ECW - baptism in Jesus name or words of Matthew 28:19

Steven Avery

Administrator
Epistle LXXII.
To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics.
Cyprian
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm

4. Certainly, since I found in the letter the copy of which you transmitted to me, that it was written, “That it should not be asked who baptized, since he who is baptized might receive remission of sins according to what he believed,” I thought that this topic was not to be passed by, especially since I observed in the same epistle that mention was also made of Marcion, saying that “even those that came from him did not need to be baptized, because they seemed to have been already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” Therefore we ought to consider their faith who believe without, whether in respect of the same faith they can obtain any grace. For if we and heretics have one faith, we may also have one grace. If the Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites, and other pests, and swords, and poisons of heretics for subverting the truth,2853 confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same Church with us, they may also have one baptism if they have also one faith.

5. And lest it should be wearisome to go through all the heresies, and to enumerate either the follies or the madness of each of them, because it is no pleasure to speak of that which one either dreads or is ashamed to know, let us examine in the meantime about Marcion alone, the mention of whom has been made in the letter transmitted by you to us, whether the ground of his baptism can be made good. For the Lord after His resurrection, sending His disciples, instructed and taught them in what manner they ought to baptize, saying, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”2854 He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Does Marcion then maintain the Trinity? Does he then assert the same Father, the Creator, as we do? Does he know the same Son, Christ born of the Virgin Mary, who as the Word was made flesh, who bare our sins, who conquered death by dying, who by Himself first of all originated the resurrection of the flesh, and showed to His disciples that He had risen in the 381same flesh? Widely different is the faith with Marcion, and, moreover, with the other heretics; nay, with them there is nothing but perfidy, and blasphemy, and contention, which is hostile to holiness and truth. How then can one who is baptized among them seem to have obtained remission of sins, and the grace of the divine mercy, by his faith, when he has not the truth of the faith itself? For if, as some suppose, one could receive anything abroad out of the Church according to his faith, certainly he has received what he believed; but if he believes what is false, he could not receive what is true; but rather he has received things adulterous and profane, according to what he believed.

And he said that certain of them spoke the word of God with constancy and courage, but some acted in envy and dissension; that some maintained towards him a benevolent love, but that some indulged a malevolent spirit of dissension; but yet that he bore all patiently, so long only as, whether in truth or in pretence, the name of Christ which Paul preached might come to the knowledge of many; and the sowing of the word, which as yet had been new and irregular, might increase through the preaching of the 383speakers. Besides, it is one thing for those who are within the Church to speak concerning the name of Christ; it is another for those who are without, and act in opposition to the Church, to baptize in the name of Christ. Wherefore, let not those who favour heretics put forward what Paul spoke concerning brethren, but let them show if he thought anything was to be conceded to the heretic, or if he approved of their faith or baptism, or if he appointed that perfidious and blasphemous men could receive remission of their sins outside the Church.

12. For it is no small and insignificant matter, which is conceded to heretics, when their baptism is recognised by us; since thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God. For if any one could be baptized among heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained remission of sins, he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he also was made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?

16. Again, there is no ground for any one, for the circumvention of Christian truth, opposing to us the name of Christ, and saying, “All who are baptized everywhere, and in any manner, in the name of Jesus Christ, have obtained the grace of baptism,”—when Christ Himself speaks, and says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”2867 And again, He forewarns and instructs, that no one should be easily deceived by false prophets and false Christs in His name. “Many,” He says, “shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” And afterwards He added: “But take ye heed; behold, I have foretold you all things.”2868 Whence it appears that all things are not at once to be received and assumed which are boasted of in the name of Christ, but only those things which are done in the truth of Christ.

17. For whereas in the Gospels, and in the epistles of the apostles, the name of Christ is alleged for the remission of sins; it is not in such a way as that the Son alone, without the Father, or against the Father, can be of advantage to anybody; but that it might be shown to the Jews, who boasted as to their having the Father, that the Father would profit them nothing, unless they believed on the Son whom He had sent. For they who know God the Father the Creator, ought also to know Christ the Son, lest they should flatter and applaud themselves about the Father alone, without the acknowledgment of His Son, who also said, “No man cometh to the Father but by me.” But He, the same, sets forth, that it is the knowledge of the two which saves, when He says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”2870 Since, therefore, from the preaching and testimony of Christ Himself, the Father who sent must be first known, then afterwards Christ, who was sent, and there cannot be a hope of salvation except by knowing the two together; how, when God the Father is not known, nay, is even blasphemed, can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins? For the case of the Jews under the apostles was one, but the condition of the Gentiles is another. The former, because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptized also in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter tells them in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For this promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Peter makes mention of Jesus Christ, not as though the Father should be omitted, but that the Son also might be joined to the Father.

Baptism in Jesus name for the Jews?

18. Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 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? Unless while one who denies Christ is denied by Christ, he who denies His Father whom Christ 384Himself confessed is not denied; and he who blasphemes against Him whom Christ called His Lord and His God, is rewarded by Christ, and obtains remission of sins, and the sanctification of baptism! But by what power can he who denies God the Creator, the Father of Christ, obtain, in baptism, the remission of sins, since Christ received that very power by which we are baptized and sanctified, from the same Father, whom He called “greater” than Himself, by whom He desired to be glorified, whose will He fulfilled even unto the obedience of drinking the cup, and of undergoing death? What else is it then, than to become a partaker with blaspheming heretics, to wish to maintain and assert, that one who blasphemes and gravely sins against the Father and the Lord and God of Christ, can receive remission of sins in the name of Christ? What, moreover, is that, and of what kind is it, that he who denies the Son of God has not the Father, and he who denies the Father should be thought to have the Son, although the Son Himself testifies, and says, “No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father?”2872 So that it is evident, that no remission of sins can be received in baptism from the Son, which it is not plain that the Father has granted. Especially, since He further repeats, and says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.”2873

19
.... An execrable and detestable thing is actually asserted by some, that He who threatens the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, that he shall be guilty of eternal sin, Himself condescends to sanctify those who blaspheme against God the Father with saving baptism. And now, those who think that they must communicate with such as come to the Church without baptism, do not consider that they are becoming partakers with other men’s, yea, with eternal sins, when they admit without baptism those who cannot, except in baptism, put off the sins of their blasphemies.

21. Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? And yet even this baptism does not benefit a heretic, although he has confessed Christ, and been put to death outside the Church, unless the patrons and advocates of heretics declare that the heretics who are slain in a false confession of Christ are martyrs, and assign to them the glory and the crown of martyrdom contrary to the testimony of the apostle, who says that it will profit them nothing although they were burnt and slain.2877 But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church,2878 how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has 385 not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones! Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself, is common. And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”2879

=========================

Epistle 73 - To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen About the Baptism of Heretics.

5. Or 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? Why does not the same majesty of the same name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Galatians 3:27 He who, having been baptized among the heretics, is able to put on Christ, may much more receive the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent. Otherwise He who is sent will be greater than Him who sends; so that one baptized without may begin indeed to put on Christ, but not to be able to receive the Holy Spirit, as if Christ could either be put on without the Spirit, or the Spirit be separated from Christ. Moreover, it is silly to say, that although the second birth is spiritual, by which we are born in Christ through the layer of regeneration, one may be born spiritually among the heretics, where they say that the Spirit is not. For water alone is not able to cleanse away sins, and to sanctify a man, unless he have also the Holy Spirit. Wherefore it is necessary that they should grant the Holy Spirit to be there, where they say that baptism is; or else there is no baptism where the Holy Spirit is not, because there cannot be baptism without the Spirit.

...

7. But further, one is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man Adam. For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? But as no heresy at all, and equally no schism, being without, can have the sanctification of saving baptism, why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover, of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of Jesus Christ where blasphemy is uttered against the Father and against Christ the Lord God?
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Epiphanius is on p. 409
Does he cover Rebaptism, Cyprian, Eusebius - is there a Jerome spot
p. 411 412 - missing
p. 413 part of bibliography
check 397-407

Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (2011)
David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, Øyvind Norderval, Christer Hellholm
https://books.google.com/books?id=RyLwsa8E1KkC&pg=PA408

Usages- Some Notes on the Baptismal Name-Formulae
Lars Hartman p. 397-414

As to the predominance of the “into the name of” the Trinity, in the Didache it still appears together with a shorter formula. The longer formula ap-
pears in 7:1 and 7:3, that is, in the instruction concerning how baptism shall be performed. On the other hand, in 9:5 we hear the echo of a shorter formula when it is stated who are allowed to share the Eucharist, namely those who are “baptized into the name of the Lord.” We may assume that the longer formula is used at the baptismal rite, whereas the other can function as a short characterization of Christian baptism.

One might regard Hermas Vis. 3.7.3 in a similar manner: the interpreter of the vision characterizes a certain group of possible converts: they have heard the word and “want to be baptized into the name of the Lord.”

The longer form is used at the rite of baptism according to the First Apology of Justin Martyr. He reports that those who are “born anew” “receive the washing with water in the name (ἐπ ̓ ὀνόματος) of God the Father and the Lord of the All and of our Savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit” (Apology I. 61.3). We may note that Justin, turning to outsiders, uses a less awkward preposition than “into.”

As mentioned above, the formula seems to be so established that the fathers normally do not care to explain what they think it means. One exception is when John Chrysostom more or less in passing says that in principle it is not the baptizer who baptizes but the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit “whose name is called upon by the one who is baptized when he/she answers “I believe” (Catechesis ultima 170). Quite often, however, the formula is used as an argument in defending or exposing the Trinitarian dogmas (e.g., Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7.1; 81.2: Eusebius, Contra Marcellum 1.1.9).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Art. II.—The Church and the Synagogue.
Rev. John C. Moore, B. A. Galway
https://books.google.com/books?id=jg8EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA233

Shortly after the death of Constantine, there took place at Liberias the very remarkable conversion of the Jewish patriarch Hillel, a lineal descendant of Gamaliel. From the detailed account given by Epiphanius of the event, it appears that the patriarch had long occupied himself in secret in searching the Scriptures of the New Testament, and had even translated the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles into Hebrew. Feeling his end approaching, he desired the Christian bishop to be summoned, and after confessing his faith, was baptized in the name of Jesus. Before his death he handed a large sum of money to the bishop for distribution among the poorer priests of the Church. A witness of this secret confession and baptism was a learned and respected Jew, called Joseph, upon whom the solemn scene made so deep and lasting an impression, that he too devoted himself to the study of the New Testament, and was finally publicly baptised. He was subsequently raised to the rank of Comes of the imperial court, and was able in this influential position to render material service to the Church. It was owing to him that Christian churches were established in Sepphoris, Nazareth, and Capernaum.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
On the Patristics for Protestants forum, the history was being mangled.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/884609654958164/permalink/3333074896778282/

This seems to be a common error, look at the Catholic Encyclopedia mangling Cyprian's section above.

Catholic Encyclopedia -
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Catholic_Encyclopedia,_volume_2.djvu/
"St. Cyprian (Ad Jubaian.), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunato Trinitate)."
However if you read Ad Jubaianus you find out that this is simply not true.

Here is an example where the Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as an accurate source on Cyprian:

Worthy Christian Forums

what is the textual evidence for Matthew 28:19 before Nicene Council?
https://www.worthychristianforums.c...19-before-nicene-council/?page=2&_fromLogin=1
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Acts 2:38 - So That Your Sins May Be Forgiven
By Phil Sanders
http://hisloveforme.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Acts-238c.pdf
The Evidence from Early Church History

Everett Ferguson, the most highly regarded Patristics scholar in America, said in Early Christians Speak this about baptism:
“Quite impressive is the way all second-century authors speak of the meaning and benefits of baptism. Among the blessings ascribed to baptism in these writers are the following: remission of sins, salvation. illumination, eternal life, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The unanimity and vigor of the early second-century statements about baptism are presumptive of a direct relationship between baptism and forgiveness of sins from the early days of the church. The consistency with which second-century authors make the statements,which they do would have been impossible if this had not been the common Christian understanding earlier. It is inconceivable that the whole Christian world reversed its understanding of the meaning of its central rite of conversion within fifty years of the lifetime of the apostles.” (p. 38)
Phil Sanders gives good quotes about the connection of remission of sins with baptism in the early church.

=================

Here I am quoting Ferguson, not his texts from Rebaptism.

Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
Everett Ferguson (b. 1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA402
24. The Controversy over “Rebaptism” in the Third Century

The anonymous author repeats the argument that the power of the name of Jesus provides theological reason for rejecting “rebaptism.” The “one baptism” is that where the name of Jesus is invoked, and when “once invoked, it cannot be taken away by anyone” (10). To invoke the name of Jesus has great power that is not to be disdained.

...

By baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” the author almost seems to be referring to a different baptismal formula, for he quotes Matthew 28:19 as what ought to be observed in the church (7). However, by that statement, in the context of his argument, he seems to mean a baptism in the Holy Spirit as well as in water. On this reading he was not referring to an alternative baptismal formula but by “the name of Jesus” was referring to baptism as ordained by Christ.27

The author of the tract on Rebaptism had the same ecclesiology (church is our mother — 1) as Cyprian and the same view that the Holy Spirit does not work outside the church.28 From these premises he tried to turn the flank of Cyprian’s position on baptism by exploiting a feature of the baptismal theology of North Africa since Tertullian that was accepted by Cyprian, namely the identification of the imparting of the Holy Spirit with the postbaptismal imposition of hands. Assembling the scriptural examples, principally in Acts 8 and 10, where the gift of the Spirit was separate in time from baptism, the author argued that baptism by heretics could be effective but the Spirit be given later at the time of a person’s coming to the catholic church. For instance, even the apostles had previously received the same baptism as the Lord’s (by John?) but received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (6). The author makes much of the deficiencies of faith and failings of the apostles and others who had been baptized and then come to a more accurate faith or repentance.

Rebaptism emphasizes the difference between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (he means by this the work of the Spirit associated with baptism, not the miraculous outpourings described in the Acts of the Apostles — see Rebaptism 2; 4). The bath is only the exterior beginning. The baptism of water “is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account” (6; also 2). Those who received baptism while holding heretical ideas of God or Christ will be condemned to eternal punishment, “because they did not believe in him although they were washed in his name” (13). Ideally the bath and the Holy Spirit were together, but not necessarily so. In defense of accepting baptism by heretics, the author makes ad hominem arguments: if a person is baptized by a bishop in the church but dies before the imposition of hands, “would you not judge him to have received salvation?” (4). And he asks, What about those baptized by bishops of bad character who may later be deprived of office or even of communion? Or by those bishops of unsound opinions or who are ignorant? Ignorantly or inadvertently asking or answering with the wrong words in the baptismal interrogations does not greatly injure the true faith (to). Then he makes the distinction between giving the water and giving the Spirit:

(quote)

The imposition of hands on those formerly baptized in a group outside the communion of the church thus served both to complete their baptism and to reconcile them to the church.

The real basis of human salvation according to Rebaptism is faith in the heart and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. The hearts of the household of Cornelius in Acts to were purified in virtue of their faith and were baptized by the Holy Spirit, receiving forgiveness of sins, and subsequently were baptized so as to receive the invocation of the name of Christ (5). Calling attention to this reversal of the usual sequence taught in the early church concerning the order of salvation was apparently prompted by the polemical situation. The author says elsewhere: “Hearts are purified by faith, but souls are washed by the Spirit; bodies are washed by water” (18).29 The salvation of the confessor who becomes a martyr without having received baptism in water shows the effectiveness of faith and the name of Christ (11).30 Yet, it is explained that martyrdom was not a “second baptism” as if there were “two baptisms” but was “a baptism of another kind” that effected the “same salvation,” so there are “different kinds of one and the same baptism” (14). Thus “spiritual baptism” is threefold: the Spirit may be conferred by water in a proper baptism, by the blood of one’s martyrdom, or by the Spirit himself directly (15).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Best to read in full.
These extracts are largely on the name of Jesus and baptism.

==============================

A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.
————————————
Argument.—That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vii.iv.ii.html#vii.iv.ii-p71.1

1. I observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of salvation. The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of faith; or whether, indeed, a repetition of baptism would be necessary for them, as if they should receive nothing if they had not obtained baptism afresh, just as if they were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

3. ... For when by imposition of the bishop’s hands the Holy Spirit is given to every one that believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip’s baptism, the apostles did to them by laying on of hands; in this manner also they conferred on them the Holy Spirit. And that this might be the case, they themselves prayed for them, for as yet the Holy Spirit had not descended upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

4. ... that is, that by the imposition of hands alone of the bishop—because baptism in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ has gone before it—may the Holy Spirit also be given to another man who repents and believes.... lest it should be needful to ask what sort of a thing was that baptism which they have attained in the name of Jesus Christ. Unless, perchance, in that former discussion also, about those who should only have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ...

5. ...Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” ... And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

6. ... Nor, as I think, was it for any other reason that the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, except that the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism might afford to him who should be baptized no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation, as Peter relates in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: “For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” As also the Apostle Paul unfolds, showing that God hath exalted our Lord Jesus, and given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus all should bow the knee, of things heavenly and earthly, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father.” And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men; so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. ... Yet it is extremely useful to believe that this invocation of the name of Jesus ... if rightly performed with the mystery of God among men of this kind, obtains a place which it would not have had ... For not for any other reason Peter— ... although they were baptized in the name of Jesus ... , although they were baptized with water in the name of the Lord, might have had a faith somewhat imperfect. Because it is of great importance whether a man is not baptized at all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or indeed whether in some respect he halts when he is baptized with the baptism of water, which is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account.

7. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”... it behoves us to consider that 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, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church

9. ... . And thus, as far as concerns the disciples themselves, they are found to have had a faith neither sound nor perfect in such matters as we have referred to; and what is much more serious, they moreover baptized others, as it is written in the Gospel according to John.

10. ... And thus, as our salvation is founded in the baptism of the Spirit, which for the most part is associated with the baptism of water, if indeed baptism shall be given by us, let it be conferred in its integrity and with solemnity, and with all those means which are written; and let it be administered without any disconnection of anything. ... So that the invocation of the name of Jesus, which cannot be done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting; although such an invocation, if none of those things of which we have spoken should follow it, may fail and be deprived of the effect of salvation. For when the apostle said that there was “one baptism,” it must needs have been by the continued effect of the invocation of the name of Jesus, because, once invoked, it cannot be taken away by any man, even although we might venture, against the decision of the apostles, to repeat it by giving too much, yea, by the desire of superadding baptism.

12. Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be considered, that it may be made clearer. For the invocation of the name of Jesus can only be an advantage if it shall be subsequently properly supplemented, because both prophets and apostles have so declared ... some of the Jews and all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, may and of necessity must seek the Lord, because that very invocation of the name affords them the opportunity, or even imposes on them the necessity, of seeking the Lord. And with these they prescribe the Holy Scriptures—whether all or only some of them—to discuss still more boldly concerning the truth than with the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord Jesus, the Son of the living God, has not been invoked, as it likewise has not upon the Jews who only receive the Old Testament Scriptures. And thus men of both of these kinds, that is, Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized. But heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit; and in Jesus, which is “the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved,” death is reasonably despised, although, if they continue as they are, they cannot be saved, because they have not sought the Lord after the invocation of His name upon them,—even as those who, on account of false Christs, perchance have refused to believe, of whom the Lord says, “Take heed that no man lead you into error. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall lead many into error.”

14. ... And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, “From his belly flowed rivers of living water;” which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord’s passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier’s spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit.

15. ... Which Spirit also filled John the Baptist even from his mother’s womb; and it fell upon those who were with Cornelius the centurion before they were baptized with water. Thus, cleaving to the baptism of men, the Holy Spirit either goes before or follows it; or failing the baptism of water, it falls upon those who believe. We are counselled that either we ought duly to maintain the integrity of baptism, or if by chance baptism is given by any one in the name of Jesus Christ, we ought to supplement it, guarding the most holy invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, as we have most abundantly set forth; guarding, moreover, the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (2011)

The Efficacy of Baptism in Augustine’s Theology
James Patout Burns (b. 1939)
https://books.google.com/books?id=RyLwsa8E1KkC&pg=PA1287

A treatise on the status of those originally baptized outside the unity of the church has survived which clearly belongs to the controversy over the efficacy of baptism performed outside the unity of the church. The treatise works within the same framework as Cyprian's letters and treatises on the subject, though the relative priority of the two discussions cannot be securely established. Like Tertullian and Cyprian, the Treatise on Rebaptism distinguishes between the two parts of the ritual: the washing and invocation of the divine name which constitute water baptism can be performed by a presbyter or deacon; spirit baptism is normally performed by imposition of episcopal hands.27 Water baptism can be given even by an unworthy minister and received by an unworthy initiant. The apostles of Jesus, for example, did not have true faith in him during his earthly ministry, when they received and conferred baptism.28 Spirit baptism is salvific and can be received only by a worthy initiant.29 When the bishop is unworthy or not able to be present--and a presbyter or deacon administers water baptism--then God gives the Holy Spirit directly.30 God also gives the Spirit directly when a catechumen is martyred.31 Spirit baptism, therefore, could be given before, with, after, or even without the water baptism.32

The Treatise on Rebaptism introduced a consideration which Cyprian overlooked but which Augustine would exploit: the parallel between unworthy ministers and recipients inside and outside the unity of the true church. The author pointed out that a bishop could be absent at the time of baptism, or unworthy of his office within the church. In both cases, direct divine action would be necessary to communicate the Holy Spirit to the initiant.33 Anyone baptized in unity, moreover, could be just as unrepentant as one receiving the sacrament in schism. Either, however, could be saved by the subsequent gift of spirit baptism, ust as the apostles had been.” - p. 1287-1288
=================

Quite interesting that the strong emphasis on invoking the name of Jesus in baptism is not mentioned.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jesus Name Baptism in History
http://www.articleseen.com/Article_jesus-name-baptism-in-history_87677.aspx

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."

Otto William Heick (?)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300
The Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings

©1991 - 1998 printing

Chapter 8. Baptism in the Name of Jesus.
David K. Bernard (b. 1956)

“A Treatise on Rebaptism”
p. 124-126

A Treatise on Rebaptism by an anonymous writer, probably a third-century bishop who opposed Cyprian, demonstrates that many people both inside and outside the institutional church baptized in the name of Jesus. 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 church (1). 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” (12).

The treatise makes a number of significant points. First, its position had overwhelming support: the support of “the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition”(1), “the venerable authority of all the churches” (2), “the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops” (6), and “the custom and authority which so much claim our veneration for so long a time and for such great men” (15). These phrases indicate not only the acceptance of baptism performed outside the institutional church but strong support specifically for baptism in the name of Jesus.

Second, the name of Jesus is significant and effective in baptism. Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11 show that “the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism . . . afford to him . . . no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation” (6). 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 Spirit, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not “lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus” (6). In fact, the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is baptism in the name of Jesus. “When the apostle said that there was ‘one baptism,’ it must needs have been by the continued effect of the invocation of the name of Jesus, because, once invoked, it cannot be taken away by man”(10).

The treatise argues that baptism in Jesus’ name does not contradict Matthew 28:19. “Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment ‘Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behoves us to consider that 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, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church. . . . Therefore ought this invocation of the name of Jesus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all others, which may afterwards be filled up with the remaining things” (7).

Either the author thought that both a threefold formula and the Jesus Name formula were acceptable, or else he concluded that invoking Jesus’ name was the proper fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. The latter conclusion is supported by his statements that “the invocation of the name of Jesus” in baptism fulfills the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 and that it is something “common to us and to all others.”

This document also reports that 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” (12).
 
Top