' Trinitarian ' teaching in some shape on the occasion of giving
* We are not here concerned with the meaning of 'in' or ' into the name.' The argument is independent of the disputed interpretation of these words.
the baptismal command is the only Avay of ac- counting for the phenomena of Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. This would explain not only the apos- tolic benediction, but also the whole trend of the teaching of the NT outside the Gospels.
Having now considered the general scope of apos- tolic teaching with regard to distinctions in the Godhead, we must consider in particular the doc- trine with regard to the Godhead of our Lord and of the Holy Gliost.
6. The Godhead of our Lord. — In historical sequence the realization of our Lord's Divinity came before the teaching which we have already considered. The disciples first learnt that their Master was not mere man, but was Divine ; and then that there are distinctions in the Godhead.
(a) Jesus is the Son of God. — Of this the apostles were fully convinced. The passages are too numerous to cite, but they occur in almost every book of the NT, whether they give the title to our Lord in so many words, or express the fact other- wise (see above, 4 («)), Before considering the meaning of the title, we may ask if the name wais ('child ' or ' servant ') applied to our Lord (Ac 3'^- ^^ 427. 30) ],j^g ^}jg same signification. Sanday points ont {HDB iv. 574, 578) that wolIs is taken in the sense of 'Son' in the early Fathers, as in the Epistle to Diognetus (viii. 9f. ; c. A.D. 150?). This may also be the meaning of St. Luke in Acts ; but it is equally probable that he refers to the OT ' servant of Jahweh.' This is clearly the meaning in Mt 1218, -where Is 42^ is quoted : ' Behold my servant whom I have chosen,' etc.