were added by some scribe of the time when the formula had come in common use.

What, then, is the scriptural ground for the use of the Trinitarian formula in Christian baptism, and what is the evidence of its use in the apostolic Church? It must be admitted that in the New Testament the formula, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," occurs nowhere except in the single passage Matt. xxviii, 19. But of the genuineness of this passage there is no sufficient ground for reasonable doubt. It is found in all the manuscripts, and is accepted as genuine by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Lightfoot, Tregelles, Alford; indeed, by all the editors, although some recent writers, chiefly German, maintain that, like the appendix to Mark's gospel, chapter xvi, 16, it is a later addition. The objections urged against it are not textual, but dogmatic and historical. Thus, it is assumed that in the light of all we know of Jesus's principles and practice, it is difficult to suppose that Jesus ever uttered the words quoted in Matt. xxviii, 19. But evidently the question is not primarily how foreign the words in the text were to the principles and practices of our Lord, which supposition may or may not be correct, but whether he really did or did not use them. The resort to an unknown scribe of an unknown date simply reveals conscious weakness to make out a case. It would be just as rational to imagine some redacting scribe, charmed with the characteristic brevity of the evangelist, omitting the same formula from the gospel by Mark. On textual grounds there is, as a matter of fact, not the slightest evidence that the words in question were not uttered by our Lord. Nevertheless Professor McGiffert declares that, even if they were an integral part of Matthew's gospel, it is still uncertain that they were spoken by Christ, "for the evidence of Matthew alone, unsupported by any other gospel, is inconclusive"-a sweeping statement which no canon of textual criticism will justify. No credible theory can be invented for the baptismal formula in Matthew if Christ is not its author. We cannot attribute the words to the evangel

ist himself as a private interpretation of some saying of Christ, if, as Professor McGiffert asserts, the collocation of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" suggests a conception of baptism entirely foreign to the thought of his immediate disciples. Nor, if we have recourse to the development hypothesis, is there time sufficient for the growth of the formula between the date of the Acts and the period of its known use, which certainly was much later than the date of its origin, for as Professor McGiffert, having in mind all that is necessarily involved, truly says, "From the simple formula, 'Into the name of Jesus Christ,' the step is a long one to the formula, 'Into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." "

Other objections, such as, if Christ gave this commission it is difficult to understand the antipathy of the apostles to missions among the Gentiles; and that the commission is contrary to Christ's own practice, since he limited his mission to Israel (Matt. xv, 24), and commanded his chosen twelve not to go in the way of the Gentiles (Matt. ix, 5), rest upon no better support. For evidence we are given theories, and for cautious reasoning the unsubstantial product of a lively imagination. Bernhard Weiss, for example, regards this commission as purely subjective, a conviction inspired by the exalted Christ in the hearts of his disciples, having possibly Matt. xviii, 20, as an historical basis.* But the Acts of the Apostles (ii, 17; x, 34; xi, 22; xii, 18; xv, 1) and the Epistle to the Galatians (ii) afford complete and final answers to the first objection. They show clearly that the Gentile church at Antioch was under supervision of the Jewish church at Jerusalem, and that the apostles glorified God in that he had granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. As for the second objection, based on the limitation of our Lord's sphere of activity at an early period of his ministry, it can never be held on this ground that Christ never intended that his Gospel should become universal.† Such a

*Life of Christ, book vii, chap. xii. Biblical Theology of the New Testament, vol. i, p. 139. † See Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, vol. ii, p. 346 ff.

principle of interpretation is altogether too narrow and mechanical, and results only in extricable confusion, as may be tested by applying it to such texts as John xvi, 26, and the earlier declaration of our Lord in John xiv, 16. Which of these two passages on this principle must be eliminated? Christ's teachings interpreted without dogmatic prepossessions convey no other impression than that he intended his Gospel should be preached to all men (Matt. xxiv, 14; xxvi, 13; Mark i, 17; xiv, 9); that his Church should become universal (Matt. v, 13, 14); that many should come from the ends of the earth and sit down in his kingdom (Matt. viii, 11; Luke xiii, 28-30); and a glance at Matt. xv, 21; viii, 5-13; Luke xvii, 11-19, will be evidence sufficient that he did not confine himself always and solely to the Jews. Critics who think otherwise limit Christ's own conception of the nature and destiny of his kingdom.

The difficulty, however, of accepting the authenticity of the formula-text in Matthew from the supposed fact that "the early disciples, and Paul as well, baptized into the name of Christ alone," which they would not have done had Christ given the commandment quoted in Matthew, is of another character. Nowhere in the New Testament is the formula repeated. On the contrary, everywhere in the Acts where baptism is mentioned, we find that it was administered only είς, οι επὶ τὸ ὄνομα, εν τω ονόματι Ιησού, οι Χριστοῦ. How can this constant repetition of the name of Christ alone be accounted for, if Christ gave the formula quoted in Matthew? We might primarily inquire how we can account for baptism in the name of Christ at all, since, in the first place, nowhere does Christ command baptism to be administered in his name alone; and, secondly, nowhere does he authorize the use of his name in baptism in connection with the Father and the Holy Spirit but in this text of Matthew. It is just as difficult to account for Christ's name alone as it is to account for the omission of the names of the Father and the Spirit. But the difficulty may not be at all real. To us it is only an apparent difficulty, for as a verifiable fact it is certainly clear

that in no instance in the New Testament is the rite of baptism anywhere described, but in every case baptism is mentioned only as having been administered. This fact has very important bearing and should not be overlooked or underestimated. Special, designed prominence in reporting the baptism may have been given the name of Christ as the Messiah, distinguishing it from Johannine baptism; or it may have been a phrase, a brief form of expression, well understood among Christians as to its real meaning. It is illogical, therefore, to draw such large conclusions from such small premises, for in the light of the indisputable fact that baptisms are indicated but never described, the constantly recurring phrase, "Baptized in the name of Christ," does not warrant the sweeping inference that the formula given by Christ was not used at all. It is much better to conclude with Godet that the oft-repeated phrase "est une forme abrégée pour désigner le baptême Chrétien en general."

There are, however, passages of Scripture which indicate both the knowledge and the use of the formula by the apostles. Omitting Titus iii, 4-6, we find in Acts xix that when Paul came to Ephesus he found certain disciples and said to them, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." Certainly they could not have heard of the Holy Spirit in John's baptism, and of this the apostle is fully aware, as his comment on the purpose of the Johannine baptism shows. But what does Paul's question, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" necessarily imply? It certainly expresses surprise, interest, curiosity in the case if they had received Christian baptism, as Paul undoubtedly assumed they had, but had not heard of the Holy Ghost. It implies more than this. It emphatically compels belief that the Holy Spirit was at that date named in Christian baptism, otherwise Paul's question was without reason and wholly irrelevant. We cannot modify or evade the force of this

evidence. The only solution of it is that the Matthew formula was in common use. We may here note in passing that Meyer's comment on siç rí ovv is satisfactory, but when he observes, "The presupposition in this eiç rí ovv is, that they, baptized in the name of Christ, could not but have received the Holy Ghost," he is going too far. It does not fit in with the historical facts, Acts viii, 15, 16, nor with the tense of the participle πιστεύσαντες. De Wette's note on είς τί οὖν shows clearer apprehension: "Wenn das so ist, worauf den, etc., ɛís í, nicht in quo (Vulg.), . . . sondern auf was." And he says, "Es beziechnet aber nicht den Zweck (Mey.), sondern die verpflichtende Beziehung der Taufe."

Definite, decisive patristic evidence for or against the use of the Trinitarian formula in the subapostolic Church, or of any baptismal form, is wanting. But there is no lack of Trinitarian expressions in Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and others of that age demonstrating the familiarity of that age with Trinitarian ideas. Out of that dim, far-away period only one document, a Syrian or Palestinian manual, based probably on an earlier Egyptian work, has come down to us which throws any certain light upon the subject. But that light is clear and proves, if any testimony can prove beyond unreasoning cavil, the use of the Trinitarian formula at the time this manual was written. This earliest document, the Didache-which Schaff and Lightfoot and others place A. D. 90-A. D. 100, although Harnack, in his Chronologie d. alt. christl. Litt. dates it A. D. 131-A. D. 160, later than which it cannot be placed-gives this direction: "Now concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It further specifies that when the baptism is by pouring, the water shall be poured upon the head thrice "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

But particular attention should now be given to the important fact that elsewhere, in directions concerning the Lord's Supper, this Church manual says, "Let no one eat or