[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

The Earliest Formula
Early post-apostolic Christians administered water baptism by using the name of Jesus in the formula. According to Heick, "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." He concluded from a passage in the writings of Justin (which we will analyze shortly) that during the period from about A.D. 130 to 140 the trinitarian baptismal formula gradually received acceptance.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: "The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin), (b) a moral vow (Justin and perhaps Hermas, as well as already in the NT in I Peter), (c) trine immersion (Justin), (d) a confession of faith (Irenaeus, or perhaps Justin), (e) unction (Tertullian), (f) sponsors (Tertullian), (g) milk and honey (Tertullian)."

It further elaborates: "In connection with the name… the question of formula arises. The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. It is possible that the older formula survived in isolated communities, but there is no decisive contemporary evidence."

First and Second Centuries
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible admits that one could draw the following conclusion from the historical evidence: "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 development. After the one mention of it, Mt. 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel."

The dictionary preferred one of the following two explanations sometimes given by trinitarians as to the use of the name of Jesus, since they are more consistent with traditional practice: (1) Baptism in the name of one person in the trinity is baptism in the name of the whole trinity and so is valid. (This explanation admits that the original formula actually was "in the name of Jesus.") (2) The phrase "in the name of Jesus" was not meant to be a formula, but only signified that the baptized ones acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Christ. (Of course, this logic could be applied equally as well to Matthew 28:19, leaving us with no formula for Christian baptism.)

In addition to the sources we have cited, most other church historians agree that baptism in Jesus' name was the older formula; further quotations are reproduced in a footnote.

Hermas in the early second century wrote of baptism "in the name of the Lord" and in the "name of the Son of God." He taught that baptism caused an essential change to take place in one's life because of the use of the name, but stressed that the name was not a magical formula and could not be effective in the absence of Christian virtues. He wrote, "If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name."

The Didache, another second century Christian document, speaks of baptism "into the name of the Lord" but also speaks of baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Some conclude that the Didache recognizes both formulas as valid. We must not overlook the possibility of interpolations, for while scholars have variously dated the Didache from A.D. 120 to 200 the only existing Greek manuscript of it dates to 1056. Moreover, it teaches other nonbiblical practices relative to baptism such as pouring as an alternative to immersion, fasting before baptism, and triple immersion.

Most scholars assert that Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around A.D. 150, contains the oldest historical reference to the trine formula. Here is the key phrase, which describes baptized persons: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water." We should note, however, that Justin did not recite the modern trinitarian formula but explicitly included the name Jesus, probably in deference to older practice.

Justin taught that Jesus was a subordinate, second being created by God the Father and did not clearly distinguish the Holy Spirit as a third person. Consequently, it is no great comfort for trinitarians to find evidence of their formula in his writings. In fact, the modern doctrine of the trinity did not become dominant until the councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381). Just because one man in A.D. 150, who did not believe in the full deity of Christ, referred to a baptismal formula similar to the modern trinitarian one does not mean all or even most in his day had abandoned the older Jesus' name formula. Evidence for general usage of the modern trinitarian formula at this early date is not as decisive as some have indicated.

History records a possible reference to Jesus Name baptism shortly after Justin's time. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote, "We are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord." His last major work, however, describes a baptismal formula that was apparently the same as Justin's.

Closely associated with the baptismal formula is the doctrine of the Godhead. The early post-apostolic fathers, such as Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Hermas, were certainly not trinitarians. They basically believed in one God and in Jesus as God manifested in flesh. It is hardly surprising, then, to find no reference in their writings to a trinitarian baptismal formula.

The so-called "heretic" Marcion broke away from the Catholic Church during this time, and his followers preserved the older baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ." The Acts of Paul and Thecla, written by an Asiatic presbyter in the second century, gives an account of baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ."

Third Century
Significantly, we still find references to baptism in Jesus' name long after Justin's time. In the third century, a debate arose over the validity of baptism performed by "heretics." Stephen, Bishop of Rome (Roman Catholics consider him a pope), held such baptism to be valid, while the North African theologian Cyprian held it was not. In opposing Stephen, Cyprian discussed the case of "heretics" who baptized in the name of Jesus. He asked, "Can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ be judged to have obtained remission of sins?" He argued that the Jews in Acts properly received baptism in the name of Jesus only because they already acknowledged the Father, but that Gentiles who did not acknowledge the Father must be baptized in the full trinity.

"How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" Cyprian further argued that heretics deny the Father and blaspheme Him, so baptism in the name of Jesus only cannot save them.

Cyprian's opponents argued that Jesus' name baptism was always valid, even if performed by heretics, because of the power in the name of Jesus. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian in 256. He quoted Stephen as saying that "the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ."

Cyprian responded to Stephen's view as follows: If this were so then heretics could also receive the Holy Spirit simply by laying on hands and invoking the name of Jesus. This would mean they would be born of the water and Spirit and so would be true Christians, even though they were outside the Catholic Church. Cyprian argued that this could not be correct. Just as the name Jesus could not impart the Holy Spirit outside the Catholic Church, so baptism in the name of Jesus only was not valid outside the Church:

"If they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit?" Historians conclude from these writings that many in Cyprian's day used the Jesus' name formula, and that probably Stephen allowed the formula. Some believe that even Cyprian accepted this baptism as long as the Catholic Church performed it and the trinity was not denied. In any case, the whole debate demonstrates that many people practiced baptism in Jesus' name during the third century A.D.

Striking verification comes from A Treatise on Re-Baptism by An Anonymous Writer. Some scholars believe the author was a fourth century monk named Ursinus, but most believe he was a bishop in the third century who opposed Cyprian. The treatise discusses what should be done about persons "who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" and who turn from their heresy to the Catholic Church. It concludes that rebaptism is not necessary: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

The author makes a number of interesting points in his discussion: (1) His position had the support of "the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition" and "the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops." (2) "The power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism… affords to him… no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation," citing Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11. (3) The "invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised." (4) The invocation of Jesus' name alone does not bring salvation to the heretic, but if he corrects his error, acknowledges the truth, and receives the Holy Ghost, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not "lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus." (5) This teaching does not contradict Matthew 28:19. (6) Not only were heretics baptized by "invoking the name of the Lord Jesus," but many people, both "Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized."

TO BE CONTINUED...