Skip to main content

Full text of "The Lord's command to baptise [microform] ; an historico-critical investigation, with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea .."

See other formats



ity oFCbicaQO 


t;SS V->:V sv.-' '-' ',. \' , ' 


> , 

: - ; 

1 ,".i'i.. .:-.:. . $ft'ri. ' 's' : ;,,a -'EKraS'SiSSSI 

' -.-". 

, ' , ' ' 


,' ' . - . 

V ' - >,*. 


> l f j * 


i > 

. ' NO* V- 


1 ' ' ' - T ; /-;* - ^.v'v ' <s ''i ,'.',;' V-' -'"'' '':/'"' / . , <: 
^^^Sl^i^GiR^ INVESTl^ION 

I '!,*,< V, 'V < *S'I " *> 1 f / * , ^' J 1C 'M 1 ' ' i, - 1 , ' < > y ' 

, ; 4^%5;^v^i J'-'^V/ '>" , : ^ ;/.^, l /: ; .\ %I . s ,,;;^ - : 

*:ii '^ ,i' ,..*". V*; r \Vy*f^TY v ' OTYTJ/-IT A T"'' TT?*? i c'T'r? i io'/ ; ^Tj ) 'T>/^ - nnurT7 fT7'r^ i D > Erc' "' 



. ,,- . . 


'' C,'. -' " ''"' 1 I \" ' ' r , 


J * t < " 








NO, V- 












4 " V 

< J < 

t * 


: : :' *. " ; : - 



T *r . 

|i n l ..* * 














" * . 

I < 

V I) 1 







Nihil Obstat. 

Iraprimi Potest. 

Mhil Obstat. 



Censor Deputatus. 


Minister Provincialis. 


Censor Deputatus. 


Arohiepiscopus Baltimorensis. 















Historical Survey of Views Regarding the Interpretation, 
Historicity and Authenticity ot Mt. 28, 19. 








The Lord's Command to Baptise in Eusebius. 










TURE 95 




The present dissertation centers around the text of Mt. 28, 19. 
It has been impossible to do justice to the numerous, interesting 
problems, suggested by these parting words of the Savior as they 
have been preserved to us by the evangelist Matthew. The first 
part of the dissertation is an attempt at a full, tno perhaps not 
complete, presentation of the difficulties, which this text has occa- 
sioned to scholars of both the conservative and the radical school. 
The second part is intended to be a detailed study of the reasons, 
advanced by the positive group of the radical school, against the 
authenticity of the text. The result of this study has been that 
the authenticity of the text, inasf ar as the external evidence of the 
manuscripts, the versions, and the citations in the works of the 
Fathers is concerned, cannot be called into question. 

It is a matter of regret to the writer, that he has been unable 
to complete his work by a serious consideration of the difficulties, 
presented by the negative school of Higher Criticism ; and also that 
he could not give his attention to the perplexing problems sur- 
rounding the interpretation of the text, in view of the seemingly 
conflicting statements of the Book of Acts and the Letters of St. 
Paul. It is his hope, however, that these questions will be treated 
exhaustively at some later date, perhaps by a pen more competent 
than his. 

The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. Henry 
Schumacher, under whose direction and encouragement this work 
was undertaken and completed. He is grateful for the careful 
reading of the proofsheets by the Keverend ISTicholas Ehrenfried, 
0. P. It is a pleasure for him, moreover, to express his gratitude 
to his learned friend, Dr. Joseph Ehode, 0. F. M., to whose kind 
and personal interest he owes whatever advantages he may enjoy 
from a post-graduate course of studies. The sympathetic under- 
standing of his former, lately deceased Vice-Provincial, the Very 
Rev. Theodore Arentz, 0. F. M., and the large-hearted liberality 
of his present Provincial Superior, the Very Rev. Turibius Deaver, 
0. F. M., are graces for which the writer must rest eternally grate- 
ful to the Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect 
gift descends; for the considerate thoughtfulness of these men has 
greatly lightened and brightened his otherwise arduous course of 

studies ' BERNARD H. CUNEO, 0. F. M. 

Mt. St. Sepulchre, 
Washington, D. C v 
April 3, 1923. yft 


CSS Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Hummelauer, Knabenbauer, Comely). 

DAC Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. 

EB Encyclopedia Biblica (Cheyne and Black). 

ERE 'Hasting's Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 

HDB Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. 

HDB ( I ) Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Complete in One Volume. 

JThSt Journal of Theological Studies. 

MG Patrologiae graecae Cursus Completus (Migne). 

ML Patrologiae latinae Cursus Completus (Migne). 

SDB Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Hackett-Abbot) . 

TU Texte und Untersuchungen. 

ZNTW 'Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 



Abbot, Ezra. Art. Baptism in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Hackett- 

Abbot), New York, 1868. 

Allen, Alexander. Christian Institutions, New York, 1897. 
Alphonse of Liguori, St., C. SiS. R. Theologia Moralis, Curavit Mich. 

Heilig, torn. 5, 6, Mechliniae, 1852. 

Baronius, Caesare, ex Congregatione Oratorii. Annales Ecclesiastic!, Ve- 
metiis, torn. 1 (1705), torn. 2 (1706). 

Bartmann, Bernhard. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, II (1921), Freiburg im 

Bede, St. Historia Ecclesiastica, ML 95. 

Bellamy, J. Art. Bapteme, nn. I. Bapteme dans la sainte ^criture; VIII. 
Bapteme dans Pfiglise latine depuis le VHIe Siecle avant et apres le 
iConcile de Trente, in Diotionnaire de Theologie Catholique (A. Vacant 
and E. Mangenot), Paris, 1905. 

Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationum Tomus Tertius, Parisiis, 1613. 

Benedioti XIV. Opera Oinnia in Tomos XVII Distributa, Tom. IX, Prati, 

Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. A New Transla- 
tion by Charlton T. Lewis and Marion R. Vincent. Vol. 1, 

Bernard, St. of Clairvaux. Epistola 403 (antea 340), ML 182. 

Bingham, Joseph. Origines Ecclesiasticae. The Antiquities of the Chris- 
tian Church, vol. 1, London, 1878. 

Biniterim, Anton Joseph. Die vorzuglichsten Denkwurdigkeiten der Christ- 
Katholischen Kirche, Erster Bd. Erster Th. Mainz, 1825. 

Breen, A. E. A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, vol 4, 
Rochester, New York, 1908. 

Cateehismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini, Editio l a stereotypa, 1871. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Eusebian Form of the Text. 

Mt. 28, 19, in ZNTW 1901, pp. 275^288. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. Three Early Modifications of the 

Text of the Gospels: II. Mt. 28, 19, in The Hibbert Journal, 1902, 

pp. 102-106. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Ant. Baptism, in the Encyclopaedia 

Britannica, Eleventh Edition, New York, 1910. 
Corblet, Jules. Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et ArchSologique du 

iSacrament de Bapteme, Tom. 1 (1)881), Tom. 1 (1882), Paris. 
Cornelius a Lapide, S. J. Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, in Mat- 

thaeum, vol. 15 (1857) ; in Rom. and I Cor., vol. 18 (1861), Parisiis. 
Comely, Rudolph, S. J. OSS, in I Cor., Parisiis, 1890. 
Curci, Carlo M. II Nuovo Testamento, vol. 1, Firenze, 1879. 

Denziger, Heinr. and Bannwart, Clem., S.J. Enchiridion Symbolorum, 
etc. Editio Decima Quarta et Quinta, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1922. 

Diekamp, Franz. KLatholische Dogmatik, Dritter Band, Miinster i. W., 

Elbel, Benjamin, 0. F. M. Theologia Moralis, Edidit Irenaeus Bierbaum, 

O. F. M., vol. 3, Paderbonae, 1895. 
Esser, Gerhard. Art. Taufe, in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexicon, vol. 

11, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899. 
Estius, Guillelmus. In Quattuor Libros Sententiarum Commentaria, Tom. 

3, Parisiis, 1653. 

Fanning, William H. W. Art. Baptism, in Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, 
New York, 1907. 



Ferraris, Lucius, 0. F. M. Prompta Bibliotheca, Editio novissima, opera 
. . . monachorum . . . Monte Cassini, Locupletante J. P. Migne, Tom. 
1, Lutetiae, 1866. 

Gotti, Vincentius Ludovicus, 0. P. Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica Juxta 
Mentem Divi Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. 3, Venetiis, 1763. 

Grotius, Hugo. Operum Theologicoruin Tomus Secundus, etc. Basileae, 

Hefele, Carl Joseph von. Conciliengeschichte. Vol. 1 (1873), vol. 2 
( (1875), vol. 3 (1877), vol. 4 (1879), Freiburg dm Breisgau. 

Heinrich, J. B. Dogmatische Theologie, Fortgefiihrt durch Constantin 
Gutberlet, Band 9, Miinster i. W., 1901. 

Hugo de St. Victor. De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, ML 176. 

Hurter, H., S. J. Theologia Specialis, Pars Altera, Oennipotente, 1883. 

Juenin, Gaspare, Oratorii Gallicani. Commentarius Historicus et Dog- 
maticus, De Sacramentis in iGenere et in Specie, Pars Prima, Lugduni, 

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand. Das Apostolische Symbol, Zweiter Band: Ver- 

breitung und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, Leipzig, 1900. 
Kenrick, Franciscus Patricius. Theologia Dogmatica, vol. 3, Mechliniae, 

Knabenbauer, Joseph, S. J. CSS, Evangelium sec. S. Matthaeum, Parisiis, 

Knoll, a Bulsano, Albert, O. M. 'C. Institutions Theoreticae, seu Dogma- 

tico-Polemicae, vol. 2, Augustae Taurinorum, 1868. 

Lepin, M. Art. ^vangiles 'Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trdnitaire du 

ibaptgme, in Dictionnaire Apolog6tique de la Foi Catholique (A. 

D'Ales), Paris, 1911. 
Liebermann, Leon. Br. Institutions Theologicae, Tom. 2, Moguntiae, 

Lombardus, Petrus. Libri IV Senteiitiarum, Studio et cura PP. Collegii 

S. Bonaventurae in Lucem editi, Tom. 2, iSecunda Editio, Ad Claras 

Aquas, 1916. 

MacEvilly, John. An Exposition of the Gospels, Dublin, New York, 1898. 
Metzger, Max Josef. Zwei Karolingische Pontifikalien vom Oberrhein, 

Freiburger Theologische iStudien, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1914. 
Montalembert, The Monks of the West, vol. 2, Boston, 1872. 

Pesch, Christianus, S.J. Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Tom. 6, De Sacra- 
mentis, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1914. 

Plunimer, A. Art. Baptism, IV. The History of Christian Baptism, in 
HDB, vol. 1, New York, 1902. 

Plumptre, E. H. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Ellicott's New 
Testament Commentary), London, Paris, New York, 1884. 

Pohle, Preuss. The Sacraments, a Dogmatic Treatise by the Kev. Joseph 
Pohle. Authorized English Version, based on the Fifth German Edi- 
tion, with some Abridgments and Additions by Arthur Preuss, St. 
Louis, 1915. 

Puniet, P. de. Art. Bapteme, in Diotionnaire D'ArchSologie Chr6tienne 
et de Liturgie (Fernand Cabrol), 1907, Paris. 

Rainy, Robert. The Ancient Catholic Church, New York, 1902. 
Reiffenstuehl, F. Anacletus, 0. F.M. Theologia Moralis, Mutinae, 1737. 

Scavini, Petrus. Theologia Moralis Universa ad Mentem S. Alphonsi, 

Liber Tertius, Mediolani, 1869. 
Scotus, Joannes Duns, Doctor 'Subtilis Ordinis Minorum. Opera Omnia, 

Editio Nova, Tom. 23, Reportata Parisiensia, Parisiis, 1894. 
Suarez, Fr., S.J. Theologiae Summa, a Francisco Noel ejusdem societatis 

concinnatum, Pars Secunda, Accurante J. P. Migne, Lutetiae, 1858. 


Sylvius, Franciscus. Commentarii in Tertiam Partem S. Thomae Aquina- 
tis, Editio Quarta, Duaci, 1645. 

Taquerey, Ad. Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis Ad Mentem S. 

Thomae Hodiernis Moribus Accommodata, vol. 2, Editio 13, Neo- 

Eboraci, etc., 19'11. 
Thomas Aquinas, St. Doctor Angelicus, 0. P. Summa Theologica, Pars 

Tertia, Romae, 1887. 
Thomas Aquinas, St. Doctor Angelicus, 0. P. lExpositio in Sanctum J. C. 

Evangelium sec. Matthaeum, JSTeapoli, 1858. 
Tournely, Horatius. Cur sits Theologicus, Scholastico-Dogmaticus, Sive 

Praelectionum Theologicorum Tomus Tertius. Coloniae Agrippinae, 

Trollope, William. Analecta Theologica, A Critical, Philological and Exe- 

getical 'Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, London, 1842. 

Vacant, A. Art. Baptgme, in Vigoroux's Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris, 

Van der Velden, Pius, 0. F. M. Principia Theologica Moralia Theoretice 

et Practice Exposita, Tomus Prior, Trudonopoli, 1854. 
Van Noort, G. Traotatus de Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Fasciculus Prior, 

Amsteldami, 1905. 

Weiss. Art. Taufe, in Kraus's Realencyclopadie der Christlichen Alter- 

thiimer, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1886. 
Wilhelm-Scannell. A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's 

" Dogmatik," vol. 2, New York, etc., 1899. 


Bartlett, J. V. Art. Baptism (New Testament), in ERE, vol. 2, New 
York, 1918. 

Chase, F. H. Art. The Lord's Command to Baptize (St. Matthew xxviii, 

19) in JThSt, 1905, pp. 481-517. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Eusebian Form of the Text 

Mt. 28, 19, in ZNTW, 1901, pp. 275-288. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. Three Early Modifications of the 

Text of the Gospels. II. Mt. 28, 19, in The Hibbert Journal, 1902, 

pp. 102-106. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Authorship of the Contra Mar- 

cellum, in ZNTW. 1903, pp. 330-334. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Authorship of the Contra Mar- 

cellum, in ZNTW, 1905, pp. 250-270. 

Feine, Paul. Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1912. 

Fisher, George Park. History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1914. 

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament, I 

Band, Freiburg i. B., 1802. 
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, 

zweite neu bearbeitete Auflage, herausgegeben von A. Jiilicher und 

W. Bauer, Erster Band, Tubingen, 1911. 

Jacquier, E. (Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Testament, torn. 2, Paris, 

Lake, Kirsopp. Art. Baptism (Early Christian), in ERE, vol. 2, New 

York, 1918. 
Lebreton, Jules. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite", Paris, 1910. 

Maclean, A. J. Art. Baptism, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic 
Church, 1916. New York. 


Martineau, James. Tlie Seat of Authority in Keligion, London, 1890. 
MoGiffert, Arthur Cushman. A History of 'Christianity in the Apostolic 
Age, New York, 1903. 

Biehm, Eduard C. Aug. Art. Taufe in his Handworterbuch des Biblischen 

Alerthums fiir gebildete Bibelleser, Bielefeld und Leipzig, 1884. 
Eiggenbach, E. Art. Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matth. 28, 19, in Bei- 

trage zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie, VII, 1903, Erstes Heft, 

pp. 7-103. 
Robinson, J. Armitage. Art. Baptism, in Encyclopaedia Biblica (Cheyne 

and Black), New York, London, 1899. 

Robinson, J. Armitage. Art. In My Name, in JThSt, 1905. 
Rose, V., O. P. La Pense"e Chre"tienne, Textes et fitudes, iavangile selon 

S. Matthieu, Traduction et Commenitaire, Paris, 1905. 

Schenkel, Daniel. Art. Taufe in his Bibel-lexicon, Leipzig, 1875. 

Weiss, Bernhard. Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Translated 
from the Third Edition by Rev. David Eaton, Edinburgh, 1892. 

Wellhausen, J. Das Evangelium Matthai tibersetzt und erklart, Berlin, 

Wilkinson, J. R. Art. in The Hibbert Journal, 1903, pp. 571-576, in reply 
to F. C. Conybeare's article in the same periodical of 1902, pp. 102-108. 

Zahn, Theodore. Das Evangelium des Matthaus, Leipzig, 1910. 


A. The Fathers. 

Athanasius. Apologia Contra Arianos, MG 25. 
Athanasius. De .'Synodis, MG 26. 

Eusebius of Caesarea. De Laudibus 'Constantini, MG 20. 
" " " Epistola ad Constantinum, MG 20. 

" " " Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 20. 

" " " Epistola ad Caesarea, MG 20 (also 67). 

" " " Praeparatio Evangelica, MG 21. 

" " " Demonstratio Evangelica, MG 22. 

" " " Eologae Propheticae, MG 22. 

" " " iCommentaria in Psalmos, MG 23. 

" " " 'Commentaria in Isaiam, MG 24. 

Contra Marcellum, MG 24. 

De Ecclesiastica Theologia, MG 24. 

De Fide Adversus iSabellium, MG .24. 

a ie i: 

l( C( {C 

tt ee ci 

" " " De Resurrectione, MG 24. 

" " " Syriac Theophany, editio Gressmann. 

Hilary. De Synodis, ML 10. 
Hilary. Fragmentum III, ML 10. 

Sozomenus. Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 67. 
Theodoretus. Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 82. 

B. The Modern Authors. 

Bethune-Baker, J. F. Note on the Contra Marcellum and The De Eccle- 
siastica Theologia, in JThJSt, 1905, pp. 517-521. 

Chase, F. H. Art. The Lord's Command to Baptize (St. Matthew xxviii, 

19), in JThSt, 1905, pp. 481-517. 
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. The four articles mentioned under Part 

I, Chapter II. 


Gressmann, Hugo. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, Eusebius' 

Werke, III Bd. 2 Halfte, Die Theophanie, etc., Leipzig, 1904. 
Gressmann, Hugo. Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie, in TU, ISTeue Folge, 
VIII Bd. 3 Heft, Leipzig, 1003. 

Harnack, Adolf. Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Literatur bis Euse- 
bius, II, 2, Leipzig, 1904. 

Hefele, Carl Joseph von. iConciliengeschichte, 1, Freiburg im Breisgau, 

Klostermann, Erich. Griechische 'Christliche Schriftsteller, Eusebius' 
Werke, IV Bd. Contra Marcellum, Leipzig, 1906. 

Lebreton, Jules. (Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite", Paris, 1910. 
Loeschcke, G. Art. Contra Marcellum, eine Schrift des Eusebius von Cae- 

sarea, in ZNTW, 1906, pp. 69-76. 
Loofs. Art. Marcellus von Ancyra, in Realencyclopadie fiir Protestantische 

Theologie und Kirche 3 , 1903, Leipzig. 

Resch, Alfred. Ausserkanonische Faralleltexte zu den Evangelien, in TU, 

X Bd. I Theil, Leipzig, 1894. 
Biggenbach, E. Article mentioned under Part I, Chapter II. 

Schumacher, Heinrich. Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu, Freiburg im Breis- 
gau, 1912. 

Wilkinson, J. R. Article mentioned under Part I, Chapter II. 
Zahn, Theodore. Das Evangelium des Matthaus, Leipzig, 1910. 


Around the text of Mt. 28, 19: "Going, (therefore), make 
disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ", there has been 
spun a web of involved delicacy, which has tightened and nar- 
rowed its meshes during that long and varied period, in which it 
has struggled from the Fathers down to us. The greater part' of 
this period is tempered by the toil and trouble of those scholars, 
who may be called conservative in this point, since they never 
questioned the authenticity, or the historicity of the text, but 
strained every nerve to harmonise the interpretation of Mt. 28, 19 
with the seemingly conflicting statements of the Book of Acts and 
the Letters of St. Paul. The lesser, and more modern term of 
the same period, is characterised, besides, by the efforts of a num- 
erous minority to look upon the words of Matthew as authentic, 
perhaps, but unhistorical, since they stand in open conflict with 
the historical data of the Acts and of the Pauline Epistles; or 
even as unauthentic, since they are regarded as a later interpola- 
tion into the text of the First Gospel. 

The germ of the difficulty is lodged in the fact that Mt. 28, 19 
is the only text of the New Testament, which connects baptism 
directly with the Trinity; whereas the Book of Acts mentions it 
twice as administered lv TO> ovopari 'Irjo-ov Xpurrov (2, 38; 10, 48), 
and twice <-ts TO ovopa TOV wpiov 'lyo-ov (8, 16; 19, 5) : and St. 
Paul speaks of baptism e?.s Xpiordv (Gal. 3, 27), or els Xpurrov 
Ir/o-ow (Eom. 6, 3). 

Do not these texts of the Acts and of the Pauline Epistles give 
preponderance to the opinion that the early Apostolic Church 
baptised in the name of Jesus alone? It would seem so. Yet, how 
could such a procedure be reconciled with the explicit command 
of the Savior to baptise in the name of the Trinity, as it is re- 
corded in the Gospel of Matthew? Do the words of Matthew con- 
stitute a strict formula to be used in the administration of bap- 
tism? Do they impose any, formula at all? If so, how can this 
formula be squared with the rival formulas of the Acts and St. 


Or, should the words of the First Gospel be considered as the 
reflex of the ecclesiastical practice, which was in vogue at the 
time in which the First G-ospel was written? Might the words in 
question have been interpolated into the text during the period, 
in which the primitive method of baptising in the name of Christ 
was being supplanted by the more developed method of baptising 
in the name of the Trinity? Might they have been based on the 
authority of Christ as a successful check on the outcries of a con- 
servative minority against the newer, and radically different form 
of baptism ? 

These difficulties and hypotheses have engaged the attention of 
both the conservatives and the radicals. It will be interesting and 
profitable for us to follow the course of these two divergent streams 
of thought in their various ramifications thruout the ages. We shall 
first of all consider the traditional teaching in its various mani- 
festations, as it is reflected in the decrees of the Eoman Pontiffs 
and of the Councils, in the views of the scholastic school, and in 
the views of the modern conservative school. Then we shall con- 
sider the main line of argument of the modern radical, or anti- 
traditional school. 



OF MT. 28, 19 



1. Decrees of the Popes and the Councils. 

The first papal pronouncement on this subject of which we have 
any knowledge, dates from the third century. It was the outcome 
of that spirited and bitter controversy concerning the validity of 
baptism administered by heretics, which stirred the western Church 
to its very pillars, and threatened to sunder the provinces of Africa 
and Asia Minor from communion with Home. The main figure 
in this controversy was St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (d. 258), 
who in union with St.. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia 
(d. 269) withstood the decision of St. Stephen I, Bishop of Eome 
(d. 257). 

Firmilian was the first to come into conflict with the Eoman See. 
Between the years 230 and 235, he presided over a synod held at 
Iconium in Phrygia, in which the bishops of Galatia, Cilicia and 
the neighboring provinces participated. At this synod it was unani- 
mously decided that baptism administered by heretics was invalid ; 
and that consequently everyone who had 'been baptised in heresy, 
had to be rebaptised on entering the church. 1 This decision of 
the Asiatic bishops, and their corresponding practice, brought them 
into disfavor with Stephen, who threatened to excommunicate 
them, if they did not abandon their views. 2 

St. Cyprian entered the controversy in the year 255. In that 
year he convoked a Council at Carthage, at which 31 bishops ad- 
judged baptism administered outside the pale of the Church to be 
invalid. A second council of 71 bishops in the following year 
(256) rendered a similar decision. St. Cyprian sent the conciliar 
acts to Eome for approval ; but Stephen rejected the decision, and 
maintained the validity of heretical baptism. 

Unfortunately the reply of Pope Stephen to Cyprian has been 
lost, as have also all documents or letters which he may have written 
on the subject. We must therefore rely entirely on extracts of his 
letters as they are preserved in the correspondence between Cyprian 

1 Another synod seems to have been held at about the same time at Syn- 
nada in Phrygia. Cf. Hefele Conciliengeschichte I, 108. 
3 Hefele, I, 117. 



and Firmilian, and on their interpretation of Stephen's words, for 
any knowledge of the Pontiffs views on this matter. 

In his letter (74th) to Firmilian, Cyprian quotes Stephen as 
saying: "Si qui ergo a quacunque haeresi venient ad vos, nihil 
innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis imponatur in 
poenitentiam, cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes 
non baptizent, sed communicent tantum ". 3 

iShould we conclude from this text that Stephen was prepared 
to admit the validity of every heretical baptism, whether the trini- 
tarian form had been used or not? Prom the letters of Cyprian 
and Firmilian the conclusion is forced upon us, that Stephen was 
willing to admit the validity of every heretical baptism of his time ; 
and that for two seemingly conflicting reasons: first, because 
heretics baptised in the name of Jesus Christ; secondly, because 
they baptised in the name of the Trinity. 

In support of the first view we have the letter (73rd) of 
Cyprian, 4 in which we find the following statements : 

1. The defenders of heretical baptism uphold the validity of 
baptism performed by the Marcionites, because they baptise in the 
name of Jesus Christ. 

2. Cyprian's opponents maintain the validity of a baptism per- 
formed outside the Church in the name of Jesus Christ. 

3. Heretics, in fact, baptise in the name of Christ. 

The same view is expressed in the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian, 
which says: "Sed in multum inquit (Stephanas), proficit nomen 
Christi ad fidem et baptismi sanctificationem, ut quicumque et 
ubicumque in nomine Christi baptizatus fuerit, consequatur gra- 
tiam Christi". 5 

On the other hand we have assertions, which seem to point to 
the conclusion that Stephen approved the baptisms of heretics, 
because they were performed in the name of the Trinity. For 
instance, in his same 73rd letter, St. Cyprian concedes that the 
Marcionites baptised in the name of the Trinity:, and he tries to 
weaken this argument by saying, that under the expression " Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost ", the Ma,rcionites understood something quite 
different from the Church at large. 6 Cyprian's argumentation 

3 Denziger-Bannwart Enchiridion Symb. et Def. Edit. 14 and 15, 1922, 
n. 46. 

4 ML, 3, 1112 sqq. 

5 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 47. 
"ML, 3, 1115 B. 

leads us to think that his opponents, (hence Stephen), defended 
the validity of the Marcionitic baptisms because they were per- 
formed in the name of the Trinity. Yet, in the same letter, as 
mentioned above, the Marcionites are claimed to baptise in the 
name of Jesus Christ. 

Then again, in the same 75th letter of Firmilian we read that a 
certain woman in his vicinity, claiming to be a prophetess, had 
administered baptism; but eventually she was discovered to be 
possessed by an evil spirit. He then asks the question: "Will 
Stephen and his followers claim that the baptisms administered 
by her were valid, especially since they were performed in the name 
of the Trinity?". 7 

Are we to conclude from these passages that Stephen believed 
that some heretics administered baptism in the name of Jesus, 
and others in the name of the Trinity? Firmilian in his 75th 
letter to Cyprian says : " <Stephanus in sua epistola dixit : haereti- 
cos quoque ipsos in baptismo convenire"; and in the 74th letter 
of Cyprian we read: "ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se 
venientes non baptizant ". Consequently, since the heretics had no 
proper baptism of their own (proprie non baptizant)', but agreed 
with regard to baptism (in baptismo convenire), it seems to have 
been Stephen's conviction that the heretics of his day used the 
same formula in baptising as the Church did. Whether Stephen 
was correct in this opinion is another question. 8 

In view of what has been said, the following conclusions seem 
justified : 

1. Stephen believed that the baptismal formula used by the 
heretics of the third century was the same as that used by the 

2. He admits the validity of heretical baptism for two reasons : 
first, because it was administered in the name of Jesus; secondly, 
because it was administered in the name of the Trinity. 

3. Consequently, either Stephen considered baptism in the name 
of Jesus and baptism in the name of the Trinity synonymous ex- 
pressions for baptism administered with the formula in the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or baptism 
was administered with both formulas in the Koman Church of the 
third century. 

7 ML, 3, 1165 B. 

8 For a lucid treatment of the entire discussion see liefele, 1. c., pp. 122- 
133; also J. Corblet, Histoire du Sacrement De Bapteme, Paris, 1881, livre 
VI, nil. IV, pp. 32R-348. 



We know from Cyprian's 73rd letter (to Jubaianus) that some 
persons of his time upheld the validity of baptism in the name of 
Jesus alone. The passage is : " Denique ubi post resurrectionem a 
Domino Apostoli ad gentes mittuntur, in nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus Sancti baptizare gentes jubentur. Quomodo, ergo, quidam 
dicunt foris extra Ecclesiam, immo et contra Ecclesiam, modo in 
nomine Jesu Christi ubicumque et quomodocumque gentilem bap- 
tizatum remissionem peccatorum consequi posse,, quando ipse 
Christus gentes baptizari jubet in plena et adunata Trinitate?". 

Is this passage to be referred to Stephen or not? Biaronius (d. 
1607) seems to, have been the first to affirm that it does. 10 Fanning 
in the Catholic Encyclopedia also understands it in the same sense. 11 
Eainy openly attributes this view to Stephen ; 12 so do also A. 
Allen 13 and Conybeare. 14 Kattenbusch, however, in his monu- 
mental work on the Symbolum, 15 says that it is not certain what 
heretics Cyprian had in mind. P. de Puniet says that it is un- 
certain that Stephen referred to a baptism performed solely under 
the invocation of the name of Jesus. 16 The truth on this con- 
troverted point would demand a study in itself, and it cannot be 
entered upon further here. 17 

The question of heretical baptism was taken up again by the 
General Council of the western Church at Aries in Gaul in the 
year 314. The decision of the Carthagenian councils under 
Cyprian, was revoked; and it was ordained that heretics who had 
been baptised in the Trinity, should not be rebaptised on returning 
to the Catholic fold. 

The wording of the eighth canon, however, which contains the 
decision, is peculiar. It runs: "De Afris quod propria lege sua 
utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuit, ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de 
haeresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum, et si perviderint eum 
in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Saricto esse baptizatum, manus ei 

9 ML, 3, 1120 B-C. 

10 Ann. Eccles., torn. 1, an. Ch. 34, n. 248. 

11 Art. Baptism, p. 263, col. 2. 

The Ancient Catholic Church, p. 259 sq. 

13 Christian Institutions, p. 403 sq. 

14 ZNTW, 1901, The Eusebian Form of the Text, Mt. 28, 19, p. 286, n. 33. 
15 Apostl. Symbol., vol. 2, p. 375, note 35. 

10 Diet. d'Arch. et Litur., art. Bapteme, III. L'Acte Baptismal et sa 
Formule, etc., col. 338. 

17 A rich store of literature will be found in the work of J. Corblet, His- 
toire du Sacrement de Bapteme, torn. 1, p. 348, note 1. 

tantuxn imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum. Quodsi interro- 
gatus, non respondent hanc Trinitatem, laptizetur ", 18 

It would almost seem from the foregoing words, that by the 
expression in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto laptizatum, the 
council of Aries understood baptism administered after a profes- 
sion of faith in the Trinity. Nothing is directly said in the canon 
about the baptismal formula. The bishops of Africa are merely 
instructed to ask the converted heretics concerning the symbolum, 
and to rebaptise them if they do not answer the Trinity (if they 
make no mention of the Trinity in their symbolum?). 

The following synods and councils which treat of heretical bap- 
tism, either emphasize the eighth canon of the council of Aries, or 
merely apply its principles to individual classes of heretics. Thus 
canon 8 of the First General Council at Nicaea (325) ordains that 
the Novatians should not be rebaptised, while canon 19 says that 
the Paulianists (followers of Paul of Samosata) should be re- 
baptised. 10 The synod of Carthage, held under G-ratus between 
the years 345 and 348, forbids the rebaptism of the Donatists. 20 
The synod of Laodicea in Phrygia, held between 348 and 381, de- 
cides in its seventh canon that the Novatians, (and Photinians), 21 
and Quartodecimans should not be rebaptised; whereas the eighth 
canon commands the Phrygians (Montanists) to be rebaptised. 22 

In two letters of Pope Innocent I, we are told the explicit 
reason why some heretics were admitted without rebaptism, and 
others not. In his second letter, Etsi tibi, written to Victricius, 
Bishop of Kouen (Feb. 15, 404), he repeats the decision of the 
eighth canon of Nicaea, that the Novatians (whom he calls Mon- 
tenses) 23 should not be rebaptised. He then adds the reason: 
"quia quamvis ad haereticis, tamen in Cliristi nomine sunt bap- 

The same Pope, however, in his 17th epistle, Magna me gratu- 
latio, addressed to Eufus and other bishops of Macedonia (Dec. 
13, 414), in explaining why the Council of Nicaea discriminated 
between the Novatians and the Paulianists, has the following to 

18 I>enziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 53. 

10 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., nn. 55, 56. 

20 Hefele, 1. c., I, 633. 

21 See the discussion of the authenticity of this word in Hefele, 1. c., 
I, 753 sq. 

22 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 88. 

23 Cf. Hefele, 1. c., II, 46. 

24 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 94. 


say : " Quod idcirco distinctum esse ipsis duabus haeresibus, ratio 
manifesta declarat, quia Paulinanistae in nomine Patris et Filii 
et Spiritus Sancti minime laptizent, et JSTovatiani iisdem nominibus 
tremendis venerandisque baptizant, nee apud istos de imitate po- 
testatis divinae, hoc est Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti quaestio 
aliquando commota est". 25 

Here we find the same peculiarity as we did above with Stephen 
I. Stephen admitted the validity of all heretical baptisms of his 
time, because they were performed in the name of Jesus Christ, 
and again, because they were performed in the name of the Trinity. 
Innocent proclaims the baptisms of the ISTovatians valid, because 
they baptised in the name of Christ (ep. 2), and again, because 
they baptised in the name of the Trinity (ep. 17). Did Innocent 
identify the two expressions, or did he consider both formulas 
valid, or were the expressions in question not intended to refer 
to any formula at all? 

The question of heretical baptism is again considered by the 
second council of Aries (443 or 452). The injunction is here 
repeated to rebaptise the Photinians and the Paulianists according 
to the precepts of the Fathers (canon 16), but to receive the 
Bonosians without baptism, because like the Arians, they baptised 
in the Trinity (canon 17 ). 26 

The same question is treated more fully in the canon, which at 
present is enumerated as the seventh in the canons of the second 
General Council held at Constantinople (381), but which most 
probably was taken from a letter, addressed by the Church of 
Constantinople to Bishop Martyrius of Antioch in the middle of 
the fifth century (ca. 460 ). 27 This canon, or rather letter, men- 
tions that the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatines (followers of Sab- 
batius), Novatians, Quarto decimans and Apollinarists are not 
rebaptised; but the Eunomians, the Montanists (who are called 
Phrygians), the Sabellians and all other heretics, especially such 
as hail from Galatia are received as heathens, they are baptised 
only after a long period of instruction. 

About a hundred years later (ca. 560), we find the first ex- 
plicit statement concerning heretics who baptise in the name of 
Jesus alone. It is contained in the letter, Admonemus ut, written 
by Pope Pelagius I to G-audentius, Bishop of Yolterra in Italy. 

25 Ibidem, n. 97. 
88 Hefele, 1. c., II, 300. 

27 Ibidem, II, 27. 


The Pope declares such baptisms invalid, and demands that per- 
sons baptised with such a formula should be rebaptised according 
to the words of Mt. 28, 19. 28 

Almost as clear a pronouncement is had in the ep. 67, libri II, 
Quia charitati, written by Pope Gregory I to Quiricus and the 
bishops of Ireland (June 22, 601). Gregory here affirms that he 
has learned from the ancient teaching of the Fathers, that whoso- 
ever had been baptised in the Trinity while in heresy, should not 
be rebaptised; but whosoever had not been baptised in the Trinity, 
should be baptised, " quia baptisma non fuit, quod in errore positi, 
in sanctae Trinitatis nomine minime perceperunt ". 20 

The statement of Conybeare that in this .seventh century the popes of 
Rome excommunicated the entire Celtic Church for their adhesion to the 
old method of baptising in the name of Jesus alone, 30 is not in accordance 
with historical truth. At the time to which Conybeare refers, the Anglo- 
Saxons had succeeded in overrunning England, and subjugating the Chris- 
tian Britons who formerly possessed the land. The feeling of hatred in 
the British hearts, against the invaders, was so deep, that they would 
not even attempt to evangelise the heathen conquerors, in order that they 
might not become partakers thru their help, of eternal happiness in the 
world to come. 

When Augustine landed on the isle of Thanet in the year 557 in answer 
to the command of Gregory the Great, he found this feeling of the native 
Britons an obstacle to his mission. He found, too, that the Christian 
clergy not only of England, but also of Ireland and Scotland, differed in 
very many respects in their liturgy from the mother -Church at Eome. 

It was Augustine's aim to persuade the Britons to aid him in evangel- 
ising the Anglo-Saxons, and also to conform to Rome in the carrying-out 
of itheir liturgy. Accordingly he assembled the bishops and the chief 
priests of England, and proposed that they make the following concessions. 
I shall give the proposals in the words of Ven. Bede, the oldest historian 
on this subject: 

" Dicebat autem eis : Quia in muLtis quidem nostrae consuetudini, immo 
universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis: et tamen, si in tribus his mihi 
obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis; ut ministerium bap- 
tizandi, quo Deo renascimur, juxta morem sanctae romanae et apostolicae 
Ecclesiae compleaitis; ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum verbum Domini 
praedicetis : ceterum quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequa- 
nimiter cuncta tolerabimus. At illi nil horum se facturos, neque ilium 
pro archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant." KL 

38 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 229- 
20 Ibidem, n. 249. 

30 The Hibberit Journal, 1902, p. 107; also art. Baptism, in the Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica. 

31 Historia Ecclesiastica, ML, 95, 83, cap. 2. 


The principal difference between the Celtic Church and the Church of 
Rome, consisted in the different computation of the paschal time; at least 
this divergence of observance gave rise to the greatest inconvenience, and 
even bitterness, between the two parties, until in the year 664 the matter 
was settled in favor of the Roman observance by the Northumbrian king, 
Oswiu." 3 

The difference regarding baptism was not as important as Conybeare 
would have us believe. According to the words of Bede, quoted above, 
Augustine asked the Britons to complete baptism according to the custom 
of the Roman and Apostolic Church ( " ut ministerium baptizandi com- 
pleatis") ; at least the ordinary meaning of complere is to complete, altho 
it may also mean to perform. 

At any rate, Ave have no testimony to the effect that the Celts baptised 
in the name of Jesus alone. Montalembert ss understands the words of 
Bede as referring to the words after baptism, and probably to the sacra- 
ment of 'Confirmation. M. Varin, in his second treatise, on the causes of 
the differences between the Celtic Church and the Church of Rome (the 
summary of which is given in Montalembert's " The Monk of the West " S4 ) , 
understands the expression of Bede to refer to the ceremonies supple- 
mentary to baptism, ceremonies, which the islanders would not recognise, 
because their first apostles who had come from Rome, had told them noth- 
ing about them. From the words of Bede it is more natural to conclude 
that the difference consisted in these supplementary ceremonies than in the 
formula itself. 

Moreover, the popes of Rome never excommunicated the Celtic Church 
for this difference of observance. ISTo such excommunication is mentioned 
by Montalembert in the " Monies of the West ", Lingard in the " Antiqui- 
ties of the Anglo-Saxon Church ", Rohrbacher in his " Histoire Universelle 
de L'Eglise Catholique ", Thurstoii in his . article " Anglo-tSaxon Church ", 
in the " Catholic Encyclopedia ", Zimmermann in his article " England ", 
in Wetzer and Welte's " Kirchenlexicon ". 

Montalembert says expressly : " Rome never treated as schismatics, or 
heretics, those Celtic dissidents, the most illustrious of whom, Columbanus 
of Luxeuil and Aiden of Landisfarne, have always had a place in her 
martyrology. iShe never proceeded otherwise than by Avay of counsel and 
moderation, without insisting on violent measures, and patiently awaiting 
the returning calm of excited spirits, giving to all an example of prudence, 
moderation and charity ". 35 

In the following century we have an interesting case which St. 
Boniface of Germany proposed to Pope Zachary I for solution. 
There was an ignorant priest in Bavaria, he writes, who corrupted 
the formula and baptised: "in nomine patria et filia et spiritus 
sancti". Boniface ordered these baptisms to be repeated; but 

32 Ibidem, cap. 25, col. 158 sqq. 

3a The Monks of the West, vol. 2, p. 179, note 94, edition of 1872, Boston. 

34 Appendix II, p. 743. 

30 L. c., 2, p. 320 sq. 


since this measure was opposed by two of his priests, Virgilius 
(later Bishop of Salzburg) and Sidonius (later Bishop of Passau), 
he asked Pope Zachary to decide the case. The Pope answered 
(July 1, 746) that the baptisms were valid, if the priest changed 
the formula merely thru ignorance, and not thru any heretical 
intention. 36 

Boniface wrote again informing the Pope of the decision reached 
by the General Prankish Synod of 747, that if the name of one 
person was omitted from the formula, the baptisms were invalid. 
The Pope approved the decision. 37 His letter, Sacris liminibus, 
written May 1, 748, is a clear statement of his position : <e Qui- 
cunque sine invocatione Trinitatis lotus fuisset, sacramentum re- 
generationis non haberet . . . ; perfectus non est, nisi fuerit in 
nomine Patris, et Filii, and Spiritus Sancti baptizatus ", 38 

In spite of this clear statement of Pope Zachary in the year 748, 
and of Pope Gregory the Great in 601, and of Pelagius I in 560, 
we are confronted by another very doubtful utterance in the 
Responsa of Nicholas I to the Consulta Bulgarorum (Nov. 866). 
From the 14th to the 16th chapter of Nicholas's answer, we are 
told that there was a certain Greek among the Bulgarians who 
pretended to be a priest, and in this way had been able to baptise 
a great number of people. When the people found out that he was 
an impostor, they maltreated him and drove him away. Nicholas 
condemns this action as cruel and punishable; but he informs the 
Bulgarians that the baptisms were valid, if they were performed 
in the Trinity. 39 

In the 104th chapter of the same document, however, we find a 
conflicting statement. It reads: "A quodam Judaeo, nescitis 
utrum christiano an pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos 
asseritis, et quid de his agendum, consulitis. Hi profecto si in 
nomine Sanctae Trinitatis, vel tantum in nomine Christi sicut in 
Actibus Apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt (unum quippe 
idemque est, ut Sanctus exposuit Ambrosius), constat eos non esse 
denuo baptizandos ". 40 

Here again the same question arises as before with Stephen I 
and Innocent I. Did Nicholas consider the expressions in nomine 

30 Hefele, 1. c., 3, 555. 

37 Ibidem, 566. 

88 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 297. 

3 Hefele, 1. c., 4, 348. 

40 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 335. 


Sanctae Trinitatis, and in nomine Christi as synonymous expres- 
sions for a baptism administered with the formula in nomine 
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, or did he consider the expressions 
as two distinct formulas, "both of which could be used for the valid 
administration of baptism? The latter position is attributed to 
him by the majority of the scholastics; as, for instance, Estius, 41 
Suarez, 42 Sylvius, 43 Tournely, 44 Gotti, 45 Juenin, 46 and St. 
Alphonse ; 47 also by the modern conservatives Liebermann, 48 
Heinrich, 49 Pohle-Preuss, 50 and Plummer. 61 The first view was 
championed by St. Thomas, 52 and lately again by C. Pesch, 53 tho 
with different explanations. 

Alexander III (d. 1181) in a letter to Pontius says that if a 
person baptised a child with the formula in nomine Patris et Filii 
fit Spiritus Sancti, Amen, omitting the words ego laptizo te, the 
baptism were invalid. 54 

The first clear official enunciation of the baptismal formula 
used in the Catholic Church is set down in the first chapter, "De 
Fide Catholica", of the Twelfth General Council, the Fourth of 
Lateran (1215). The wording is: " Sacr amentum vero baptismi 
(quod ad Dei invocationem et individuae Trinitatis, videlicet, Patris 
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti consecratur in aqua) tarn parvulis quam 
adultis in forma Ecclesiae a quocumque rite collatum proficit ad 
salutem ". 55 It will be observed, however, that nothing is stated 
about the validity, or invalidity, of other formulas in past ages. 

Sixty-nine years later the synod of Nemours (1284), after em- 
phasizing that the trinitarian formula should be used in baptism, 
adds the remarkable statement : <c Idem dicimus, scilicet, inf antem 
baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi. 

41 Comm. in Lib. IV Sent. dist. 3, par. 5. 

^Summa Theol., Disp. 21, Sect. 3, 4, col. 875, Dico 4. 

43 Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, a. 6. 

44 De Sac. Bapt., art. 4, obj. 2. 

45 Theol. iSchol.-Dogm. tr. 5, De Bapt. dub. 7, part. 3, n. 15. 

40 Comm. Hist, et Dogm. De San. Diss. 2, De Bapt. c. 3, a. 3, Concl. 2. 

* Theol. Moral., lib. 6, tr. 2, De Bapt. c. 1. dub. 3. 

d8 Instit. Theol., p. 420, 4. 

40 Dogm. Theol., p. 286. 

co The Sacraments, 1, 224. 

51 Art. Baptism in HDB, TV, The History of Christian Baptism. 

03 Sranma 3, q. 66, a. 6, ad tertium. 

ra Prael. Dogm., 6, n. 389. 

M Denziger-Bamrwart, 1. c., n. 398. 

56 Ibidem, 1. c., n. 430. 


Quod tamen non est laicis exprimendum, ne a forma praedicta 
statuta per Ecclesmm recedatur ". 

The fifteenth General Council at Vienne (1311-1312) repeated 
the words of the Fourth Lateran Council. It says: "Ad hoc 
baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes in Christos regenerans est, 
sicut unus Deus, ac fides unica, ab omnibus fideliter confitendum, 
quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti, credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter per- 
fectum remedium ad salutem". 57 

That this statement of the Council of Vienne, and likewise that 
of the Fourth Lateran Council, refers to the actual practice of 
the Church at the time in which those councils were held, and does 
not regard the baptisms administered in the past, seems clear from 
the discussions, which continued in the theological schools, as to 
whether the Apostles made use of the trinitarian, or the christo- 
logical formula in baptism. 

This point is clearly illustrated in the discourse entitled: De 
Communione sub utraque specie, addressed in the year 1433 to 
the Council of Basle by the Dominican, John of Eagusa. He says : 
"Dominus Jesus Christus ascendens in coelum praecepit apostolis 
dicens, Matthaei ultimo: Ite docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos 
in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, in quibus verbis dedit 
eis et limitavit formam baptism! et in persona eorum toti ecclesiae. 
Et tamen, non post longum tempus, ipsi apostoli et ecclesia dimit- 
tendo dictam formulam in nomine Patris etc., traditam a Domino, 
baptizabant tantum in nomine Domini Jesus Christi. ... Si enim 
immutaverunt apostoli formam baptismi, quae dat essentiam sac- 
ramento, taliter ut si quis nunc in ilia forma, qua ipsi apostoli, 
baptizaret, non esset baptismus, quanto magis potest ecclesia, mutare 
vel tollere unam speciem etc ", 58 

Consequently, altho John of Kagusa admits that to perform bap- 
tism in the name of Jesus alone in his day were invalid, still, he 
says, it was valid in the early days of the Church. 

The question of the formula was once more treated by Eugene IV 
in his Decretum pro Armenis (1439). He states that the bap- 

60 Mansi, Concilia 24, col. 523. 

57 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 482. Mansi, however, 25, col. 411, has the 
text in the more intelligible form: "Baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes 
in Christo regenerans, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica, ab omnibus confi- 
tendwn ". 

68 Mansi Concilia, 29, col. 858 and 863. 


tismal formula is: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus sancti. However, he continues,, he does not wish to deny 
that two other formulas are also valid, soil : Baptizatur talis servus 
Christi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; and : Baptiza- 
tur manibus meis talis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti. 59 

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) settled the question of here- 
tical baptism, by anathematising anyone who maintained the in- 
validity of a baptism, performed in the name of the Father and. 
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing 
what the Church does. 60 

Alexander VIII in 1690 condemned the opinion of those per- 
sons who held that baptism had in past ages been validly conferred 
in the form in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, without 
mentioning: Ego te baptizo. Gi 

The result of this survey may be summarised thus: We have 
no decision of a General Council, or any papal document addressed 
to the entire Church, or in fact, any document at all of a pope, 
synod, or council, which states that baptism performed in the name 
of Jesus alone, was invalid in every age of the Church's history. 
We know for certain that such baptisms were considered invalid in 
the sixth century by Pelagius I, in the seventh by Gregory I, in 
the eighth by Zachary I, and probably in the fifth by Innocent I. 
In the third century the position of Stephen I on the question is 
very doubtful, as is also that of Mcholas I in the ninth century. 

The Lateran Council of the 13th century, that of Vienne in the 
14th, and of Trent in the 16th put down as the requirements for 
a valid baptism, the ablution by ivater and the invocation of the 
Trinity. This invocation is not further determined by these coun- 
cils. It is determined only in the practical instruction of Eugene 
IV to the Armenians, in the form: I baptise thee in the name of 
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 

That the General Councils did not wish to condemn all baptisms 
of the past, which had not been performed with the formula I bap- 
tise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost, seems clear from the Cathechismus Romanus, edited in the 
year 1566 for the pastors of the Catholic Church by express orders 
of the Council of Trent. This official catechism of the Council of 

G0 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 696. 

00 Ibidem, n. 860. 

01 Ibidem, n. 1317. 


Trent takes up the question of the baptisms administered by the 
Apostles in the first century. It says that if the Apostles baptised 
merely in the name of Jesus, they did it by the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost (Spiritus Sancti afflatu), and in this christological 
formula everything was contained which had been ordained by 
Christ: "qui enim Jesum Christum dicit, simul etiam Patris 
personam, a quo unctus, et Spiritum Sanctum quo unctus est, 
significat". In the following words, however, the compilers of the 
Catechism seem to incline toward the opinion that the Apostles 
made use of the trine form, and that the expressions of Acts and 
St. Paul are to be understood of Christian baptism in contrast to 
the Joannine baptism. 62 

Then again, we have the testimony of Benedict XIV (d. 1758). 
In his treatise De Festo Ascensionis, 63 he mentions the two opinions 
on this vexed problem, without venturing a decision of his own; 
altho he adds that the majority of the theologians hold that the 
Apostles always made use of the trine form. 

2. The View of the Scholastics. 

The same scriptural texts which caused difficulty to the popes 
and the councils from the third century down to the eighteenth, 
agitated the minds of the scholastic theologians from the twelfth 
century onward. The two greatest exponents of theology in the 
first half of the twelfth century, were Hugo de St. Victor and 
Peter Lombard. Hugo de St. Victor wrote his work De Sacra- 
mentis about the year 1134, some eleven or twelve years before 
Peter Lombard wrote his famous Book of Sentences (ca. 114.5- 

In the work De Sacramentis (lib. 2, pars 2, cap. I), 64 Hugo 
states as his conviction that baptism is valid (plenum] even if it 
be administered in the name of one person of the Trinity, pro- 
vided the minister believed in the entire Trinity; whereas if the 
minister did not believe in the Trinity, the baptism performed by 
him was imperfect (imperfectum} , even tho it had been adminis- 
tered with the trine invocation. 

He bases this opinion on the meaning which he attaches to the 


02 Oatechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini. Editio l a stereotypa, 
1871, p. 150. 

03 Benedict XIV, Opera Omnia in Tomos XVII Distributa, Prati, 1843, 
Tom. IX, p. 179, n. 24. 

01 ML, 1 76, 44,3 sqq ; esp. 446, A, and 447, C, D. 


expression to ~be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son 
and of the Holy Ghost, and also on an obscure passage in the works 
of St. Ambrose. The expression in Mt. 28, 19 he asserts at length, 
means to be baptised into the faith, or profession of faith, in the 
Trinity. Consequently, since this profession of faith in the Trinity, 
according to him, is the essential feature, it matters little what 
formula is used in the administration of baptism. He even goes 
so far as to assert that he would not dare pronounce on the validity 
of a baptism, which had been performed by a minister who believed 
in the Trinity, but who did not pronounce the words, either be- 
cause he could not speak, or because he forgot the words on account 
of some imminent danger or other reason. 

That this is Hugo's final opinion is evident from the Praefatiuncula, 
which he prefixed to his work De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei. In that 
Praefatiuncula he admonishes the reader that he wrote this treatise owing 
to the insistent demands of his friends, and that he made use of his former 
dictations. If, however, the reader found elsewhere in his works anything 
not agreeing with his opinions here, he should change them according to 
this book. "Lectorem admonitum esse volo, ut sicubi ea extra operis 
hujus seriem aliud aut aliter aliquid habentia invenerit, hanc diversitatis 
causam esse sciat, et si quid forte in eis emendandum fuerit, ad hujus 
operis formam componat." 

The passage of St. Ambrose, by which he supports this opinion, 
is found in lib. 1, De Spiritu Sancto cap. 3. 65 Ambrose has just 
been treating of the disciples at Ephesus, who had been baptised 
with the baptism of John, and were rebaptised by Paul. He con- 
tinues : " Baptizati sunt itaque in nomine Jesu Christi ; nee itera- 
tum est in his baptisma, sed novation; unum enim baptisma (Eph. 
4, 5). Ubi autem non est plenum baptismatis sacramentum, nee 
principium vel species aliqua baptismatis aestimatur. Si unum 
neges, totum subrues. Et quemadmodum si unum in sermone 
comprehendas, aut Patrem aut Filium aut Spiritum sanctum, fide 
autem nee Patrem nee Filium nee Spiritum sanctum abneges, 
plenum est fidei sacramentum; ita etiam quamvis et Patrem et 
Pilium et Spiritum dicas, et aut Patris aut Filii aut Spiritus sancti 
minuas potestatem, vacuum est oimie mysterium. ISTunc considere- 
mus utrum quemadmodum in Christi nomine plenum esse legimus 
baptismatis sacramentum, ita etiam sancto tantum Spiritu nuncu- 
pate, nihil clesit ad mysterii pleiiitudinem. Eationem sequaniur; 
quia qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem signavit. Si Christum dicas, 

" r O,IL, HI. 713, n. 42 sq. 


et Deum Patrem, a quo unctus est Filius, et Spiritum sanctum, 
quo unctus est, designasti. . . Et si Patrem dicas, et Filium ejus 
et Spiritum oris ejus pariter indicasti; si tamen id etiam corde 
comprehendas. Et si Spiritum dicas, et Deum Patrem a quo pro- 
cedit Spiritus: et Filium,, quia Filii quoque est Spiritus, nuncu- 
pasti ". 

It was on the authority of this passage that Peter Lombard, also, 
asserted that baptism in the name of Christ alone was valid, and 
probably also in the name of the Father alone, or of the Holy 
Ghost alone, provided the minister believed in the Blessed Trinity. 66 
He confirms this view, moreover, by the answer of Pope Nicholas I> 
A d Consulta Bulgarorum, which has been mentioned above. 

This opinion of Hugo and Peter Lombard seems to have gained 
influence in the twelfth century. We find it carried out to the 
extreme in one of the letters of the contemporary saint, scholar, 
and statesman, Bernard of Clairvaux. St. Bernard (d. 1153) had 
been asked by Henry the Archdeacon his opinion concerning the 
baptism of a boy, who had been extracted from his mother's womb, 
and had been baptised by a lay person with the formula : Baptizo 
te in nomine Dei et sanctae crucis. He answers as follows "sine 
praejudicio tamen sanius sapientis": 

" Ego vere hunc baptizatum puto : nee sonum vocis veritati 
fidei et pietati intentionis praejudicare potuisse. . . . Feque enim, 
cum juxta communem Ecclesiae constitutionem baptizantes dici- 
mus: in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, aliud intelli- 
gendum est quam in conf essione Trinitatis. Porro autem confessio 
sanctae crucis nonnisi crucifixi confessio est. Legimus sane in 
Actibus Apostolorum non modo: in nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus saiicti, verum et in nomine Domini Jesu Christi aliquos 
baptizatos ", 67 

iSome authors have questioned the authenticity of this letter. Thus 
among others Estius (In IV Lib. Sent. Comm. dist. 3, par. 5) and Sylvius 
(Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, art. 6) ; but these authors adduce 
no reason in favor of their assertion excepting the strangeness of the 
doctrine contained in the letter. But that doctrine from the lips of St. 
Bernard is not strange at all, when we stop to think that Bernard was 
the scholar and friend of Hugo de St. Victor (cf. Mabillion, Sancti Ber- 
nardi Opera Omnia, 1667, Tom. 1, p. V, of the Brevis Chronologia in Vitam, 
etc., under the year MCXLII, where he calls Hugo: "S. Bernardi amicus 
et cultor praecipuus, alter sui seculi Augustinus " ) . J. Corblet (Histoire 


Lib. IV Sent., dist. 3, cap. 3', n. 25, and cap. 4, n. 26. 
07 ML, 182, 614, C, Epistola 403 (antea 340). 
3 b 


Dn 'Sacrement De Baptenie, 1, 282) also expresses his doubts about the 
authenticity, on account of the doctrine, and on account of the small num- 
ber of documents in which the letter appears. Horstius says that he 
would not easily deny its authenticity (ML, 182, 614 C, note 1054) . Mabil- 
lion (1. c.) tells us that it is found in the edition of Lyons, 1520, in other 
later editions, and in the manuscript Sarbondcus. It is to be regretted 
that we have no critical edition of St. Bernard's works; but we must 
bear in mind that the doctrine expressed in the letter, far from, militating 
against the authenticity, is a strong argument in its favor. It is just 
what we should expect to hear from one of Hugo's disciples, since it is 
the logical outcome of his principles. 

We find the same opinion in its more mitigated form, viz: that 
baptism in the name of Christ. was always valid, and probably also 
baptism in the name of the Father alone or of the Holy G-host 
alone, maintained as late as the 15th and the 16th centuries by 
Adrianus (d. 1458), Cajetan (d. 1534), and Toletus (d. 1596). 6S 

The vast majority of the scholastics, however, rejected this 
opinion, and maintained that the threefold invocation was abso- 
lutely necessary. Concerning the expressions in the Acts and St. 
Paul, there were two opinions : the first, that the Apostles baptised 
in the name of Jesus alone in virtue of a special dispensation; 
the second, that the Apostles always made use of the trine form, 
and that the conflicting statements of the Acts and St. Paul are 
to be interpreted as meaning Christian baptism in contrast to the 
Joannine baptism. 

The first view was the more prevalent one in the years preceding 
the Council of Trent. 69 It was held among others by Alexander 
of Hales, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Duns 
Scotus, and by the thomistic and scotistic schools generally. 70 

The contrary opinion, however, gained ground after the Council 
of Trent. 69 Bellarmine (d. 1621) calls the view that baptism was 
valid if performed with the invocation of one of the divine names, 
" incommoda opinio multorum catholicorum " . He rejects the 
opinion that the Apostles made use of a dispensation, because such 
a dispensation is not mentioned in the Scriptures, or in any council, 
or in the works of any of the Fathers. 71 

08 Cf. Cornelius a Lapide in Eom. 6, 3, vol. 18. 
00 Cf. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, 1, 221 sq. 

70 Cf. Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, torn. 1, s. v. Bapt. art. 3, n. 32. 
For St. Thomas see the Summa 3, q. 66, art. 6 ad primum; also: Fjxposit. 
in Sanct. J. C. Evang. sec. Mt. ad loc. For Scotus see: Lib. IV Sent., 
dist. 3, q. 2; also Reportata Parisiensia, lib. 4, dist. 3, q. 2, n. 8. 

71 De Sacram. Bapt., lib. 1, cap. 3. 


Similarly Vasquez (d. 1604), 72 Estius (d. 1613), 73 Suarez (d. 
1617), 74 Coninck (d. 1633), 72 Cornelius a Lapide (d. 1637), 75 
Grotius (d. 1646), Te Sylvius (d. 1649), 77 Aversa (d. 1657)," 
Tournely (d. 1729), 78 Elbel (d. 1756), 70 Ferraris (d. 1760), 72 
Juenin (d. ?), 80 and others reject the apostolic dispensation. It 
is rather surprising, therefore, to find. Anaclete Keiffenstuehl in 
the late 17th century (d. 1703), affirming that the apostolic dis- 
pensation was the more common opinion of theologians with few 
exceptions. 81 Gotti (d. 1742) says that both are probable. 82 St. 
Alphonse Ligouri (d. 1787) affirms that the second opinion was 
more common and more probable. 83 

The explanations which the supporters of the second view give 
to the texts of the Acts are various. The prevalent idea is that 
when the Book of Acts mentions baptism in the name of Jesus, it 
does not wish to exclude the Father and the Holy Ghost, but 
wishes merely to state that certain persons were baptised with the 
baptism instituted by Christ, in order to distinguish that baptism 
from the baptism of John. 84 Hence the expressions may mean 
that baptism was administered after a profession of faith in 
Christ, 85 or in the sacrament of baptism, 86 or that it was admin- 
istered thru the merits of Christ, 87 or on the authority of Christ. 88 

These scholastics, however, do not adopt any one explanation. 
They all adduce two, or three, or four explanations, and say that 
any may be accepted. Some even advance the theory that the 

72 See Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, torn. 1 s. v. Bapt. art. 3, nn. 30-34, 

73 In Lib. IV sent. Comm. dist. 3, par. 2. 
74 Summa Theol. disp. 21, sect. 3, 4, col. 874 sq. 
76 In Rom. 6, 3; I Cor. 1, 13, vol. 18. 
76 0perum Theol., torn. 2, ad loc. 

"Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, art. 6. 

78 De Sacram. Bapt., art. 4, p. 167. 

70 Theol. Moral., pars. 8, conf. 5, n. 105. 

80 Comm. Hist, et Dogm. de Sacram. dist. 2 De Bapt. cap. 3, art. 3. 

81 Theol. Moral, tr. 14 De Sacram. dist. 3, q. 3, n. 23. 

82 Theol. Moral, lib. 6, tr. 2 De Bapt. dub. 7, par. 4, n. 22. 

83 Theol. Moral, lib. 6, tr. 2 De Bapt. cap. 1, dub. 3. 

84 Thus among others: Bellarmine, Saurez. Gotti, Tournely, Cornelius a 
Lap. (Rom. 6, 3), Juenin, De Vivo, op. cit. 

85 Bellarmine, Suarez, Gotti, Tournely, Cornelius a Lap. (I Cor. 1, 13), 
Sylvius, op. cit. 
80 Gotti, op. cit. 

87 Cornelius a Lap. (Rom. 6, 3), Juenin, op. cit. 
88 Saurez, Cornelius a Lap. (Horn. 6, 3), Tournely, Juenin, op. cit. 


Apostles may have administered baptism in the form: in nomine 
Patris et Filii ejus Jesu Christi et Spiritus Sancti. Thus Bellar- 
mine (forsitan), Cornelius a Lap. (probabile) , Elbel (verosi- 
milius), Ferraris, Juarez (potest). 89 This goes to show that in 
spite of their diverse interpretations, the scholastics could not 
escape the thought that the Acts and St. Paul' are to all appear- 
ances opposed to the trinitariam text of Matthew, and that they 
presuppose a different formula for baptism than that of Matthew. 

3. The Modern Traditional View. 

The modern traditional view is practically the same as that of 
the later scholastics. The prevalent opinion is that the Apostles, 
too,, used the trine form, ,and never baptised in the name of Jesus 
alone. This opinion is held by Bingham, 80 Binterim., 91 Corblet, 02 
C. Pesch, 93 Knoll, 94 Hurter, 95 Weiss, 96 Pohle-Preuss, 97 Scavini, 98 
Van der Velden," Liebermann/ 00 Heinrich, 101 Kenrick/ 02 Van 
Jtfoort, 103 Comely, 104 Knabenbauer, 105 Fanning, 106 Breen, 107 
Vacant, 108 Esser, 100 Wilhelm-Scannell, 110 Plummer, 111 Bartmann/ 12 
Diekamp/ 13 Bellamy, 114 Lepin/ 15 and others. 

89 All in the works cited above. 

90 The Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. 1, Bk. XI, cap. 3, p. 484. 

91 Denkwiirdigkeiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, I Bd. I Theil, p. 132. 
02 Histoire Du Sacrement De Bapttoie, p. 287 sq. 

03 Prael. Dogm., 6, n. 3'80. 94 Institut. Theol. p. 177 sq. 

95 Theol. Spec. p. 228, n. 356. 

08 Art. Taufte in Kraus's Realencyclop. p. 829 sq. 

87 The Sacraments I, 224. 98 Theol. Moral. 3, n. 205, q. 2. 

99 De Bapt. tr. 3, cap. 2, n. 82. 

100 Institut. Theol. p. 418, n. 134 to p. 421, n. 136. 

101 Dogm. Theol. 9, 282 sqq. 

102 Theol. Dogm. p. 14, n. 54 reap. 10ft Cursus SS ad I Cor. 1, 17. 

103 De Sacram. p. 144, n. 187, Scholion. 105 Cursus SS ad Mt. 28, 19. 
108 Art. Baptism in Catholic Encyclopedia. 

107 A Harm. Expos, of the Pour Gospels, 4, 667. 

108 Art. Baptgme au nome de Jesus in Vigoroux's Diet, de la Bible. 

100 Art. Taufe in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlex. 

110 Manual of Cath. Theol. 2, 384. 

111 Art. Baptism IV The History of Christian Bapt. in Hasting's Diet, 
of the Bible. lla Lehrbuch der Dogmatik 2, 268-272. 

113 Katholishe Dogmatik 3, 73 sq. 

114 Art. I Bapteme dans la sainte ^criture 3. La formule du bapteme 
s. v. Bapteme in Dictionnaire de ThSologie Catholique (Vacant & Mange- 
not ) . 

115 Art. iSvangiles Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trinitaire du baptSme 
Mt. 28, 19, in Diet. Apologtique de la Foi Catholique (A. D'Ales). 


Concerning the apostolic dispensation, C. Pesch says : " dis- 
pensatio specialis pro temporibus Apostolorum gratis fingitur"; 
Knabenbaur calls it an opinion, " quae hodiedum apud theologos 
merito est explosa " ; 116 Van Noort: "est merito antiquata, quid 
fundamento caret "; li6 Heinrich: <( eine unnbthige und uribe- 
grundete E r finding "j 116 Vacant: " cette opinion est generalment 
rejetee aujourd' hui "V 16 Tanquerey is the only author, to my 
knowledge, who puts the opinion of the older scholastics, (which 
he calls the opinion of St. Thomas) on an equal footing with the 
other, and dares to call them both " sententia communis '' '. 117 

These authors explain the passages in the Acts in practically the 
same manner as the later scholastics. Baptism in the name of 
Christ, they say, may mean the baptism instituted by Christ, 
administered in the person of Christ, thru which the recipient is 
received into the faith and the Church of Christ, or baptism which 
was administered after a public profession of faith in Christ. 

In spite of the almost unanimous consent of the modern tradi- 
tionalists regarding the use of the baptismal formula, we find a 
few non-catholic authors, who try to reconcile the passages in Acts 
and St. Paul with St. Matthew, by supposing that the Apostles 
made use of a dual form, a christological form for the Jews, and 
a trinitarian form for the Gentiles. The Jews, they claim, already 
belonged to the Father, since they had been consecrated to his 
service by circumcision. Hence it sufficed for them to be baptised 
merely in the name of Jesus, in order that they might acknowledge 
him as their Messiah and God; and in this profession of faith in 
Jesus, was virtually contained their belief in the Father and the 
Holy Ghost. The heathens, on the contrary, had not known the 
Father, since they had worshiped idols of various sorts: neither 
had they heard of the Holy Ghost; hence they had to be baptised 
in the trinitarian form. 

This explanation is as unfounded and ungrounded as was the 
divine dispensation invented by the early scholastics. It is de- 
fended by Plumptre, 118 Bengel, 119 Trollope, 120 and others. 

Concerning the meaning of the words of Matthew: baptising 

116 Op. cit. 

""Theol. Spec. 2, 241, n. 22, 3 Scholion. 

118 The Gospel according to Matthew in Ellicott's Commentary, vol. 1 
ad loc. 

110 Bengel-Lewis -Vincent, Gnomon of the NT, vol. 1 ad loc. 
120 Analecta Theol. vol. 1 ad loc. 


them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost, some authors maintain that they clearly imply that the 
trinitarian formula should be used in administering baptism. Thus 
Curci/ 21 E. Abbot/ 22 Vacant/ 23 Kenrick/ 24 and moralists gen- 
erally. They support their contention, however, by the authority 
of the Fathers and by the praxis of the Church. Esser, C. Pesch, 
Tanquerey, Liebermaim, Heinrich, Breen, Corblet 124 and others, 
maintain that the words of Matthew do not clearly demand the 
trine name as the essential form of baptism. They say that this 
is established, however, by the authority and the praxis of the 
Church. A number of authors express themselves hypothetically 
on this point, to wit: if the invocation of the trine name is not 
certain from Matthew, it is rendered certain by the tradition and 
by the praxis of the Church. Thus Hurter/ 25 MacEvilly/ 26 
Knabenbauer/ 25 and others. 

Eeviewing the question from the conservative point of view, we 
find that the official declarations of the Church set down as the 
essential requirements for the valid administration of the sacra- 
ment of baptism: 1) an ablution with water, and 2) an invocation 
of the Trinity. This invocation of the Trinity is identified with 
the form : I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son 
and of the Holy Ghost, only by Eugene IV in his Bull to the 

The belief of the older scholastics in a divine dispensation must 
be discarded as inadequate and arbitrary. The later scholastic and 
the modern conservative view, which limits the application of Mt, 
28, 19 to our present, exact baptismal formula: I baptise thee in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
seems just as unsatisfactory, in the light of P. de Puniet's master- 
fully exact treatise Bapteme, published 1910 in Cabrol's Diction- 
naire D'Archeologie Chretienne Et De Liturgie. 127 P. de Puniet 
with a wealth of material has made the opinion highly probable 
that the early Church interpreted the words of Matthew in a differ- 
ent sense; and that the present baptismal formula was not in use 

121 II Nuovo Testam. vol. 1 ad loc. 

123 Art. Bapt. XI. The formula of Bapt. in SBD, p. 241. 

123 L. c. 

121 Op. cit. 

125 Op. cit. 

120 An Expositon of the Gospels, ad loc. 

127 Col. 251-346: esp. the resume col. 336-346. 


in the first five centuries, its place being supplied by the questions 
of the ministrant regarding the Trinity and the corresponding 
answers of the recipient. This view has been accepted unqualifiedly 
by. M. J. Metzger in 1914. 128 It has been lately rejected by two 
dogmatists,, in 1921 by Bernhard Bartmann, 120 and in 1.922 by 
Franz Diekamp. 130 

The difficulties attending the interpretation of Mt. 28, 19 in the 
light of the texts of the Acts and St. Paul, will never be adequately 
solved, except, perhaps, along the lines of the new investigation. 
We must bear in mind that not every time that the Fathers and 
the Councils speak of the invocation of the Trinity in connection 
with baptism, our present baptismal formula must necessarily be 
meant. There is the possibility and probability of the use of a 
form other than the one with which we are familiar ; and this must 
be considered in any serious attempt to solve the longstanding 

128 Zwei Karolingische Fontifikalien vom Oberrhein. Freiburger Theolo- 
gisehe Studien. Freiburg im Breisgau. pp. 166-169. 
120 Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 2, 269 sq. 
130 Katholische Dogmatik, 3, 74. 



The radical view of the- text of Mt. 28, 19 arose in late years. 
The exponents of this view may be divided into two groups: the 
negative and the positive. The negative seeks to overthrow the 
historicity or the authenticity of the text by internal evidence, the 
positive by external evidence. 

1. The Negative View. 

The negative school of critics build up their theory on the evi- 
dence afforded by the literary and historical criticism of parallel 
passages in the other Gospels, the Book of Acts and the Epistles 
of St. Paul. 

The parallel passages in the other Gospels are Mk. 16, 15-18; 
Lk. 24, 44-49; Jn. 20, 21-23. 

The text of Mark runs : " Going into the whole world, announce 
the Gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptised, 
shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be condemned". 
Here baptism is indeed mentioned; but nothing is said of the trine 
form. Then, the conclusion of Mk. 16, 9-20 is regarded by these 
authors as beyond doubt a patch-work, appended to Mark in place 
of the original section which has been lost. Thus this passage 
affords proof that baptism was connected with the preaching of the 
Gospel at the time in which this section was written ; but, even at 
that, it does not support the trinitarian passage of Matthew. 

The corresponding verse in Luke reads: "(He said to them that 
it is written) that penance should be announced to all the nations 
in his name unto remission of sins ". Consequently nothing is 
said about baptism. This is considered an especially strong case 
against the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19; for either Luke knew of 
the commission to baptise (whether in the trine name or not), and 
omitted it, or he did not know of it. Had he known of it, it is 
thought impossible that he should have omitted it. 

The text in John is : " He said to them, peace be to you. As the 
Father has sent me, so I send you". Thus neither does John 
mention a single word about the commission to baptise. This 
omission, however, is not held to be as strong an argument against 
the authenticity or historicity of Mt. 28, 19 as the similar omission 


by Luke; since John is thought to show a tendency to omit the 
material side of the sacramental rites, because of a movement to 
overemphasize their importance. 1 

The stronghold of the negative view, however, is set in the net- 
work of knotted problems suggested by the passages in the Acts 
and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the 
earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord. The trine form 
of baptism, it is upheld, is found in no scripture text outside of 
Mt. 28, 19; neither is it found in any writing previous to the 
Didache 7, 1, and Justin's Apology 1, 61. The shorter form on 
the contrary, is said to have been used by the Apostles (since it 
alone is mentioned in the Acts and the Letters of St. Paul), by the 
Christians of the second century, and here and there in the third 

Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ 
commanded his disciples to baptise in the trine form? Had 
Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church 
would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this 
obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. 
The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti- 
traditional view, is that the short christological formula was 
original, and the longer trine formula was a later development. 

These views are held by Weiss-Eaton, 2 Feine, 3 Eiehm, 4 Schenkel, 5 
Fisher, Eobinson, 7 Scott, 8 Lake, 9 and others. 

Another great difficulty in the eyes of these higher critics, is 
St. Paul's remark in I Cor. 1, 17: "For Christ sent me not to 
baptise, ~bui to preach the Gospel ". It is urged with great force 
that accordingly St. Paul did not consider the administration of 
baptism as the peculiar function or prerogative of an Apostle, or 
of any ecclesiastical official; in fact he was not convinced of the 
importance of baptism at all. But certainly Paul could not, and 
would not, have written in such a strain, had Christ given a definite 

1 Cf . K. Lake art. Baptism (Early Christian) in (Easting's ERE, p. 
379 sqq. 

a Bibl. Theol. of NT 1, 187, n. 1. 

3 Theol. des NT, p. 211. 

4 Art. Taufe in Handworterb. des Bibl. Altherth. 

Art. Taufe in Bibel -lexicon, p. 464 sq. 

History of Christian Doctrine, p. 46. 

7 Art. Baptism in EB (heyne and Black). 

8 Art. Baptism in HBD (I), p. 83. 

D Art. Baptism in ERE, p. 380 sq. 


command to baptise. This point is emphasized by Martineau, 10 
Bartlett, 11 McGiffert, 12 Feine, 13 Schenkel," etc. 

Then, too, the firm stand which Paul was forced to take against 
the other Apostles in favor of the pagan missions, is claimed to be 
entirely unintelligible in the light of Mt. 28, 19; for the solemn 
command of the Savior contained in that verse, to make disciples 
of all the nations and to baptise them, should have removed every 
scruple from the minds of the Apostles against PauFs mission. 

But, we know from the second chapter of the letter to the Gala- 
tians, that the Apostles James, and Cephas, and John were induced 
to approve Paul's missionary career among the Gentiles, not on 
account of the command of the risen Savior, but on account of 
their conviction that the grace of God was with Paul's work. 
Moreover, if Mt. 28, 19 were authentic, the missionary districts 
would never have been so divided at the Apostolic Council, that 
Peter became KOT' eoxV the Apostle of the circumcision, and Paul 
with Barnabas ar' eoxV the Apostle of the Gentiles. This point 
is brought out especially by Feine. 15 

To these arguments we must add the objections drawn from the 
doctrine contained in Mt. 28, 19, viz: the doctrine of the univer- 
sality of salvation, and of the Holy Trinity. Since these dogmas, 
according to the anti-traditionalists, reached, only at a late period, 
that stage of development postulated by the words, which Matthew 
puts on the lips of the risen Savior, their position in the First 
Gospel is claimed to be a clear instance of historical anachronism. 
Thus, among others, Martineau, McGiffert, Bartlett, Feine, in the 
works cited above. 

The result of this higher, internal criticism is that some authors 
deny the authenticity of the text, while others deny merely its 
historicity. The first class claim that the text in question was 
added later, at a time when the primitive christological mode of 
baptising had been replaced by the trinitarian form; consequently, 
at a time, too, when the doctrine of the Trinity had been fully 

The second class admit that the verse was written by Matthew 

10 The Seat of Authority in Religion, Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 516. 

11 Art. Baptism NT in EEE, p. 376. 

13 The Apostolic Age, p. 61. 
1:1 Theol. des NT, p. 213. 

14 Art. Taufe in Bibel -lexicon. 
1B Theol. des NT, p. 212 sq. 


(or the writer of the First Gospel) , but deny that the words were 
ever spoken by our Lord. To them the text in dispute crystallises 
the tendency peculiar to Matthew of " systematising the dogmatic, 
constitutional, and liturgical relations of the Jewish-christian 
world, for which he wrote". 16 In their opinion Matthew in this 
text refers to the Lord and bases on his authority an institution, 
which was the outgrowth of the private ordinances of the Christian 

In either case, however, the value of Mt. 28, 19 as a proof -text 
for the institution of baptism by Christ is done away with. 

2. The Positive Vieiv. 

We now come to the second group in the radical school, com- 
posed of those authors, who reject the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 
on account of external evidence: the textual difficulties in the 
manuscripts, versions and the works of the Fathers. The con- 
. troversy concerning the authenticity of the text from this angle, 
may be said to have forced its attention upon the scientific world, 
with the appearance of F. C. Conybeare's article, entitled The 
Eusebian Form of the text Mt. 28, 19, published in the Zeitschrift 
fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1901. i7 

In this article Conybeare pursues a line of argument, which leads 
him almost exclusively thru the books of Eusebius of Caesarea. 
He claims to recognise in these works traces of an earlier form of 
text than that recorded in our present canonical Gospel. The re- 
sult of his investigation is, that there are 17 passages scattered 
thruout the various works of Eusebius, in which Mt. 28, 19 is 
quoted, not as we have it in the textus receptus, but in the form : 
7ro/>eu0evres fjua6t]rev<ra,re travra TO, Wvr\ ev rta ovojuart JU.OTJ, omitting, 
consequently, every reference to baptism and to the doctrine of the 
Trinity. The textus receptus, on the other hand, is found in three 
passages of Eusebius's works; but these, it is emphasized, were 
written in the last period of his literary activity, which fell after 
the Council of Nice. 

Following in the wake of this discovery, Conybeare finds "two 
writers earlier than Eusebius", who "shew a knowledge of this 
shorter form of text", altho "neither of them formally cite the 

10 Holtzmann Neutl. Theol. 1, 449. iSee also Bartlett, 1. c., p. 376; and 
E. Teichmann, Die Taufe bei Paulus, in Zeitschrift fur Theol. u. Kirch., 
1896, p. 357. 

17 Pp. 275-288. 


passage, but rather echo it". 18 These two writers are Justin 
Martyr 10 and Hernias. 20 

In the cursory treatment which he thereupon devotes to the 
other patristic writings, Conybeare admits that the textus receptus 
is found in the Latin version of Irenaeus m, 17, 1 ; in Tertullian 
De Baptismo., ch. 13, and De Praescriptione, chs. 8 and 20 ; in the 
Clementine Homilies xi, 26; in the Recognitions, as translated 
by Eufinus ; and in Hippolytus, Contra Noetum. 

The testimony of the Didache 7, 1 and of the Acta Thomae he 

\f S 

tries to weaken by the suggestion that the first is suspicious on 
account of the occurrence in 9, 4 of the phrase : ol paTmo-OevTes eis 
OJ/O/AO, Kvpiov ; while the latter is balanced by a rival Gnostic formula. 

Thus, too, he rejects the testimony of Origen's homilies as trans- 
lated by Eufinus on the ground that the translation is unreliable; 
whereas the reference to the use of the trinitarian formula, which 
Origen has in his Greek Commentary on John (torn, vi, par. 17), 
he says, does not prove that the present text of Mt. 28, 19 was in 
his copies of the New Testament, anymore than that they were in 
those of Eusebius ; since the passage in question refers to the trine 
epiclesis, which was used in Origen's akolouthia of baptism. 

Passing on to the controversy which raged in the third century 
between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen I concerning the baptism 
of heretics, he explains the position of Stephen of Eome, ("that 
baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid") by the 
assumption that the text of Mt. 28, 19 had not yet been authori- 
tatively settled by the Church. 

The result of this article Conybeare puts in the form of four 
questions : 

"1. Is the Eusebian and Justin's reading of Mt. 28, 19 
original ? 

2. If so, was not the textus receptus created about 130-140 ? 

3. Was it not due to a reaction on the text of Matthew of 
liturgical, and, specially, of baptismal usage? 

4. Did it not arise like the text of the three witnesses in the 
African Old Latin texts first of all, thence creep into the Greek 
texts at Eome, and finally establish itself in the East during the 
Mcene epoch, in time to figure in all surviving codices ? " 

The following year (1902), Conybeare resumed his thesis in the 

18 L. c. p. 282, n. 26. 

19 Dialogue with Tryphon, 39. 

20 Pastor, Simil. IX, 17, 4. 


Hibbert Journal/ 1 and presented his conclusions there as per- 
emptory and unanswerable. In fact he shook off the reserve of the 
guarded scholar, and took on the airs of an infallible dogmatist, 
when he asserted that he had adduced such weighty patristic evi- 
dence against the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 " that in future the 
most conservative of divines " would " shrink from resting on it 
any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened" would 
"discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three 
witnesses ", 22 

In this second article Conybeare emphasizes the advantages 
which Eusebius enjoyed, living and working as he did in the 
greatest Christian library of the age, in which Origen and Pam- 
philus must have collected and sorted manuscripts, ante-dating 
our oldest uncials by 50-150 years. 

It was in these old manuscripts, Conybeare asserts, that Eusebius 

found the text : TropevOevres paOrjTevcraTe iravra TO. Wvf] iv r<5 ovopjari 

/AOU ; in fact, he continues, Eusebiiis never heard of any other text, 
until he visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. 
Then in two controversial works, written in his extreme old age 
and entitled, the one Contra Marcellum, the other De Ecclesiastica 
Theologia, he used the common reading. There is also one other 
writing, he says, in which the textus receptus occurs, viz: a letter 
written to his diocese at Caesarea after the Council of Nice; but 
that portion of it in which the citation occurs, does not seem to 
be above suspicion. 

In two further articles in the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche 
Wissenschaft; one in 1903, 23 the other in 1905, 24 Oonybeare did 
his best to prove that the books Contra Marcellum and De Ecclesi- 
astica Theologia were not composed by Eusebius Pamphili (i. e., 
disciple of Pamphilus), but by Eusebius of Emesa, and also that 
the trinitarian citation in the Letter to Caesarea was interpolated, 
thereby ridding himself forever, as he thought, of those conflicting 
citations in the works of Eusebius, which clashed with his theory, 
but which could not be brushed aside with good grace as the mere 
outgrowth of the Nicene influence. 

Conybeare was answered by J. E. Wilkinson in the Hibbert 

21 Art. Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels. 
II. Matthew, 28, 19, pp. 102- 108. 
512 L. c. 

23 Art. The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 330-334. 

24 Art. The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 250^270. 


Journal 1903. 25 According to Wilkinson, Conybeare has proved 
that Eusebius's text read: fJMOrjTevaare Trdvra ra edvr) fv r<a ovopuri 
pov, but he has not proved that the Ensebian text omitted the 
words: /?a,7movTe<? avrous KT\. He maintains that the form pre- 
supposed in the manuscripts known to Eusebius, was: TropeufleWs 
/Aa&yreuo-are Travra ra WVT] iv rw ovofjuari JJLOV, /JaTTTt^oj/res a/urou? ets TO 
ovo^ia roii Trarpos /ecu rov vtov /cat rov ayiov irvevfULTOs. 

The theory of Conybeare was furthermore opposed by Eiggenbach 
in the Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie VII, 1, 1903? Q 
Then again by F. H. Chase in the Journal of Theological Studies 
1905. 2T These two scholars ably refute Conybeare inch by inch, 
showing that he had not proved the absence of the baptismal com- 
mand from the Eusebian text, and that the trinitarian text is 
commonly attested to by witnesses before Eusebius. The arguments 
of these two authors have been utilised and well ordered by 
Lebreton in his work Les Origines Du Dog me De La Trinite 1910. 28 

The refutation of Eiggenbach and Chase has been accepted by 
Eose, 29 Zahn, 30 Holtzmann, 31 Feine, 32 E. Schiirer, 83 Jacquier, 34 
Eobinson, 35 Maclean, 36 Lepin, 37 Diekamp, 33 and Lebreton (op. cit.), 
who mentions also Harnack, E. Seeberg, Swete, Tixeront. 

Conybeare's theory, however, has found support with Eashdall, 30 
N. Schmidt, 40 Wellhausen, 41 K. Lake. 42 Lebreton mentions besides 
H. Usener, Loisy and Kriiger. 

This, then, is the main position of the second group of the 

25 Article in answer to Conybeare, pp. 571-576. 

20 Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl, pp. 7-l | 03; also Nachtrag VIII, p. 105 sq. 

27 The Lord's Command to Baptize (Mt. 28, 19), pp. 481-517. 

28 Pp. 479 sqq. 

^vang. selon S. Matt. p. 231. 
30 Evang. Mt. ad loc. p. 720. 
31 Neutl. Theol. pp. 449-450, note 3. 
32 Theol. des NT, p. 211. 

33 Theol. Literaturzeitung 190>3, n. 15, pp. 424-426. 

34 Histoire des Livres Du N't 1905, 2, 498 sq. 
85 JThSt. 1905 In the name, p. 186. 

38 Art. Baptism 4. Formula of Baptism in Basting's DAC, p. 130 A. 

37 Art. :Evangiles Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trinitaire du baptgme 
in Diet. Apol. de la foi Cath. 

38 Op. cit. p. 230 sq. 

30 JThSt 1901-2, Art. Dr. Moberly's Theory of the Atonement, p. 181. 

40 Art. Son of God in EB, p. 4699. 

41 Das Evan. Matth. ad loc, 

43 Art. Baptism (Early Christian) in ERE. 


radical school. Tho this group differs in method from the first, 
the result of their investigation is practically the same as that of 
the former. In either case, whether Mt. 28, 19 is considered un- 
authentic, or merely unhistorical, the text cannot be used to 
prove that Christ instituted baptism. How then did Christian 
baptism arise? 

JSTone of these authors deny the fact that baptism was practiced 
in the earliest Christian community. 43 The evidence of the Acts 
does not permit such a denial. "Was this practice, then, based on 
an explicit command of the Lord, or did it have its origin else- 
where ? 

The majority of the anti-traditionalists maintain that Christian 
baptism was instituted by Christ at least in a general way, cer- 
tainly not in the trinitarian form. A few, more radical, however, 
even deny the institution by Christ, and suggest that baptism was 
an already existing custom, which the Church took over from the 
beginning. 44 

The nature of our present work will not allow us to present a 
detailed study of the problems encircling the text of Matthew both 
from the conservative and the radical point of view. But since it 
will be impossible to enter upon a study of the interpretation of 
the text, before its authenticity is established, and since it is not 
advisable to consider the arguments of higher criticism before the 
difficulties of textual criticism have been duly examined, we shall 
limit the scope of the present writing to a detailed consideration 
of the difficulties advanced by the positive group of the radical 
school, >as it is represented in the articles of F. C. Conybeare from 
1901 to 1905, with special reference to the works of Eusebius, 
since his writings form the marrow of that attack. This is made 
all the more necessary by the fact that Conybeare's last article of 
1905, has been .answered merely by one person, to my knowledge, 
G-. Loeschcke, who wrote an able, but brief refutation to Conybeare, 
in the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1906, en- 
titled Contra Marcellum, erne Schrift des Eusebius von Caesarea 
(pp. 69-76). We shall consider first the evidence of the manu- 
scripts and versions, and then the citations in the works of 

4:1 See Feine Art. Taufe I. Schriftlehre I. Ursprung und tibung, in Real- 
cncyclop. fttr protestantische Theol. und Kirche 3 , p. 398. 
44 Cf. Lake and Holtzmann, op. cit. 






To one who is at all acquainted with the present controversy 
regarding Mt. 28, 19,, it comes as a distinct surprise that the evi- 
dence of the manuscripts and versions is overwhelmingly in favor 
of the authenticity of the passage. The verse as a whole is con- 
tained in all extant manuscripts and versions with the exception of 
Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetoniaims and Bobiensis. These manu- 
scripts are fragmentary in many parts. The Gospel of Matthew 
in Syr. Sinaiticus ends with chapter 28, verse 7; the rest of the 
Gospel has been lost. 1 Curetonianus stops at chapter 23, verse 25. 2 
Bobiensis has nothing after chapter 15, verse 36. 3 

In view of this almost unanimous consensus of the manuscripts, 
it is rather surprising to find men of such undoubted scholarship 
as F. C. Conybeare 4 and K. Lake, 5 trying to minimise the weight 
of this evidence, by emphasizing the defect of the oldest African 
and Syrian manuscripts at this point. 

The fact that Curetonian has nothing in Matthew after 23, 25, 
and Bobiensis nothing after 15, 36, cannot even by the wildest 
stretch of the imagination be ascribed to the vandalistic efforts of a 
" dominant party ", who purposely sought to suppress a more an- 
cient, and therefore presumably untrinitarian reading of Mt. 28, 19. 

The case of Siniaticus, it is true, is somewhat different. Here 
the last folio is missing; but, even at that, there is no reason to 
assume that this was done on purpose, and was not due rather to 
the ravages of time. In itself this defect in Sinaiticus, and a for- 
tiori in Curetonianus and Bobiensis is neither an argument for, 

1 Cf. The Four Gospels in Syriac, Translated from the Sinaitic Palimp- 
sest, by Bensley, Harris and Burkitt,, 1894. 

2 Cf . Remains of a Very Antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, 
by W. Cureton, 1858; also Evangelion Da-Mepharresche, by F. C. Burkitt, 

3 Old Latin Biblical Texts No. II, by John Wordsworth, W. Sanday and 
H. J. White, Oxford, 1886. 

4 Hibbert Journal art. Three Early (Doctrinal Modifications of the Text 
of the Gospels, 1902, p. 108. 
"Article Baptism (Early Christian) in ERE, p. 379. 



nor against, the authenticity of the textus receptus,, and does not 
in the least affect the testimony of the other manuscripts. 

If we be allowed any conjecture regarding the original reading 
of the text in Bobiensis, we should certainly decide in favor of the 
traditional reading, since this reading is found in Palatinus and in 
the biblical citations of St. Cyprian, with which Bobiensis has 
clear affinities. 6 The same may be said of Syr. Sinaiticus and 
Curetonianus, since the textus receptus is found in Tatian's Dia- 
tessaron. 7 

But according to Conybeare such an argument is inadmissible; 
for long before the year 400 "the question of the inclusion of the 
Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, 
and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make 
its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual affinities ". s 

No better reply could be made to such a dogmatic statement than 
that of F. H. Chase in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1905? 
viz : " all the surviving Greek codices were not produced by a band 
of conspirators. They grew up naturally in different portions of 
the Greek-speaking Church. An interpolation could not be thus 
foisted into the text of the Gospels, and all evidence of its true 
character be obliterated". 

Were Conybeare's statement correct, that our present textus 
receptus is the result of a systematic suppression of an earlier, 
untrinitarian text, a suppression carried on so thoroly, so uni- 
versally, and so ruthlessly as not to leave a single trace of the 
original text in any existing manuscript or version, we should be 
confronted by a marvel unparalleled in the history of our text- 
transmission. "We have clear instances of interpolations in our 
accepted text, some dating back to very ancient times; yet the 
evidence of the manuscripts have preserved for us the original along 
with the interpolated. 

Let us take the well-known case of the Three Witnesses (I John 
5, 7. 8), which Conybeare asserts has now been " abandoned by all 

Of. the detailed study on the relation between Bobiensis, Palatinus and 
St. Cyprian, by W. Sanday, in Old Latin Biblical Texts: No. II, Oxford, 
1886, Introduction XLIII-OLXVL 

7 Of. the critical apparatus of H. J. Vogels Novum Test, graece 1920 ad 
loc.; also, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IX, New York, 1896, p. 128. 

8 Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 108, Three Early Modif . of the Texts of the 

9 The Lord's Command To Baptize, p. 499. 


authorities except the Pope of Kome". 10 This text is found in 
one Old Latin manuscript (r), in most of the manuscripts of the 
Latin Vulgate (but not in the best as Amiatinus and Fuldensis), 
in some African Latin Fathers of the fifth and sixth centuries, 
and in the Spanish writer Priscillian (d. 385). The only authority 
for the Greek text are two cursive manuscripts (162. 34), belonging 
respectively to the fifteenth and sixteenth, centuries. 11 Yet despite 
this feeble support in the manuscripts, Conybeare does not hesitate 
to set this text as a parallel alongside of Mt. 28, 19. 

Then again there is the passage in Acts 8, 37, in which a question 
is proposed by the deacon Philip and a confession of faith is made 
by the Eunuch in imitation of later baptismal practice. This in- 
terpolation goes back to earliest antiquity; yet we know that its 
chief support in the manuscripts is had in Laudianus of the sixth 
century, in the Old Latin and in the Syrian Harcleian Version. 12 

Consequently the case of Mt. 28, 19 inasfar as the manuscripts 
and versions are concerned, must be judged to be exceptionally 
strong. " It is only when we shut our eyes to facts that we can 
persuade ourselves or allow ourselves to be persuaded, that it was 
possible for words to have been interpolated into the text of the 
Gospels, without a trace of their true character surviving in the 
manuscripts and versions ". 13 

"Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 102. 

Cf. F. H. Ohase, JThSt, 1905, p. 498; also H. J. Vogels, Nov. Test, 
graece ad loc. 

12 Cf. H. J. Vogels, 1. c.; also Chase, 1. c. 

13 F. H. Chase, 1. c., p. 499. 



The main basis for Conybeare's attack against the textus recep- 
tus, however, is furnished by the citations of Mt. 28,, 19 in the 
writings of the Fathers, and preponderantly in the works of 
Eusebius, surnamed Pamphili, the most learned scripture scholar 
in the early fourth century (265-339). Since F. H. Chase and 
especially E. Riggenbach have clearly established the existence of 
the received text in manuscripts of the New Testament, known to 
writers before Eusebius, we shall limit ourselves to Eusebius's 
writings, and submit his works to a thoro examination. 

We can distinguish three principal forms, in which Eusebius 
cites the words of Mt. 28, 19 : 

1. Tiopf.v6*VTG<5 pja.QfjTf.'va'are trdvTa TO. eOvrj, 

2. Hopev0VT<s (JiaOr}TvoraT6 irdvTa rot, fdvrj ev TU> ovo/jm ju,oi>, 

3. IIopev0ei'Ts [MiOijTevoraTG iravro. TO, Hdvr], ySaTrrt^oi/res awovs et? TO 

rov Trarpos /cat row vlov KCU TOV ayiov Trvev/xaros. 

The first form is found in: 

1. Dem. Evang. 13 MG- 22 40 A; 

2. " 14 " " 44 B; 

3. " 16 " " 68 A; 

4. Comm. in Ps. 46 4 " 23 416 A; 

5. " " 95 3 1221 C; 

6. De Eccles. Theol. 33 "24 989 A; 

7. <Syriac Theoph. 3 4 Gressmann 129* ; 

Numbers 1, 2, 3 add to this form : StSao-KOi/re? avrou? rrjpeiv TTO.VTO. oo-a 

The second form occurs in: 

8. Hist. Eccles. 35 MG- 20 2210; 

9. De Laud. Const. 16 " " 1425 C; 
10. Dem. Evan. 36 "22 233 A ; 

11-13. " (thrice) 37 240A-C;241D; 

14. " " 9 " " 692 D; 

15. Comm. in Ps. 59 9 " 23 569 C; 

16. " 65 5 653 D; 

17. " " 67 34 " " 720 C; 

18. " " 76 20 " 900 C; 



19. Comm. in Is. 18 20 MG 23 900 C; 

20. " " 34 16 " " 337 C; 

21. Syriac Theoph. 4 16 ed. G-ressmann 189* ; 

22. " " 5 17 " 228*; 

23. " " 5 46 " 252*; 

24. " " 5 49 " 255*; 
Number 10 and 22 add to this citation : SiSao-Kovres avrovs 

6<ra ei/TiXa/A^i/ v/uv. 

The third form is used in: 

25. Contra MarceU. 11 MG- 24 716 B; 

26. " 11 " " 728 C; 

27. De Eccles. Theol. 35 1013 A; 

28. Syriac Theoph. 4 8 ed. Gressmann 177* ; 

29. Epistola ad Caesarea. (Socrates H. E. 1 8) 

MG 67 72 A; 
also " 20 1537 C. 

In view of these facts it is clear, that if the citations of the third 
group are authentic, and if the works in which they appear were 
written by Eusebius, the conclusion must follow that Eusebius was 
acquainted with the traditional text,, and regarded it as an authentic 
part of Matthew's Gospel. The force of this conclusion did not 
escape Conybeare's notice ; accordingly in his articles of 1901 x and 
1902, 2 he attributed the presence of the received text in the later 
books of Eusebius, to the influence of the Council of Nice, claiming 
that before the Council Eusebius knew the text only in the form : 
IlopeufleWes fjiaB^revcrarc iravra TO. Wvrj f.v TO> 6voju,ari /AOV, StSao-Kovres 
aurovs rrjpelv iravra ocra ej/ereiXa^v vfuv. 

This claim seems to be borne out by the fact, that the treatises 
in which the textus receptus occurs, were all written after the 
Council of Nice. But when we bear in mind tha,t out of the 24 
passages of the first two groups, the two from the Commentary 
on Isaias are of uncertain date, the eight from the Dem. Evang. 
were written before 311, the one from the Hist. Eccles. about 313, 
whereas the remaining thirteen were written after the Council, viz : 
six from the Commentary on the Psalms after 330? five from the 

The Eusebian Form of the Text Mt. 28, 19, p. 288. 

2 The Hibbert Journal: Three Early Modifications of the Text of the 
Gospel. II Mt. 28, 19, pp. 102-6. 

3 A. Harnack, Die Chronologic d. Altclhrist. Literatur bis Eusebius II, 2, 
Leipzig, 1904, p. 123, n. 20. 


Theophany about 333 4 , one from the De Laudibus Constantini 
337, 5 and one from the De Eccles. Theol 337/8, it must be 
granted that the Council of Nice did not influence Eusebius one 
way or the other. He uses both forms after the Council, some- 
times in the very same book (cf. De Eccles. Theol. 3, 3 and 3, 5). 

It was probably the strained and halting state of this argument 
that induced Conybeare in 1903 7 to attack Eusebius's authorship 
of the Contra Marcellum and the De Eccles. Theol., and to continue 
that attack in 1905 8 also against the Letter to the Church in 
Caesarea. Since it is of vital importance: to know whether these 
works were actually written by Eusebius or not, we shall consider 
the question of their authorship here. 

First, let us remark, that the received text occurs also in the 
Syriac Theophany, which has come down to us entire, and which 
A. Harnack thinks 9 was a synchronous translation of the Greek 
original, of which we have at present many fragments. 10 Now, 
despite the fact that the Syriac translator is so slavishly true to 
the original Greek that he does violence to the Syriac idiom, so 
much so in fact, that as Gressmann remarks, 11 it is necessary at 
times to retranslate the text into the Greek to get at the sense of 
the translation, still for the sake of argument we shall waive the 
evidence of this translation, since Conybeare accuses the translator 
of " garbling his text " and of copying the five verses in 4, 8 
from the Syriac Vulgate in order to save himself labor. 13 

*Hugo Gressmann, Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie TU, Leipzig, 1903. 
Neue Folge, VIII Bd. 3. Heft, p. 42; also his edition of the Theophany in, 
Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, III Bd. 2. 
Halfte, p. xx, 1904. 

6 A. 'Harnack, 1. c. p. 115; Gressmann, however, in Studien zu Eusebs 
Theophanie TU, p. 39, thinks it was 335. 

8 A. Harnack, 1. c. p. 125, n. 27. 

7 ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 330-334. 

8 ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 250-270. 

L. c. p. 120, n. 14. 

10 Samuel Lee published the Syriac text at London, 1842, and an English 
translation at Cambridge, 1843. A collection of the Greek fragments was 
published in 1847 by Angelo Mai in his Bibliotheca Nova Patrum IV; 
these fragments are reprinted in Migne PG, 24, 609-690. In 1904 Hugo 
Gressmann published >a critical German translation of the Syriac Theo- 

11 L. c. p. xxiv. 

12 ZNTW, 1901, p. 279, note 1. 

"ZNTW, 1901, p. 281, n. 24; also ZNTW, 1905, p. 267. 




1. The Contra Marcellum. 

Accordingly we come to the five books Contra Marcellum, the 
first two of which are commonly called Contra Marcellum, the last 
three De Ecclesiastica Theologia. Conybeare's main argument in 
his article of 1903 x against Eusebius's authorship of these books, 
is briefly the following : 

The writer of the Contra Marcellum 2 quotes a letter of Mar- 
cellus. Epiphanius, 3 also, quotes a letter of Marcellus to Julius, 
Bishop of Rome. A comparison of the two letters proves them to 
be identical. Now, the letter of Marcellus to Julius was written 
in 340. Therefore, the work Contra Marcellum in which this letter 
appears, and the treatise De Ecclesiastica Theologia,, which followed 
the former work, could not have been written by Eusebius of 
Caesarea, since he died in 338 or 339. Consequently, the five books 
were written by some other author ; the dedication of the last three 
books to Flacillus, indicates Eusebius of Emesa as the author. 

Setting aside the fact that C. P. Caspari in his work Quellen 
zur Geschichte des Tauf symbols Und der G-laubensregel 4 brings 
reasons which cause him to fix the date of the letter of Marcellus 
to Julius as most probably 337 or 338 (reasons which A. Harnack 
approves), 5 and meeting Conybeare for the time being on his own 
ground (as F. H. Chase does in his article of 1905, 6 admitting as 
he does that the passage in question is a letter of Marcellus*), we 
must still say that the two letters far from being identical are 
entirely different in form. This is evident from a comparison of 
the creed contained in either letter, and to which the citation in 

1 ZNTW, pp. 330-334. 
2 1, 4, MG, 24, 752 B, sq. 
3 Haer. 72, 2 sq. MG, 42, 384, C sq. 
* III Bd. Christiana, 1875, note 60, pp. 28-30. 
6 L. c. p. 544, n. 4. 

e JThSft, the Authorship of the Contra Marcellum and the De Ecclesi- 
astica Theologia, pp. 512-517. 



the Contra Marcellum is practically limited. The creeds here 
follow side by side : 



He wrote . . . (that he) believes I believe therefore in God Al- 

in God Father Almighty (irarepa mighty and Christ Jesus, his only 

Qebv Tra.vTOKpa.Topa) and in his Son, begotten Son, our Lord. . . And in 

the only begotten God (TOV povoyevfi the Holy Ghost. 
0e6v) , our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
in the Holy Ghost. 

To anyone who bears in mind the stereotyped forms of the old 
symbols of faith., it will be at once evident that these two creeds 
are not identical. We notice first of all the insertion of Trarepa in 
the first creed ; then the different order in which the titles of Jesus 
Christ follow : I has : " and in his Son, the only begotten GOD, 
our Lord Jesus Christ " ; whereas II has : " and in Christ Jesus, 
his only begotten Son our Lord". The occurrence of "the only 
begotten GOD " in I is especially striking. 

But the passage in the Contra Marcellum, as A. Harnack 7 and 
Bethune-Baker 8 point out,, is not at all a letter of Marcellus. 
Conybeare read the passage in Gaisford's edition, which indeed 
gives it as a citation from Marcellus; so also does the edition of 
Migne. But the context shows that Eusebius begins his citation 
from the book of Marcellus with the sentence preceding the creed ; 
and the passage in question is in turn a citation which Marcellus 
makes from a letter of Asterius., whom he is opposing. 

Eusebius introduces the citation thus: Tpd<j>ei 8' oi>v oVo/wio-Ti, 
/ca,K<3<j fJW7)p,oveva)v atrdvTwv, TOVTOV TOV Tpoirov. Then follows the 6X- 
cerpt from Marcellus' s book, which goes from : y Apojuat roivw . . . 
to ... KOL TO ayiov Trve.vp.cL wo-auras. Thereupon Eusebius. resumes 
the discourse : Tavra 6 MapKeAAos Trpos 'Ao-re'ptov KT\. It was divided 
in this way already in the edition of Kettberg 1794, and was em- 
phasized by Montacutius, and has been adopted by Erich Kloster- 
mann in his edition of 1906. 10 

Conybeare himself saw his error and admitted it in his article 

T L. c. p. 544 sq. n. 4. 

"JThSt, 1905, pp. 517-521. 

MG, 24, 752, note 1. 

10 Griechische Christliche iSchriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, IV Bd. Leipzig, 
1906. His 'apparatus criticus gives Th. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, 1867, 
p. 54, as holding the same vie\v. 


of 1905. 11 However he continued to oppose Eusebius's authorship 
on different grounds. This new attack was answered briefly by 
G. Loeschcke. 12 

Conybeare's trend of thought in the article of 1905 is this: 
Even tho the passage in Contra Marcellum 1, 4 does not refer to 
the letter which Marcellus wrote to Pope Julius in 340, still the 
opening lines of the second book of the same work clearly show 
that the a,uthor of the Contra Marcellum knew that letter, and 
was aware of the resultant deception it practiced on the Pope. 
Hence Eusebius Pamphili cannot be the author. 

In answer to this we must say that the first two books of the 
Contra Marcellum form one unit, since they were written at the 
same time against Marcellus; and any expression occurring in 
them, must be explained and interpreted in the light of the whole. 
It is an arbitrary, unpardonable procedure to segregate any one 
passage from its context, and to read into it a meaning unwar- 
ranted by that context. 

Now, in the opening chapter of the Contra Marcellum, Book 1, 
we are told that the author is refuting a treatise written by Mar- 
cellus, in fact the only treatise which Marcellus ever wrote (ev 
TOVTL -ypdil/as /cat povov . . . o-uyypa/ttyia) , 13 This o-uyy/wz/z/za is shortly 
afterward called <pa<?7, 14 an ^ much later in the second book it is 
called y/aa/^wi. 15 In this treatise, we are informed, Marcellus calum- 
niates both the living and the dead, and even subjects the Son of 
God to blasphemy. It is the author's purpose to refute his slanders 
and to expose his blasphemies, from his own words. But before 
taking up this program, he devotes two chapters, the second and 
the third, in destroying his readers' confidence in Marcellus's 
orthodoxy and intellectual ability. Thereupon he proceeds, in 
chapter 4, to consider the slanders against Asterius, the Great 
Eusebius, Paulinus, Origen, Narcissus and "the other Eusebius". 

Then comes the second book, the four chapters of which are 
devoted to an exposure of Marcellus's blasphemies against the Son 
of God. It is in the opening lines of this book that Conybeare 

"ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, n. 1, p. 250. 

12 ZNTW, 1906 : Contra Marcellum, eine Schrift des Eusebius von Caesa- 
rea, pp. 69-76. 

13 MG, 24, 712 A. However this statement does not seem probable. Cf. 
the note in Migne. 

14 MG, 24, 713 A. 
M MG, 24, 824 B. 


detects an acquaintance on the part of the author with Marcellus's 
letter to Julius. Conybeare renders these lines thus : " The time 
has now come for us to bring to light this Galatian's infidelity, 
and lay naked the kakodoxy, which has so long lurked in the 
hypocrite's breast, by passing behind him a little and stripping 
him of the mask which in the epistle he has assumed. Thus we 
shall shew to all from his own very words what sort of qualifica- 
tions he possessed to lead and guide the Church of Christ " (T^ TOV 

faXdrov Trtcrrtv, 17 /cat juaAAov ryv aTTiOTtav rryv ets rov Ytov TOV Oeov, Katpos 
77877 KaAeT, //.era rrjv eK0e<rij/ TWJ/ UTT' avrov SiafiXrjOevTwv, ets <ois dyayetv* 
/cat TTJV xpovots /xaKpots evSo/x/uxTycracrav ra> avopl Ka.Ko8oiav, (Spa^y TrepteA- 
OovTas TOV rf)<s eTritrroATys Trpoon^y/Aaros aTroyv/ttWocrai ' oeiat re rots Train 8ia 
TT^S r&v avrov ^xovaJj/ //taprvpias otos TIS &v, TT^S Xptcrroi) Ka^yeiro EKKAry- 

' " Q \ \ 16 

o"ias aj/i/pw7ros KTA.). 

In this translation Conybeare has omitted the words, which 
intimately connect the opening lines of the second book with the 
closing lines of the first. These words are : /ttera r^v e/dWti/ rw VTT' 
avrov 8w./3\r)6evr<jw " after our exposure of his slanders ". More- 
over he has translated " the hypocrite's breast " where the text has 
merely rw av8pi. Then the phrase, /?paxv 7r e pteA.^ovras TOV r^s eVwr- 
ToX-fjs 7rpoo^(77,jU,aTos a.7royuju,vi)o-at, he has rendered: "by passing be- 
hind him a little and stripping him of the mask, which in the 
epistle he has assumed". A better translation would have been: 
" and by a brief paraphrase to strip it of its mask (?) in the 
letter" . . . 

Upoo-xrj/Mt may mean a screen, mask, disguise; it may also mean 
ornament, outward show, outward pomp, outward appearance. 
Eetaining the meaning of 'mask' (altho this hardly seems correct, 
as will appear later), we can render the passage with more justice 
to the original, thus: "After our exposure of his slanders, it is 
now time for us to bring to light this Galatian's faith, or rather 
lack of faith in the Son of G-od, and by a brief paraphrase to strip 
the erroneous opinion, which has lurked within the man for a long 
time, of its mask (?) in the letter, and to show by his own very 
words what sort of qualifications he possessed to lead and guide 
the Church of Christ". 

Conybeare in his translation has stressed Marcellus's hypocrisy 
to a degree which is not warranted by the text. The only words 
in the text which bespeak hypocrisy are: Kat rrjv xp v ^ 


L. c. n. 6, p. 255. 


rw avBpl /ca/<a8oiav, "the erroneous opinion, or kako- 
doxy, which for a long time has lurked within the man " ; and 
possibly also the word vpoaxnpa* (mask?). Coupling this hypo- 
crisy with the eTrton-oA??, Conybeare asserts that we have a clear 
reference to Marcellus's letter to Julius in 340. 

This statement, however, does not bear investigation. For, in 
the fourth chapter of the same second book, the author tells us: 
" It is necessary to soothe the suspicion of our brethren, by clearly 
demonstrating the lack of faith in the Son of God, which has 
lurked within him for a long 'time, but which now has been con- 
vincingly established by his own writing". This writing, we are 
further told, Marcellus presented to the emperor Constantine; but 
he turned it over to the synod at Constantinople, where it was 
condemned in 336. 

Here again Conybeare faultily translates the original. He ren- 
ders it: "we must heal away the suspicion of our brethren by 
clearly demonstrating the want of a belief in the Son of God, 
which so long had lurked in him, and of which I have now con- 
victed him out of his own loolc'". 17 This is not at all the sense of 

the Greek. The text runs : Xp^ yap aTrotfepaTrevo-ai TYJV TWV fi/Jt,Tep<av dSeA- 
<f>(av virovoiav, Bia rov (fravepav KaTacrTrjcrai ryv /xaKpoTs jixev xpovois 6ju,<j!>a)X- 
etxracrav 18 aura) eis rov Yiov TOV 6e.ov cwrMrTiav, wvl Se eXrjXeyfjievrjv 8ia 


is the perf. part. pass, of lXeyx< and refers to 
; the lack of faith, which has lurked within him for a long 
time, has finally (vwi) been brought to light and convincingly 
established (eA-qAey/xeV^v) by his own writing. We must bear in 
mind that it is Marcellus' s own writing, and not the author of the 
Contra Marcellum, that has brought Marcellus's kakodoxy to light. 
Consequently, the long period in which Marcellus cradled his 
infidelity within his breast, must be understood as the period pre- 
vious to his condemnation at Constantinople in 336. Consequently, 
too, the letter (emo-ToA??) in the opening chapter of book 2, cannot 
refer to Marcellus's letter of 340 ; but it is the same auyypa/jijua, 
ypatfi) and -ypa/x/wi of which the author speaks in other places. 
This last statement will become more evident, if we study the 
opening lines of book 2 in relation to book 1. 

17 L. c. VIII, p. 256. 

M Thus in the edition of E. Klostermann ; Migne's e^aXe^xrafJisy is mean- 
ingless, and evidently a mistake. 


In 1, 1 the author states that he is refuting the only treatise 
which Marcellus ever wrote. This treatise is composed of slanders 
against holy men and of 'blasphemies against the Son of God. He 
intends to refute these slanders and blasphemies with Marcellus' s 
own ivords. In 1, 4 he takes up the .slanders against Asterius and 
the others. Then at the end of 1, 4 he clearly introduces the 
second part of his program with the words: "We hasten on to 
unveil the strange language of Marcellus concerning the Son of 
God, in order that all might know what he thinks of the Son of 
God . 

These are the last words of book 1. On them follow imme- 
diately the words of book 2 : ff After our exposure of his slanders, 
it is now time for us to bring to light this Galatian's faith, or 
rather lack of faith in the Son of God, and by a brief paraphrase 
strip the erroneous opinion, which has lurked within the man for a 
long time, of its mask (?) in the letter, and to show l)y his own 
very words what sort of qualifications he possessed to lead and 
guide the Church of Christ". 

If we read these words in the light of book 1, the only alterna- 
tive left for us is that the iTriaroXr] here is the identical piece of 
work, which in other places the author calls avypanjM,, ypa^r) and 
ypdpiw,. The fact that such a lengthy treatise as that of Mar- 
cellus could have been called a letter, need not surprise us. In 
the fourth chapter of book 2 we are told, that Marcellus himself 
presented his book to Constantine, in the hope that he would 
approve of it on account of the flattery and the many encomiums 
of the emperor, which it contained. Hence either the book was 
written in the form of a letter to Constantine, as Loeschcke 
thinks, 19 or it was prefixed by a dedicatory epistle to the emperor, 
as Th. Zahn prefers. 19 We have similar lengthy treatises in the 
shape of letters; as for instance, St. Athanasius's work: De 
Synodis, which is called Epistola De Synodis Arimini in Italia 
etc.; also his four Epistolae ad Serapionem, and especially his 
history of the Arians, which is prefixed by an Epistola ad 

Since the emo-ToA}) is evidently identical with the crvyypafjLfM, it 
seems hardly plausible that the irpocrx^fM Imo-ToXijs should mean 
the 'mask of the letter 7 . This would contradict the statement 
in 2, 4 that Marcellus's kakodoxy is established ~by his own book. 

ZNTW, 1906, p. 72 sq. 


It was not Marcellus' s design in his book to l mask ' his doctrines, 
but to propagate them against Asterius and his friends. Therefore 
' outward appearance ', or ' outward pomp ' would, fit in better 
with the context; and the phrase would then read: "and by a 
brief paraphrase to strip the erroneous opinion., which for a long 
time has lurked within the man, of its outward pomp in the letter ". 

But Conybeare has another argument. In 2, 4 the author says 
that he was induced to compose this treatise, in order to uphold 
the decisions of the synod of Constantinople in 336, against those 
persons who thought that Marcellus had been treated unjustly. 
But, he says, it was not necessary before 340, to come forward and 
defend the decisions of the synod ; because it was only in the winter 
of 340, that Julius convened a counter-synod at Eome to repeal 
the decision of 336, by acquitting Marcellus 1 of heresy and admitting 
him to communion. This is the more evident, he continues, be- 
cause after 336 Marcellus' s cause in the east was dead; and there 
was no need of refuting him until the Pope took up his cause. 20 

Let us first of all examine the passage in question. I shall give 
it in full as it is . important in deciding the time, in which the 
Contra Marcellum was written. It runs thus: "It was but 
reasonable that these doctrines should move the truly religious and 
thrice blessed emperor against the man, even tho he flattered him 
in countless ways, and had inserted many encomiums on him in 
his treatise. These doctrines, too, forced the sacred synod, which 
gathered in the imperial city from various provinces, from Pontus 
and Cappodocia, Asia and Phrygia and Bithynia, Thrace and the 
regions beyond, to brand the man, even against its own will, by the 
document drawn up against him. These doctrines have compelled 
us, also, to undertake this present treatise, that on the one hand 
we might uphold the decisions of the sacred synod, and on the 
other that we might obey our fellow-ministrants, who ordered us 

to take the work in hand (Tavra Kal ^/xas eVi Ty}v /*era xetpa l^raa-iv 
tlv KaTrjvdyKafrfv, ofJiov 8e rot? ooa(nv rfj ayta cruj/oSa) 7rapiora/Aevous, 
v /cat rots crv\\f.iTovpyoi<s 7rpocrraao"t TOVTO Trpa^ai TO IKCLVOV 7rotou/u,ej/ous ) . 

And I think it especially needful that this document be pub- 
lished, for the sake of those persons who think that the (man has 

been dealt with linjlistty. (MaAto-ra 8e pot. avayKalov r)yovfj,ai yeyev- 
TO ypa/A/xa Sia rows -ffiiK-ijo-Qai TOV avSpa vevo/xtKoras) . For it 

20 L. c. nn. viii, is, pp. 256-256. 


is necessary to soothe the suspicion of our forethern by clearly 
demonstrating the want of faith in the Son of God, which has 
lurked within him for a long time, but which now has been con- 
vincingly established by his own writing. 

At nobody's suggestion, but of his own accord, he took this 
writing and presented it to the emperor, with the request that he 
should peruse its contents, hoping, too, perhaps, that he might 
enjoy the emperor's protection on account of his encomiums, where- 
as the bishops whom he had slandered might be punished. But 
the result was not according to his hopes. For God was the judge 
in this affair; and Christ Jesus himself, who has been despised 
by the writer, and who takes in at a glance the secrets of this man's 
heart, has brought it about that he became his own accuser and 
prosecutor, even tho there was no one to egg him on. Accordingly 
when he approached the emperor, pluming himself on his writing, 
the emperor referred the decision as to its contents to the synod. 
But the sacred synod of 'God rejected it; and rightly, since he 
professes impious beliefs in the origin and the end of the Son 
of God ". 

'Conybeare here again joins the deception, spoken of in the pas- 
sage, to the suspicion of the brethern, who sided with Marcellus, 
or at least favored him, and refers both to the letter and the Koman 
synod of 340. But he again oversteps the mark, and draws infer- 
ences not warranted by the text. Marcellus's infidelity which has 
skulked in secret for so long a time, has been brought to light by 
his own book; hence the deception of which the author speaks, 
must be understood to refer to a time previous to the year 336. 

Moreover, it is untrue to say that Marcellus's cause was dead 
in the east after 336, and that consequently " the brethern who 
thought that he had been treated unjustly " must refer to Marcel- 
lus's sympathisers of the west in the year 340. This statement 
is refuted by the text itself, viz : " These doctrines, too, forced the 
synod, even against its will,, to brand the man by the document 

drawn up against him " (Tavra Se Kal TT/K ayiav orvvoSov crrrfXireveiv 
TOV aj/Spa, :Sta rr/s /car' avrov TpacfiTJs, Kal py 0eAowav, ee/?iaeTO ) . If 

therefore, the synod of Constantinople condemned Marcellus un- 
willingly, we are certainly justified in concluding that there was a 
party at the synod in his favor, who opposed his condemnation 
as unjust, and who continued their sympathy for him later. 

This view is confirmed by Sozomenus Hist. Eccles. 2, 33 (MG 
67 1029 A-C). Concerning the action of the bishops at Constan- 

5 1 ' 


tinople in 336, he has this to say: "The bishops wrote to the 
Churches of Galatia, enjoining that the book of Marcellus should 
be sought out and destroyed, and that as many as they found with 
similar views, they should convert. And they indicated that on 
account of the length of Marcellus's treatise, they could not sub- 
join the entire book; but they inserted some excerpts in their 
letter to prove that he really held these doctrines. For it was 
being said among some, that Marcellus had proposed these things 
tentatively, whereas the Eusebians had slandered him even to the 
emperor as if he had asserted them positively ". ('EAeyero <5e irpos 

TLVfav, ravra o>s ej/ ^rr/cm eiprjcrOai Map/ceAAw, Kat a>s w/AoAo-y^juera Sia- 
/?e/?A-J/cr$ae /cat aurw TO! /JacrtAet Trapa rwv af*.<f)l TOV T&vae/3iov) . 

If we need any more proof, we might quote the letter of Pope 
Julius, written 3 -10 to Danius, Flacillus and the other bishops of 
Antioch. 21 In this letter the Pope inveighs against the bishops for 
receiving the Aria,ns in their midst, whose heresy had been con- 
demned by the bishops of the entire universe ; whereas they refused 
communion to Athanasius and Marcellus, who have many on their 
side who defend them ~by word and writing ('A^amo-tos Se /cat 

Ma/3KeAAo9, ol e7rt<TK07rot, TrAetovas C'XODOT, TOUS ()7re/3 eavruiv Aeyovras Kat 

ypd<fiovTa<s) . It does not necessarily follow that these friends of 
Marcellus were in the east; but it is at least probable, since the 
Pope is writing to the bishops of Antioch. 

Moreover, from Athanasius Hist. Arianorum, 8 (MG- 25 704 B), 
we know that after the death of Constantine, the three brothers 
Constantine, Constantius and Constans allowed the exiled bishops 
to return to their fatherland and their diocese. Among these was 
Marcellus. The edition of Migne places this decree in the year 
338. Loofs 22 thinks it was issued in 337. Th. Zahn 22 appears 
to think that Marcellus was at this time formally reinstated in 
his diocese ; but this is denied by Loofs, who thinks that Marcellus 
was allowed to return without being reinstated. 

At any rate, Marcellus's return gave rise to tumultuous up- 
risings in Ancyra, for which each party blamed the other. These 
uprisings are mentioned in the letter of Pope Julius quoted by 
Athanasius Apol. Contra Arian. 33 ('MG- 25 304 B) . In this letter 
the Pope says that he was informed of these disorders by certain 
persons, and that their testimony was corroborated by Marcellus. 

21 Athanasius Apol. contra Arianos, n. 23, MG, 25, 288 A. 

22 Loofs, Art. Marcellus von Ancyra in Realencyclopadie fur Prot, Theol. 
u. Kirche 3 , 1903, p. 262. 


There is an evidently exaggerated account of the same disorders by 
Marcellu-s's enemies in the decree of the pseudo-synod of Sardica 
held at Philippopolis in 347 (?) (Hilary, Fragmentum III n. 9 
ML 10 665). 

This pseudo-synod, moreover, in reference to. the synod at Con- 
stantinople in 336, says, according to Hilary: "quique increpantes 
ilium (i. e. Marcellum) et exprobantes, necnon charitatis affectu 
postulantes multo tempore, nee quidquam profieiebant. Nam post 
unam et secundam multasque correptiones cum nihil proficere pot- 
uissent (perdurabat enim et contradicebat rectae fidei, et conten- 
tione maligna Ecclesiae catholicae resistebat) ; exinde ilium omnes 
horrere ac vitare coeperunt: et videntes quoniam subversus est a 
peccato, et est a seonetipso damnatus, actis eum ecclesiasticis dam- 
naverunt, ne ulterius oves Christi pestiferis contactibus magis mac- 
ularet ", 23 

It certainly does not seem from this passage that Marcellus's 
cause was dead in the east after 336; for only after a long time, 
and only after a first, and a second, and many reproofs did they 
finally turn away from him. The years 337-340, as Loofs says, 24 
are a dark, uncertain period, still we know enough of that period 
to feel sure that Marcellus' s cause in the east at that time was not 
dead. It was very much alive just between 337 and 339, the time 
during which Eusebius composed his work, to uphold the decision 
of the synod against the brethern who thought that Marcellus had 
been treated unjustly ; for it was during this period that Marcellus 
returned from exile and occasioned the tumults between the con- 
tending factions in the Church of Galatia. 

These are Conybeare's main arguments. We shall now briefly 
consider some of his objections, which he calls " equally decisive " 
and "equally fatal". They are four in number; none of them, 
however, can be said to carry any weight, excepting perhaps the last. 

He finds his first and "equally decisive" objection in the words 
of the Contra Marcellum 1, 4 (MG 24 753) : "Thereupon pro- 
ceeding in his work, he calumniates not only Asterius but also the 
Great Eusebius, of whose episcopal, jurisdiction many and cele- 
brated provinces and cities boasted" (/AeTeTrotr^ow). The aorist 
, he says, shows that the Great Eusebius (scil. of ISTico- 

23 Hilary, 1. c. n. 3, ML, 10, 061. 

21 Article Arianismus in Realencyclopadie fur Prot. Theol. u. Kirche 3 , 
1903, p. 23. 


media) was already dead when the Contra Marcellum was com- 
posed. Had he been alive, the perfect juteraTroi^vTat should have been 
used. Hence the book was written after the death of Eusebius of 
Nicomedia ( 341-342 ). 25 

It certainly is surprising that a man of Conybeare's linguistic 
accomplishments should forget that a past action may be viewed 
as a cold, buried fact, independent of any existing circumstances, 
in which case the aorist is in place, or that the very same action 
may be considered in its relations to the present, in which case the 
perfect should be used. Eusebius Pamphili in speaking of the 
residence of the G-reat Eusebius in various cities, chose the first 
course and used the aorist. We certainly cannot quarrel with him 
for his psychology. 

An example from classical literature will make this plain. 
Thucydides opens up his history of the Peloponnesian War with 
the sentence : ou/cvStS^? 'AOyvalos vve.ypaij; rov TroXe/jiov TWV IleAoTrov- 
npiW KOL 'A6r)vai<v. He is just for the first time bringing his 
work to the notice of the public; and since this is the first line 
in his book, inasfar as the public is concerned, his history has not 
yet been written: yet inasfar as he is concerned, that history was 
an accomplished fact, which had caused him many a sleepless night 
in the past. But, to borrow Conybeare's method of argumentation, 
Thucydides had already been dead two or three years when he 
wrote those words ! 

Conybeare's second " equally fatal objection " considers the per- 
sons who are defended by the author of the Contra. Marcellum. 
Eusebius of Caesarea could never have given his rival and name- 
sake of Nicomedia the title of Great. He ignores him completely 
in his other works, noticeably in his De Vita Constantini. 26 The 
same must, moreover, be said of Asterius, whom Eusebius in his 
Commentary on the Psalms comtemptuously calls 6 'A/aeiaws. 27 

First of all Conybeare does not prove that Eusebius of Nicomedia 
was the rival of Eusebius Pamphili. The very opposite appears 
from the History of Theodoret. In his Hist. Eccles. 1, 5, Theo- 
doret sets forth a letter which Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nico- 
media after the council of Mce. In that letter Arius associates 
Eusebius Pamphili with his party, and calls him the brother of 

25 ZNW, 1905, n. x, p. 258. 
28 ZNTW, 1905, 259, n. xi. 
37 ZN'TW, 1905, 261, n. xiv. 


Eusebius of Mcomedia (6 d8eA<o<? o-ou MG- 82 912 A). In the 
very next chapter Theodoret cites a letter of Eusebius of Mcomedia 
to Paulinus of Tyre, in which he upbraids Paulinus for his slug- 
gishness in propagating the Arian doctrine. He sets up Eusebius 
Pamphili (whom he calls my Lord Eusebius TOV SecnroTov pov 
JZiHrefiiov) as a model for imitation, since his zeal for the Arian 
cause is well known. 28 Hence the two Eusebii could hardly be 
called rivals. 

Moreover, both Eusebii were present at the synod of Tyre 335, 
which condemned Athanasius and at which Eusebius Pamphili 
presided; 29 both were present at the synod of Jerusalem in the 
same year, in which steps were taken against Marcellus, since he 
had embittered the Eusebian party by his defense of Athanasius ; 30 
both were present at the synod of Constantinople 335, at which 
Athanasius was condemned anew, and to which only the elite of 
the Arian party were sent; 31 both, finally, were present at the 
synod in the same city 336, which, under the presidency of Euse- 
bius of Mcomedia, 32 condemned Marcellus and ordered Eusebius 
Pamphili to refute Marcellus's work. 33 Therefore, since Eusebius 
Pamphili was at least Arian in sympathy, why could he not have 
defended Eusebius of Mcomedia, one of Arius's staunchest friends ? 
Why, too, could he not have defended Asterius (d. 330?) who had 
written in defense of Arius ? 34 

Eusebius's silence in the De Vita Constantini concerning his 
namesake of Mcomedia and of Asterius, as G-. Loeschske remarks, 315 
is in keeping with the character of that writing, which is a pan- 
egyric on Constantino's life and work, and which therefore mini- 
mises the disorders consequent on the rise of Arianism, during 
Constantino's reign. 

Furthermore, in his Commentary on the Psalms, as G-. Loeschcke 
points out, 36 Eusebius does not contemptuously call Asterius 6 

28 MG, 82, 913 A-B. 

39 Hefele Conciliengescliichte I, 461 sqq. 1>S73. 

80 Ibidem I, 470 sq. 

31 Ibidem I, 471 sq. 

32 Montacutius MO, 24, 821 note 1. 

33 Hefele, 1. c. I, 473. 

54 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 1908, Freiburg im Breisgau and St. 
Louis, Mo., p. 239. 

33 ZNTW, 1906, p. 74 sq. 
30 ZOSTTW, 1906, p. 74 sq. 


The section in question/ 7 which commences : " Asterius 
the Arian thus explained the Psalm " , is an appendix which follows 
a detailed exposition of the Psalm by Eusebius. As 
indicates, 38 this appendix was added by an amanuensis in codex 
Tauriensis, and is not found in any other manuscript. 

Finally, that the title Great was most probably given to Eusebius 
of Nicomedia only after his death, is something which Conybeare 
should prove, and not assert. 

We come to the third objection, of which Conybeare says: "A 
better proof that he was not the author of the work before us, 
cannot be conceived". This objection is focused on the word 
which is used for the city of Constantinople. In Contra Marcel- 
lum 2, 4 (MG- 24, 821 D), Constantinople is called 17 fiacriXua) 
TroAis. If Eusebius wrote the work, it must have been between the 
years 337 and 339. Now, in a contemporary work of that period, 
De Vita Constantini, the emperor himself calls Constantinople 

TIJV iTTtovvfjiov TroXw', Eusebius Calls it r) /JacriAecos avrov CTTCOVDJUOS TrdAt-j, 

or simply rr)v l^ww^ov iroXw (six times), rrjv avrov iroXiv (twice), 
y TroAis (once). On the other hand he calls Borne % /?cnAWa 
(six times), 17 /Jao-iAis TroAts (thrice), r/ Tto/xatW TroAis (once), 
Ti-oAis (thrice). Had Eusebius been the author of the 
Contra Marcellum, he could only have meant Eome by -fj /foo-iAiKr/ 
TroAt?. 38 

In answer we can only repeat the words of G. Loeschcke. 40 The 
variant designations of Constantinople in the De Vita and the 
Contra Marcellum, would onlv then furnish sufficient ground to 

^ \j (-J 

doubt the authenticity of the latter work, if Constantinople in the 
former work were always referred to as ?/ e7reW//,o<? iroXis, and in 
the latter as 17 fiaaiXua] TroAis. But as a matter of fact, Constanti- 
nople is mentioned only once in the Contra Marcellum; hence we 
cannot speak of a different terminology. 

Moreover, the designation for Constantinople y/ /fomAe'w? avrov 
eTroW/Aos TroAis, which is used in the De Vita, is not dissociated in 
thought from the 77 /?ao-tAu<ry iroXis of the Contra Marcellum. Then, 
in the preceding sentence of the Contra Marcellum,, Eusebius refers 
to Constantine twice merely as [3acriXf.v<s : the emperor; why could 

"Oomm. in Ps. IV, MG, 23, 112 sq. 
38 MG ad loc. note 1. 
3tt ZNTW, 1905, p. 260, n. xii. 
< ZNTW, 1906, p. 74. 


he not in the next sentence refer to Constantinople as the imperial 
city? Finally., as Erich Klostermann remarks, 41 if in Conybeare's 
supposition, Eusebius of Emesa a few years later could have used 
77 /?ao-(AiK77 TroAts of Constantinople, there is no reason why Eusebius 
Pamphili could not have done so likewise. 

Conybeare's fourth objection merits a little more attention, as A. 
Harnack himself found, it surprising, altho he admits that it is 
not a sufficient reason to discard Eusebius's authorship. 42 The 
objection is: "If Eusebius Pamphili wrote the book, then we 
have the remarkable literary phenomenon of a writer who again 
and again refers to himself in the first person at the beginning of 
a context, and in the third person at the end of the same ". 43 

To emphasize this objection, let us take an instance of it in 
Contra Marcellum 1, 4, an instance which favors Conybeare's 
position most. Writing against Marcellus the author of the book 
says : " First of all I shall adduce those arguments (^o-w Se irp&ra) 
by which he attempts to refute treatises composed in accordance 
with true, ecclesiastical spirit; in which, too, he calumniates the 
writers and sustains a wellnigh universal fight against them all. 
For he contradicts Asterius . . . then turns against the Great 
Eusebius . . . and Paulinus. Then leaving off him, he wages war 
against Origen ... ; he then arrays himself against Narcissus 
and persecutes " the other Euselius" (KOL rov 'Irepov Ewe/?tov SICOKCI 
(MG 24 752 A). Similar usage of the third person for Eusebius 
Pamphili may be found in the same chapter 765 C; 768 A (twice) 
and C; 769 A and B; 772 B; 773 C. 

In answer to this objection let us observe first of all with A. 
Harnack 44 and G-. Loeschcke, 45 that these references to Eusebius 
occur in the fourth chapter of book 1, in a context, accordingly, 
in which the author is refuting the slanders of Marcellus against 
a group of well-known persons, among whom was the author him- 
self. Consequently it was fitting, that in this connexion, he should 
treat his own defense as objectively as possible. 

That such a procedure is not peculiar to Eusebius, but is a com- 

ti Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, IV. Bd. 1906, 
p. xiv. 

43 Die Chronologic d. Altchrtl. Literat. bis Eusebius II, 2, 1904, p. 545. 
43 ZNTW, 1905, nn. xv and xvi, pp. 262-264. 
41 L. c. p. 545. 

, 1906, p. 75. 


mon human idiosyncrasy (if we may use that word), is well attested 
by literary history. It should cause no special difficulty to anyone 
who can boast of at least a 'bowing acquaintance with the classics. 
P. H. Chase in the JThSt 1905 (p. 514 sq.) merely indicates a 
few examples of the same method in Thucydides and in Xenophon. 
We shall dwell on the first a little at length, since it affords a 
perfect parallel to the case in point. 

Thucydides commences the history of the Peloponnesian War in 
the following strain: Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote (ovjcuSiSqs 
'Adrjvalos ^we-ypaif/e] the history of the war between the Pelopon- 
nesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke 
out, and believing that it would he a great war and more worthy 
of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not 
without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants 
were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he 
could see (op&v) the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the 
quarrel, those who delayed doing so at once, having it in con- 
templation. Indeed this was the greatest movement yet known in 
history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large portion of the 
barbarian world, and so to speak, of entire mankind. For though 
the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more imme- 
diately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly 
ascertained, yet according to the evidences, which an enquiry car- 
ried on as far back as possible leads me to trust, I judge that up 
to this time there was nothing on a great scale in war or in other 
matters " (CK Se rcKjU^ptW S>v ?rt paKpoTarov VKOITOVVTI, /xoi Trto-revcrat 
ov /neyaAa vo/ua> yeve'cr&u OTJTC Kara TOIIS 7roAe//,ovs oijre es 

v v\ \ \ 46 

TO. aAAaJ. 

Here we find Thucydides speaking of himself in the third person 
and in the first person in the very same context. From here on 
he continues in the first person; but in the fourth book, 104-107, 
in describing the part that he took in the war, he again reverts to 
the third person. To wit : "... Eucles, the general . . . sent 
to the other commander in Thrace, Thucydides , son of Olorus, the 
author of this history ... to tell him to come to their relief. On 
receipt of this message, he at once set sail. . . Meanwhile Brasides 

" 6 The text consulted is that of H. Stuart Jones, Thucydides Historiae, 
in Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1>898. Translation by 
Eichard Crawley: Thucydides Peloponnesian War in Everyman's Library 
1914, London, The translation has been slightly altered to emphasize the 
change of persons in Greek. 


. . . learning that Thucydides possessed the right of working the 
gold mines in that part of Thrace . . . hastened to gain the town 
. . . Late in the same day, Thucydides and his ships entered the 
harbon of Eion". . . 

No one will deny the perfect parallelism between the case of 
Eusebius and that of Thucydides. The same phenomenon appears 
in Xenophon's Anabasis. Every college student knows how exas- 
peratingly objective Xenophon's style is. Yet we find a few refer- 
ences in it in the first person. Thus in 1, 2 we read : " Cyrus at 
the head of the force, which I have mentioned, (Kvpos Se e'x<ov ov 
etprjKa} commenced his journey from Sardis ". Again 2, 3 : " What 
I just now stated, ("O Se <Sr/ eypa^a) that the king was alarmed at 
the approach of the Greeks, became evident by what followed ". 

But in 3, 1 in introducing himself as the leader of the Greeks, 
Xenophon consistently adopts the third person thruout, so much 
so that we instinctively wonder whether perhaps someone else had 
not written the book. The text runs : " There was in the army a 
certain Xenophon, an Athenian, ( 7 Hv 81 <j iv ry orpcma Hei>o<a>j/ 
'AOyvaios) who accompanied it neither in the character of general, 
nor captain nor common soldier; but it had happened that 
Proxenus, an old guest-friend of his, had sent for him (avrov 
/tereTre/x^aro) giving him a promise, that if he came (Wto-xvetro 8e 
avra>, et e'A0oi) he would recommend him (avrbv) to the friendship 
of Cyrus, whom he considered, he said, as a greater object of regard 
than his own country. Xenophon on reading the letter" etc. 47 

This same characteristic distinguishes Cesar's book on the Gallic 
War, in which Cesar is spoken of thruout in the third person. 
He uses the first person occasionally in clauses of recapitulation, 
even where in the same context he speaks of himself in the third. 
For example the opening lines of book 2 are : " Cum esset Caesar 
in citeriore Gallia, ita uti supra demonstravimus, crebri ad eum 
rumores adferebantur etc.". 48 

If we need any more testimony to show the futility of Cony- 
beare's objection, we might appeal to the Historia Arianorum 
written by Athanasius, a contemporary of Eusebius. This treatise 
is prefixed by an Epistola ad Monachos, in which Athanasius refers 
to himself constantly in the first person. In the history itself, 

47 Text: Goodwin and White, New York, 1894. Translation: J. S. Wat- 
son, in the Student's Literal Translations, New York, 1920. 

48 Text: Allen and Greenough, New Caesar with Vocabulary, London, 
New York, 1898. 


however, he generally refers to himself in the third person. He 
uses the first person also, sometimes in the same context in which 
the third person had been used. We shall consider one example. 

Number 23 of his history (MG 25 717 B-C) reads: "But the 
emperor Constantius, whose conscience was slightly pricked, entered 
into himself, and since ha suspected from what had happened to 
Euphrates, that the attacks against the others were of a similar 
nature, he immediately ordered that the priests and deacons, who 
had been exiled from Alexandria into Armenia, should be freed. 
And he wrote a public letter to Alexandria forbidding the clergy 
and men of Athanasius to be persecuted (/wj/cert SwKeaOai rovs juera 
'AOavao-tov /cA^pi/covs re /cat Aaovs). Then about ten months later, 
when Gregory was dead, he summoned Athanasius with all honor, 
and wrote him friendly letters not once, nor twice, but three times, 
urging him to take courage and come (^raTri^Trerai /cat 'AOavdmov 

ju,era 7racr?ys TI/X^S, ow^ a-ira^, <ru8e 8evrepov, aAAa /cat rpirov -ypdij/as avrtjj 

/zev c/>tAt/ca . . .). He sent besides a priest and a deacon, that he 
might come with more confidence (tV ert /uaAAov Oappw eVave'Aflot) , 
For he thought that out of fear of what had happened, I should 
not care to return. He also wrote to his brother, Constans, in order 
that he, too, might urge me to return ('Evo/ue yap &a TOV c/>o/8ov r&v 

TrpOTepov yei/o/zej/wv oAtytopetv jae Trept rr/v CTraVo'Sov . . . iva /cat avros 

eiraveXQdv /we Trporpe'^T/rat) . For he avowed that for a whole year he 
had been waiting for Athanasius, and could not allow any innova- 
tion to take place, or any appointment to be made, since he was 
keeping the churches for Athanasius the bishop " (Aie/3e/3aioi)To yap 

tviavrov oAov e/cSeyeor&u TOV *A0avacriov . . . ctaAaTTtov 'A$ava<ri'a> T<U 7rr- 


Even at the risk of tediousness, let us mention one more example 
of a modern author, which G. Loeschcke 49 takes from Krum- 
bacher's work, Kultur der Gegenwart I, 8 p. 285 : " Eine Gesamt- 
ausgabe (namlich der Lieder des Eomanos) wird seit 20 Jahren 
vorbereitet von K. Krumbacher " , and five lines later : " die tiber- 
setzung der ersten Strophe ist von mir, die der zweiten von J. L. 
Jacobi ". 

In view of this array of evidence, we cannot see how it is fe a liter- 
ary impossibility that the erepos Evtre'/Jtog should be the Eusebius 
who wrote the Elenchi"; 50 nor can we gratify Conj^beare's wish: 
"for the sake of patristic scholarship, I hope that no one hence- 

48 ZNTW, 1906, p. 75. co ZNTW, 1903, p. 333. 


forth will be so hardy as to attribute this work to the historian of 
Caesarea ". G1 In view of this utterance it strikes one as a bit of 
droll humor that Erich Klostermann, in his edition of the Contra 
Marcellum 1906,, winds up his views on Conybeare's assertions 
with the remark: "Die Kiihnheit dieser ganzen Kritik wird es 
gerechtfertigt erscheinen lassen wenn ich auf den Tafel der Aus- 
gabe noch ohne Fragezeichen gesetzt habe: Eusebius' Werke iv. 
Band". 52 

2. The Letter to Caesarea. 

Let us now take up the remaining work of Eusebius, in which 
the traditional text of Mt. 28, 19 is used, the Letter which he 
wrote to his Church in Caesarea after the Council of Nice. In 
speaking of this document in his article of 1901, 53 Conybeare says : 
" There is hardly reason to suspect an interpolation " ; of course 
not, since he thought that he could explain its presence by the 
Nicene influence. But two years later 54 he states without proof, 
that the trinitarian passage in the letter had been interpolated : it 
had been foisted into the text from the aAA^ eK0ri<; TriWews of the 
Council of Antioch 341 ; of course, since the Council of Nice had 
turned out to be a rather weak alibi. In his article of 1905/' 5 
then, he tries to establish this hypothesis at some length. 

He states here that the creed of Asterius to which Marcellus 
objects, 56 is nearly identical with the second creed put forth at the 
Arian Council of Antioch 341. Both creeds after a profession of 
faith in God the Father, and the 'Son the only begotten God, and 
the Holy Ghost, have the addition: the leather truly Father, the 
Son truly Son, the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost. Over and above 
this, the creed of Antioch after the profession of faith in the 
Trinity, and before the clause: the Father truly Father etc. adds 
the words : as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples 
saying: Going make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
These two clauses, which characterise the second symbol of the 
Council of Antioch, are also found in the letter of Eusebius to 

B1 ZNTW, 1905, p. 264, n. xvii. 

53 Griechische Ghristliche Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 1906, p. xvi. 

63 ZNTW, p. 281. 53 ZNTW, pp. 251-254, nn. ii-v. 

64 ZNTW, 1903, p. 333. M Contra Marcellum 1, 4, MG, 24, 752. 

The creeds of Asterius and that of Antioch, Conybeare continues, 
are Lucianic in content and spirit; and the words as also our 
Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying: Going mftlce 
disciples etc.., were added to this creed for the first time at the 
Council of Antioch. These words are very apposite in the Anti- 
ochean creed; and, moreover, the clause, the Father truly Father 
etc., fits in well both with the creed of Antioch and that of Asterius, 
since they were a shibboleth, which the Arians used in order to 
propagate their doctrines. But both clauses are out of place in 
the creed of Eusebius; they were foisted into his text later on, to 
make it appear that the Great Historian had favored the Arian 

Let us put the creeds side by side : 


1. He wrote that he be- 
lieves in: Father God 

2. And in his Son, the 
only begotten God. 

3. And in the Holy Ghost. 

4. And that the Father 
must be considered 
truly Father, and the 
'Son truly Son, and the 
Holy Ghost likewise. 


1. We believe in one God 
Father Almighty. . . . 

2. And in one Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Logos of 
God, Light of Light, 
Life of Life, only be- 
gotten Son. . . . 

3. And in one Holy Ghost. 

4. Believing that each one 
of these is and exists 
Father truly Father, 
and Son truly Son, and 
Holy Ghost truly Holy 

5. As also our Lord send- 
ing liis disciples forth 
to preach said: Going, 
make disciples of all 
the nations, baptising 
them in the name of 
the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy 


1. We believe ... in one 
God Father Almighty. 

2. And in one Lord Jesus 
Christ, his Son, the 
only begotten God . . . 
God of God . . . Living 
Logos. . . . 

3. And in the Holy Ghost. 

4. As also our Lord Je- 
sus Christ commanded 
his disciples, saying : 
Going make disciples 
of all the nations, bap- 
tising them in the 
name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost; 

5. that is, of the Father 
who is truly Father, of 
the Son who is truly 
Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, who is truly 
Holy Ghost. 

07 Contra Marcellum 1, 4, MG, 24, 752 B sq. 

58 MG, 67, 69 C sq. = Socrates H. E. 1, 8; also MG, 20, 1537 B; both 
texts are identical. 

5U Athanasius de Synod. 23, MG, 26, 721 sq. ; also in Socrates H. E. 2, 


Granting that the clauses in question had been foisted into the 
creed of Eusebius, it does not appear why the Arian interpolator 
should not have preserved the same order as in the creed of Antioch. 
But let us observe first of all, that the Council of Antioch in 341 
was not an Arian Council. Conybeare overreaches himself by such 
an apodictic statement, which is refuted by the creeds of the 
Council itself. The first creed proposed by the Council commences : 
"We are not followers of Arius. For how could it be that since 
we are bishops, we should be followers of a priest? Nor have we 
accepted any other creed beyond that which has been handed down 
from the beginning ". 60 

This creed was later changed for the second, in which a certain 
conciliatory spirit is evident; still it cannot be called unorthodox. 
After the trinitarian citation from Matthew, the second creed con- 
tinues : " these names are mentioned not idly or meaninglessly, but 
as accurately signifying the proper hypostasis, order and glory of 
those names, so that they are three in hypostasis, 61 but one in 
harmony. . . . And if anyone teaches contrary to the sound and 
orthodox faith of the Scriptures, saying that before the Son was 
begotten there existed, or had existed, either time (xpwov), or 
period (/cai/aov), or age (atwva), let him be anathema. And if 
anyone calls the Son a creature, as one of the things created, or 
produced, as one of the things produced, or a work, as one of the 
things made, and does not profess his faith in each one of the 
aforementioned names in order, as the divine Writings have handed 
down, or if he teaches or preaches anything besides what we have 
received, let him be anathema ", 62 

An Arian Council could not have drawn up such a creed. It 
cannot be denied, however, that the Eusebian party Avas strong at 
the Council (Eusebius of Nicomedia, at this time of Constantinople, 
died only after the Council) ; still they were not in the majority. 
Eusebius of JSTicomedia had, indeed, been chiefly instrumental in 
convening the Council, and had effected the renewed condemnation 
of Athanasius. Still that does not make the Council as such Arian. 
From our present knowledge we know that the Eusebian party 

10, MG, 67, 201 sq. The text of Athanasius has been followed, since he is 
more reliable than Socrates, who deviates from Athanasius in a few words. 

60 Socrates H. E. 2, 10, MG, 67, 200 C. 

61 Hypostasis here means 'persona'; cf. Hilary de Synodis nn. 31, 32, 
ML, 10, 504. 

M Athanasius de Synod. 23, MG, 26, 724. 


were Arian in sympathy; yet it does not follow that they were so 
considered by the orthodox bishops of the fourth century. As 
Hef ele sizes up the situation, 63 at the Council of Nice the orthodox 
party was on the extreme right; Arius and a few followers on the 
extreme left; while the Eusebian party held the center, on the left 
of which was Eusebius of Nicomedia, on the right Eusebius of 
Caesarea. After the central party had signed the decrees of the 
Nicene Council, they were looked upon as orthodox by the gen- 
erality of the bishops. It is only in this way that we can explain 
such a seeming paradox as that of the Council of Antioch 341, in 
which many orthodox bishops of the east combined with the 
Eusebian party in condemning Athanasius. 

Moreover, altho we clearly know that Athanasius was orthodox 
in his doctrines, it certainly does not follow that this was as evident 
to the orthodox bishops of his time. Athanasius had associated 
with Marcellus, who had been convicted of heresy; he had been 
banished by Constantine, and even seems to have been suspected 
for a time by Pope Julius. On this point see the miasterly treatise 
of Hef ele, Conciliengeschichte I, 502-530. 

Consequently, it cannot be said that the expression Father truly 
Father etc., was an expression which the Council of Antioch used 
in order to propagate Arian ideas. Neither could the expression 
have been an "Arian shibboleth", for then the orthodox party 
would never have permitted its insertion into the creed, and they 
were in the majority ! 

Besides, we know that three or four years previously, Eusebius 
Pamphili approved this expression in his work Contra Marcellum 
(for surely we can hold that he is the author of that work!). 
In the fourth chapter of the first book of that treatise, 64 after 
Marcellus has cited the letter of Asterius in which he professes his 
belief in the Father truly Father etc., Eusebius continues : " Thus 
Marcellus writes against Asterius, not pleased with his utterance 
that the Father must be truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and 
the Holy Ghost likewise. Hence he proceeds to refute this clause 
at very great length. For he wishes to say that Christ is a bare 
word similar to a human word, and not the truly living and abiding 
Son". If Eusebius approved this clause in 337-339, it is possible 
that he used it in his creed of 325. 

Conybeare's assertion that the clause is not apposite in Eusebius' s 

03 L. c. I, 306, par. 32. 
}, 24, 753 B. 


creed, because in the second member of his creed he gives promi- 
nence to the Word and not to the Son, is hardly worthy of considera- 
tion. Eusebius in his creed indeed places the Logos of God imme- 
diately after Jesus Christ; but he continues God of God, Light of 
Light, Life of Life, Only Begotten Son. The creed of Antioch, too, 
in its lengthy enumeration of the titles of Jesus Christ, does not 
omit the Living Logos. Should the clause be apposite in the creed 
of Antioch, because it mentions first the Son of God, and later the 
Living Logos, and not apposite in the creed of Eusebius, because 
he mentions first the Logos of God, and only later the only begotten 
Son? With the best of wills it is hard to see the logic in Cony- 
beare's reasoning. Even had Eusebius omitted the only begotten 
Son entirely, why should the clause not fit into his creed, since it 
clearly has the triple division of all ancient creeds : In one God the 
Father . . . in one Jesus Christ . . . in one Holy Ghost, no 
matter whether the second person be characterised as the Yios or as 
the Aoyos? 

Conybeare states furthermore, that when Eusebius of Nicomedia 
read his creed with the Lucianic catchwords at the Council of Nice, 
the assembly arose and tore his paper to pieces. The inference is 
evident : had Eusebius Pamphilfs creed contained the same catch- 
words, it would have fared no better. 

Conybeare's source is Theodoret; but he could not have read his 
source very carefully. Theodoret in Eccles. Hist. 1, 7 65 tells us 
that when the writing of Eusebius of Nicomedia was read, all who 
heard it were filled with great sorrow on account of the apostasy of 
the man (7-779 iKTpoirfj^ eVeKa) ; and thereupon they tore tip his 
writing. There is nothing said of any Lucianic additions. They 
are supplied by Conybeare himself ; for was not the clause an Arian 
shibboleth, and was not Eusebius of Nicomedia an Arian sym- 
pathiser ? 

Had he given more attention to his source, he would have dis- 
covered that the offensive expressions were : TO e OVK OVTWV, TO 

KTLapja KCU 7rot?7|wa rov YtoV, TO i]v TTOTC ore OVK rjV, on TpeTTTrjs ICTTL (jb 

The JSTicene Fathers demanded of the Eusebians that they accept 
the word O/AOOTJO-IOS ; for in this word, Theodoret says, all the pre- 
vious discussion is summed up. 

'That the clause the Father truly Father etc., was used by the 
Arians, is true, ^at least we know that Asterius used it; that it 

05 MG, 82, 921 AB. 


was an Arian shibboleth, which "in the Nicene age conveyed the 
doctrine that the three persons were three independent and differ- 
ent substances " , is disproved by the very same second symbol of 
the Council of Antioch 341. Hilary in commenting on this second 
creed, says : 6 " First of -all we must bear in mind, that the Council 
of Antioch convened not against the heresy, which dared to assert 
that the Father and Son were of a different substance, but against 
the heresy, which after the Council of Nice, belched forth the 
doctrine that the three names are to be ascribed to the Father '' 
(that is, not against Arianism, but against Sabellianism, revived 
in the person of Marcellus of Ancyra) . Hilary continues : " There- 
fore the assembled synod of holy men, in their desire to destroy 
such impiety, which tried to excape the dogma (veritatem) of the 
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost expressed by the number 
of names, and which subtracted the personality from each name, 
thereby falsely joining the three> so that the Father alone 
might have the name of the Holy Spirit and the Son; therefore 
this holy synod said that there were three substances, meaning 
three persons by substances, and not intending to separate the 
substance of the Father and the Son by a difference of nature ". 
The words of Hilary indicate that the Council of Antioch was 
directed against Sabellianism, which claimed that Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost were three different names for the same person. This 
becomes clearer from the last sentence of the third creed- approved 
at the same Council : " And whosoever sides with Marcellus of 
Ancyra, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, may he be anathema, 
and all those who communicate with him". 67 Hence the expres- 
sion the Father truly Father etc., at the Council of Antioch was 
used to emphasize, as Hilary says, the distinction of persons against 
Marcellus ; it was not .intended to be a shibboleth to propagate the 
doctrine of " three independent and different substances " in God. 

Let us come to Conybeare's second argument. In his letter to 
Caesarea, Eusebius says that when the assembly heard his creed, 
no one could find fault with it, and they accepted it " with a few 
additions". Now, Eusebius in his letter mentions first the creed 
which he proposed, and then the creed which the Nicene 'Fathers 
adopted. But the Nicene creed contains neither the clause the 
Father truly Father etc., nor the trinitarian citation from Mat- 

00 De Synod. 32, ML, 10, 504. 

67 Athanasius de Synod. 24, MG, 26, 725 A. 


thew. Therefore, since, according to Eusebius's testimony, the 
Nicene creed is the same as the creed which he proposed "with a 
few additions " , the two clauses could not have been original parts 
of Eusebius's creed. 

A clever argument, indeed; but it loses its force completely as 
soon .as we put the two creeds side by side and compare them. In 
the following paradigm, the words in italics in the creed of 
Eusebius have been 'omitted by the Council of Nice ; whereas those 
italicised in the Nicene creed, were added over and above the creed 
of Eusebius. 


1. We believe in one God, Father 
Almighty, the Creator of all the 
things visible and invisible. 

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Logos of God, God of God, 
Light of Light, Life of Life, only 
begotten Son, first-torn of all 
creation, begotten of the Father 
before all ages, by whom all 
things were made, who became 
flesh on account of our salva- 
tion, and lived among men (ev 
Avdpdjirois jroKiTevffa/j.evov) , and 
suffered, and arose the third day, 
and ascended to the Father and 
ivill come again in glory (TI&VTO. 
iraKiv ev 86fi) to judge both liv- 
ing and dead. 

3. We believe also in one Holy 
Ghost, believing that each one 
of these is and exists, Father 
truly Father, Son truly Son, and 
Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as 
also our Lord said when he sent 
his disciples to preach: Going 
maJce disciples of all the nations, 
baptising them in the name of 
the Father and the Son and the 
Holy Ghost. 

4. Concerning which we affirm that 
thus we hold and believe, and 
have thus held of old, and shall 
stand by this faith until death, 
anathematising every impious 


1. We believe in one God, Father 
Almighty, Creator of things 
visible and invisible. 

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
the Son of God, only begotten of 
the Father, God of God, Light 
of Light, true God of true God, 
begotten not made, consubstan- 
tial with the Father by whom 
all things were made, both the 
thi/ngs in heaven and those on 
earth, who came down and be- 
came flesh on account of us men 
and our salvation, dwelt among 
men (evavOpuTrriffavTa) suffered 
and arose the third day, ascend- 
ed into heaven, and ivill come 
(epx^evos) to judge both living 
and dead. 

3. And in the Holy Ghost, 

4. The Catholic Church anathema- 
tises those who say that there was 
a time when the Son of God did 
not exist, or that he did not 
exist before he was born, or thai 


heresy. That we have always he was made from nothing, or 

maintained this belief from our from some other hypostasis or 

heart and soul, insofar as we nature, or tliat he ivas created, 

Jmow ourselves, and now main- changed or altered, 

tain and profess it in truth, we 
call God the Almighty and our 
Lord Jesus Christ to witness, 


being able to show by arguments 
and to convince you, that in 
past times we have tlius believed 
and taught. 

We see from the paradigm that numbers 2, 3 and 4 were almost 
entirely changed. In no. 2, eight of Eusebius's phrases were 
omitted, and eleven substituted in their stead. Then no. 4 is 
expunged entirely, and a new anti-Arian section inserted. Yet 
Eusebius is snugly silent about these omissions, and is even hardy 
enough 1 to maintain that his creed was accepted " with a few ad- 
ditions " . It had been much nearer the truth to say that his creed 
was hardly recognisable after the Nicene Fathers were thru with it. 

Consequently, his neglect to mention the omission of the clause 
the Father truly Father etc., and the trinitarian citation, is no 
more a proof that these clauses were not original in his creed, than 
is the similar silence a proof that the phrases the Logos of God, 
Life of Life, First-lorn of all creation, before all ages, etc. were 
not original. We should have a fine looking creed indeed, if we 
discarded as spurious all the phrases which were omitted in the 
Nicene symbol. 

We can understand that the two clauses in question might have 
met with opposition from the Nicene Fathers. On the extreme 
right was Marcellus of Ancyra, who regarded the clause Father 
truly Father etc., as a cloak of heresy. This is evidenced by the 
words of the Contra Marcellum 1, 4 (MG- 24 753 A). 

Marcellus is there quoted as saying against Asterius: "When, 
however, not grasping the full import of the divine power, in a 
rather human fashion, and by some sort of artificial speculation, 
he calls the Father Father, and the Son Son, we cannot praise such 
a speculation without danger. For the result is that thru this 
speculation, the heresy which they have invented is increased, as, 
I think, it will be easy to prove from his own words ". 

Marcellus, therefore, who later was accused of Sabellianism, took 
offense at these words. Possibly he might have opposed the ex- 
pressions at the Council of Nice; possibly too, he might have been 
supported in this by his friend Athanasius and the orthodox party 


generally. However, all that we know is that the expressions, for 
whatever reason, were omitted in the creed drawn up by the Nicene 

That Eusebius should' have neglected to mention this omission, 
need not surprise us. Thruout his letter he tries to minimise, to 
the greatest degree possible, the opposition of the Ficene Council. 
His letter bears the evident earmarks of a wary diplomacy, trying 
to influence the home party into accepting the Nicene creed, and 
trying, also, to right in their eyes, the stand which he had taken in 
the matter. Therefore he mentions right at the beginning, that 
the Nicene creed was the same as the one which he had proposed, 
barring " a few additions ". These additions, he says later, con- 
sisted mainly in the word 6//,oouo-tos, which the emperor himself 
suggested should be inserted. This expression, he continues, con- 
tained nothing unorthodox, and he himself had accepted it only 
after long and mature deliberation. 

This conciliatory spirit is especially evident in the last part of 
the letter, where Eusebius speaks of the anathema affixed to the 
creed. " We think ", he writes, " that the anathema which is 
appended to the creed proposed by them, need not cause any worry ; 
since it prohibits the use of unscriptural words, whence nearly all 
the confusion and anarchv in the Church has arisen. Therefore 


since none of the divinely inspired Writings make use of the ex- 
pressions: e owe OI/TCOV, and rjv TTOTC ore OVK ty, and the other ex- 
pressions mentioned, it did not seem well to use them in ordinary 
speech or in teaching. We accordingly subscribed to this anathema, 
since it seemed reasonable, and since we had never formerly been 
in the habit of using those expressions. . . . 

We have thought it necessary to send you these items, beloved, 
in order clearly to demonstrate to you the conclusion of our inves- 
tigation, which has induced us to yield ; and also to show you that 
we resisted with good reason up to the last hour, as long as the 
expressions proposed by the others offended us. But finally, since 
we did not love strife, we accepted the terms. Neither did they 
cause any trouble ; for when we candidly examined the meaning of 
the words, we found that they coincided with our own, which we 
had proposed in our own creed ". 

In view of all this, we take pride in accepting Conybeare's state- 
ment of 1901 with a strengthening qualification: there is no earthly 
reason to suspect an interpolation. The trinitarian citation from 


Matthew is an original part of Eusebius's creed; and from the 
opening words of that creed we can infer that Eusebius had always 
believed this passage to be an authentic part of the Gospel. His 
words are: "As we have received from the bishops before us, and 
in our first catechesis, and when we received baptism, and have 
learned from the Divine Writings, and as we have believed and 
taught during our priestly and our episcopal career, so now also 
believing, we propose to you our faith, which is the following " . 

In such a solemn profession of his faith, we cannot imagine that 
the bishop of Caesarea, the disciple of Pamphilus, the greatest 
scripture scholar of his age, would have cited the trinitarian pas- 
sage as a part of the Gospel, were he convinced that it was a later 
interpolation. Consequently, Eusebius realised that these words 
were authentic, and he had been thus taught by the bishops before 
him, and had been brought to this view by the writings in the 
famous library at Caesarea, in which Pamphilus and Origen must 
have sorted manuscripts, ante-dating our oldest uncials by 50-150 

But if this is so, why does Eusebius omit the baptismal com- 
mand in 24 passages scattered over the vast range of his writings ? 
Why, too, does he add in my name to Christ's farewell words, in 
17 of these instances? We shall consider these two questions 



E. Eiggenbach, 1 F. H. Chase, 2 and P. Feine 3 appeal to the 
disciplina arcani as a very probable reason for the frequent omis- 
sion of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius. Altho 
we know that the doctrine of the Trinity and the liturgical rites 
of baptism were especially hidden from the uninitiated, still this 
opinion does not seem tenable. We are glad to say that for once 
we can accept Conybeare's stand on this point. 4 His most telling 
reasons against the disciplina arcani, are: First, the abbreviated 
forms are found in works which are intended for the initiated ; 5 
secondly, in the view of his opponents (he has Eiggenbach in 
mind), the received text occurs in the Syriac Theophany (and we 
may also add in the Eccles. Theol.') alongside of the abbreviated 
form. If in these works Eusebius uses the shorter forms for fear 
of violating the disciplina arcani, why does he use the longer form 
at all? 

No one will be able to deny the justice of these claims. The 
disciplina arcani, it is to be feared, is made the parent of many a 
child which it would never recognise. At any rate it proves inade- 
quate in our case. Accordingly we must seek elsewhere for the 
cause of these omissions. Stepping in the footprints of Wilkin- 
son, 6 Chase, 7 and Lebreton, 8 we shall examine the context itself, 
and see whether it cannot break the seal of the secret. The bap- 
tismal command is omitted in the 24 passages of the first two 
groups ; hence we shall study these in order, with reference to their 

1. Dem. Evang. 1, 3. 

Theme: The Mosaic government was not adapted to all nations. 


The Mosaic ritual and rule of life with its minutiae of observ- 

1 Beitrage zur Forderung christ. Theol. VII 1903, p. 30 sqq. 

2 JThST, 1905, p. 496 sq. 

3 Theol. des NT, Leipzig 1912, p. 211. 

4 ZNTW, 1905, p. 267, n. xix. 

6 Of. also K. Lake in ERE, s. v. Baptism, p. 380. 
The Hibbert Journal, 1903, p. 572 sq. 

7 JThSt, 1905, p. 485 sq. 

8 Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinit, 1910, p. 479 sqq. 



ances could be lived up to, only by the inhabitants of Palestine, 
and that with difficulty. It was an impossible observance for the 
Jews in the diaspora, and a fortiori for the nations of the world. 
Hence it was necessary to establish a new order beyond the law of 
Moses, according to which the nations of the universe might live 
a life similar to that of Abraham, and partake in the same bless- 
ing with him. " Accordingly when our Savior and Lord Jesus, 
the Son of G-od, after his resurrection from the dead, said to his 
disciples : ' Going make disciples of all the nations ', he rightly 
added: c teaching them to observe all things, ivhatsoever I have 
commanded you ' . He did not command them to teach the nations 
the Mosaic observances, but what he had commanded, etc.". 

It is evident that there is no call for the baptismal command in 
this context. Eusebius is contrasting the Mosaic law and the 
Christian law. He calls attention to the fact that the Mosaic law 
was limited, adapted to only one people, and that even upon these 
it imposed an almost impossible observance; whereas the law of 
Christ was universal, adapted to all nations, and set forth a rule 
of life which could be followed by all, everywhere. Eusebius cites 
only that part of Christ's words, which brings his point into relief. 
He omits the baptismal command, which could only hamper the 
flow of his thought. 

2. Dem. Evang. 1, 4. 

Theme: Why do we reject the Mosaic rule of life, seeing that we 
accept the Old Testament Writings? 


We accept the books of the Jews, because they contain prophecies 
about us Gentiles; because Moses and all the prophets after him, 
have sung of the new Legislator to come. In them we Gentiles are 
told to sing a new song; a song, which is further called the ISTew 
Testament; a Testament, which according to Isaias, is the New 
Law which shall go out of Sion. Which is this New Law which 
shall go out of Sion other than the Gospel, which thru our Savior 
Jesus Christ and thru his disciples, was disseminated thru the 
world, according to the words which he spoke to his disciples: 
" Going make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you ". 

Again we have a contrast between the law of Moses and the law 
of Christ. The baptismal command is not needed, and hence not 


3. Dem Evang. 1, 6. 

Theme: The rule of life imposed upon all Christians by the New 


Melchisedech, Noe, Enoch, Abraham, Job did not follow the 
Mosaic ritual and ceremonial observances, but they practised the 
virtues later inculcated by Christ. This old Law to which they 
belonged, and which preceded the law of Moses, was forgotten for 
a long time, but it was revived by Christ. The Mosaic law which 
ruled in the interim, was given for a half -grown generation, who 
thereby were enabled to live merely an imperfect life. But this 
imperfect law was to cease with the coming of Christ. 

Here Christ is introduced as speaking at length, and contrasting 
his law with the law of Moses, and his moral obligations with the 
Mosaic obligations. Then Eusebius continues: "These and other 
similar things, the rule of the New Law, thru the teaching of 
Christ, has announced to the nations. And these are the things, 
which Christ commanded his disciples to announce to all the 
nations, when he said: ( Going make disciples of all the nations, 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you ' . 

Once more we have a contrast between the Mosaic law and the 
Christian law; between the Mosaic teaching and the Christian 
teaching; between the Mosaic obligations and the Christian obli- 
gations. Hence it was not necessary to cite the command to baptise. 

4. Ps. 46, 4. 

Text: He hath subdued the people under us; and the nations under 
our feet. 


" It is known to all that neither were the people subjected to the 
sons of Core, nor were the nations brought under their feet ; whence 
these things are said in the person of the Apostles. For they fol- 
lowing the command of the Savior himself to teach all the nations, 
were filled with his power, and went forth to all the nations, and 
penetrated even into barbarous tribes, and traversed the entire in- 
habited world." 

The point that is brought to our notice here is the spread of 
Christ's doctrine thru the world, and the subjection of all the 
nations to his spiritual rule by the preaching of the Apostles. 


Since this conquest of the world by the Apostles is the prominent 
and, in fact, permeating thought in the context, it was entirely 
superfluous to adduce the baptismal command. 

5. Ps. 95, 3. 

Text: Declare his glory among the Gentiles: his wonders among 
all people. 

Development : 

"To whom must we consider these words addressed, if not to 
those who later fulfilled them in deed, those namely who announced 
to all the nations the salvation of God? Who are they that carry 
out these words by their works? They are the disciples of Jesus, 
who heard the command: ' Going make disciples of all the 
nations ' ". 

Again Eusebius is speaking of the spiritual conquest of the 
universe by the preaching of the Apostles. He cites merely that 
part of the Savior's words, which is necessary for his purpose. 

6. De Eccles. Theol 3, 3. 

Theme : The 'Correct interpretation of passages, on which Marcellus 
has put a false construction. 

Development : 

The passage here in question is taken from Proverbs 8, 24: 
" The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither 
had the fountains of water as yet sprung out". Marcellus inter- 
prets this passage thus: "Kightly the Lord in speaking of his 
human birth has said thru his prophet Solomon: 'before the 
fountains sprung out ' . For the Savior said to his holy fountains : 
' Going make disciples of all the nations '. Therefore it is entirely 
clear that the holy Apostles are figuratively called fountains by the 
prophet ". 

There was no necessity of introducing the baptismal command 
here, since in Marcellus's view, the Apostles were the fountains, 
which improved the soil of the universe by the rich doctrines of 

7. Dem. Evang. 3, 6. 

Theme: Christ was not a magician. 

A magician associates with depraved and wicked men, and 
works for gain; Christ was most pure and holy, and despised 
wealth. Hence his miracles must be ascribed to the power of 


God, and not to witchcraft. His doctrine was of such a nature, 
that it spread thru the whole world and subjected all people to 
its rule. But to what magician's mind had it ever occurred to 
found a nation in his own name, and to establish laws thruout the 
world contrary to the ancient customs of all nations? Jesus not 
only conceived and attempted such a plan, but he succeeded in 
fulfilling it ; for when he gave the command to his disciples : 
" G-oing make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", 
he followed up this command by his deed. For at once the entire 
Hellenic and barbarian races were discipled, and laws were pro- 
mulgated among all the nations, contrary to their former super- 
stition etc. 

In this context we notice a contrast between the private lives of 
magicians and the life of Christ ; between their teaching and his ; 
between their power and his power; a contrast, too, between his 
law and doctrine and the laws and doctrines of pagan nations. 
There is no room for the baptismal command. 

8-10. Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (thrice'). 

Theme : Christ is endowed with divine power. 

Development : 

This was already attested to by the pagan oracles; but it is evi- 
dent to us especially by that miracle of miracles : the conquest of 
the world thru poor fishermen. An ordinary legislator or king 
has all that he can do, to enact laws and enforce them within his 
kingdom; but Christ speaks like a God, indeed, when he says to 
his disciples : " Going make disciples of all the nations." And lest 
his disciples might become discouraged, and inquire by what power 
they could preach the Gospel to the Romans, and speak to the 
Egyptians, and converse with the Greeks, and evangelise the Per- 
sians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Indians and all barbaric 
nations, he adds the one word : ee in my name ", " Going make 
disciples of all the nations in my name". The Apostles obeyed 
this command and conquered the world. This fact exemplifies 
conclusively the super-human power of him who said: "Going 
make disciples of all the nations in my name ". 

Here the power of Christ as Lord and Legislator is in the fore- 
ground, that power as set against and excelling the power of 
ordinary kings and legislators. We could hardly expect Eusebius 
to cite the baptismal command in this connexion. 


11. Dem. Evang. 9. 

Theme: The New Law of Christ is sanctioned by Deuteronomy. 


Deut. 18, 15-19 : ..." I will raise them up a prophet out of 
the midst of their brethren like to thee : and I will put my words 
in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command 
him. And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak 
in my name, I will be the revenger ". 

This legislator and teacher of piety to men who was to come 
after Hoses, was none other than Christ. Moses, indeed, was the 
leader of a single nation, and his law was adapted to a single 
people ; but Christ with a super-human authority and a power more 
divine than that of Moses, founded laws for the entire world. And 
first, indeed, in keeping with the prophecy he confined himself to 
the Jews; but when they spurned him, he turned to the Gentiles, 
commanding his disciples : " Going make disciples of all the nations 
in my name". 

Again Christ's power as the divine and universal Legislator is 
emphasized in contradistinction to Moses, the human and limited 
legislator. There is no need to insert the command to baptise. 

12. Hist. Ecdes. 3, 5. 

Theme: The siege of Jerusalem after the death of Christ. 


Since the Jews after the ascent of Christ into heaven did not 
rest satisfied with their crime against him, but continued to per- 
secute his disciples, by stoning Stephen, beheading James the 
brother of John, and putting to death James the bishop of Jeru- 
salem; and since they afflicted the other Apostles so severely that 
they fled from Palestine and began to preach the Gospel to all the 
nations, imbued with the power of Christ who had said to them: 
" Going make disciples of all the nations in my name " ; and when 
all the Christians had left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, then the 
divine vengeance visited upon Jerusalem the crimes of which that 
city had been guilty against Christ and his disciples. 

There is certainly no necessity of citing the baptismal command 
in this context. 

13. De Laud. Constant. 16. 

Theme: The causes of the universal peace which characterised the 
reign of Constantine. 



In the time of paganism the world was engulfed in wars and 
crimes. This evil state was the direct result of the power of the 
demons. This power of the demons was broken by Christ's death 
on the cross. At the same time the Eoman Empire subjected all 
nations to its sway. The powerful doctrine of Christ which tri- 
umphed over the demons, and the powerful Eoman Empire which 
conquered the rulers of the world, are responsible for this miracu- 
lous change. 

This change had been foretold of old; and it is a mighty testi- 
mony to the divine origin of Christianity. " For what king in the 
memory of man, what ruler, or lawgiver, or philosopher, or 
prophet, be it of the Hellenes or of the barbarians, was gifted with 
such power and authority as to fill the ears and tongues of all 
peoples with his praise? None surely, except our Savior alone 
could accomplish such a miracle, when after his victory over death 
he gave his disciples the command, and confirmed that command 
by his deed, saying to them : ' Going therefore make disciples of 
all the nations in my name'; and since he told them that his 
Gospel must needs be announced in the whole world, he followed 
up his command by deeds. 

Again, Christ's power over the demons is emphasized, and the 
superiority of his legislative authority is stressed over all human 
legislative bodies. There is no occasion to mention his command 
to baptise. 

14. Ps. 59, 9. 

Text: God hath spoken in his holy one: I shall be exalted and 
shall divide Sichem, and shall divide the vale of tents. 
Galaad is mine, and Manasses in mine, and Ephraim is the 
strength of my head. Juda is my king. Moab is the pot of 
my hope. Into Edom will I stretch out my shoe: to me 
the foreigners are made subject. 


This holy one is Christ. The words are fulfilled in him. After 
his ascension, he sent the Holy Ghost upon Sichem, that is, the 
Samaritans ; he filled the valley of tents, that is, the universe, with 
his churches; Galaad and Ephraim, Manasses and Juda became 
subject to him; and in Moab and Edom was his rule over the 
Gentiles symbolised. 

According to another explanation, the words Sichem, Galaad, 


Manasses, Ephraim, Juda, Moab and Edom represent all nations 
indiscriminately. The Jews are mentioned in the first place, be- 
cause to them first should the kingdom of God be announced ; but 
after them Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel 
to all the nations in his name. 

In these words the antithesis is brought out between the preach- 
ing of the Gospel to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. Why 
should the command to baptise be forced into the context? 

15. Ps. 65, 5. 6. 

Text: Come and see the works of God, who is terrible in his coun- 
sels over the sons of men ; who turneth the sea into dry land, 
in the river they shall pass on foot: there we shall rejoice 
in him, who by his power endureth forever. 


All the nations are invited to come and consider the awe-inspir- 
ing deeds, which God performed in behalf of his people, in Egypt, 
in the Ked Sea, in the Jordan; and to reflect that he who could 
confute his enemies of old, is still powerful against them. Hence 
we should rejoice in him, who by his power endureth forever. We 
should understand these words of that saying of Christ: "All 
power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going make disci- 
ples of all the nations in my name ". Wherefore Aquila translates 
it : " who exercises authority in his power forever ". 

In the immediate context there is no place for the baptismal 
command. However, had Eusebius cited Mt. 28, 19 earlier in his 
Commentary, at the words : we shall rejoice in him, which he refers 
to the waters of baptism, he would have been obliged to quote the 
baptismal command. But in the immediate context, there is no 
reason to cite them. 

16. Ps. 67, 34. 

Text: Behold he will give to his voice the voice of power; give ye 
glory to God for Israel. 


That Christ's voice was endowed with power is evident from his 
deeds ; for when he said to his disciples : " Come, follow me, and I 
shall make you fishers of men ", he- actually fulfilled this promise 
by his power ; and again when he commanded them saying : " Going 
make disciples of all the nations in my name ", he manifested his 
power in very deed. 


There is no necessity of quoting Christ's command to baptise, 
as Eusebius wishes to bring to our notice the power of Christ's 
commands; and this is abundantly done by citing the first part 
of the text, in which the conquest of the world is announced. 

17. Ps. 76, 20. 

Text: Thy way is in the sea, and thy paths in many waters, and 
thy footsteps shall not be known. 


From the preceding verse we learn that the earth shook and 
trembled. This was realised when Christ entered Jerusalem, and 
the entire city was in consternation; also when the nations of the 
world trembled on hearing the words of the Gospel from the lips 
of the Apostles. How should we understand the prophet when he 
says that Christ's way is in the sea, and his paths in many waters, 
and his footsteps will not be known? This passage receives light 
from his promise to his disciples : " Going make disciples of all 
nations in my name ", and, " Behold I am with you all days even 
to the end of the world". For thruout the entire world, invisibly 
present to his disciples, he traveled on the sea of life, and in the 
many waters of the nations. This he accomplished by his invisible 
and hidden power. 

The prominent ideas in this passage are that Christ's power is 
universal and invisible. The universality is proved by Christ's 
command : " Going make disciples of all the nations " ; the invisi- 
bility, by the text : " Behold I am with you all days even to the end 
of the world ". The baptismal command would be lost here. 

18. Isaias 18, 2. 

Text: Light messengers will go to an unsettled nation and a 
strange and difficult people; ... to a nation without hope 
and trodden under foot. 


This command seems to be given to the disciples of our Savior. 
Since they are messengers of good tidings, they are called mes- 
sengers, and light ones, to distinguish them from the apostles of 
the Jews. Wherefore the prophet addresses these messengers of 
good tidings thus: You disciples of Christ, go as the Savior him- 
self has commanded you ; ' G-o rather to the lost sheep of the house 
of Israel ', and, ' Going make disciples of all the nations in my 

name '." 


Again it is the teaching office of the Apostles that is emphasized, 
so that it was quite unnecessary to mention their power to baptise. 

19. Isaias 34, 16. 

Text: One hath not sought the other, because the Lord commanded 
them and his Spirit gathered them together. 


Eusebius has only one sentence here, viz : e< For he who said to 
them, ' Make disciples of all the nations in my name ? , also forbad 
them to establish their churches in one and the same place". It 
would have been entirely irrelevant to call attention to the fact 
that they had the power to baptise. 

20. Syriac Theophany 3, 14 ==n. 13 De Laud. Const. 16. 

21. Syriac Theophany 4, 16. 

Theme: The interpretation of the parable of the marriage-feast 
in Matthew. 


The bridegroom is the divine Logos. The bride is the rational 
soul. The servants are the solicitors. These solicitors, his dis- 
ciples, are sent first of all to the people of the circumcision. When 
they refuse to come, he sends the 70 disciples to invite them to 
attend his banquet. When they maltreat and kill these disciples, 
he sends the army of the Eomans to raze the city of Jerusalem. 
The rest of the disciples, however, go out into the world, to fulfill 
the command of their Lord : " Going make disciples of all the 
nations in my name ". 

Again it is the preaching of the Gospel on which Eusebius lays 
stress. When the Jews refuse this grace, it is given to the Gentiles. 
The context does not call for the baptismal command. 

22. Syriac Theophany 5, 17 is the same in contents as n. 7 Dem. 
Evang. 3, 6. 

23. Syriac Theophany 5, 46 is the same as n. 8 Dem. Evang. 3, 7. 

24. Syriac Theophany 5, 49 is the same as n. 10 Dem. Evang. 3, 7. 

In all of these 24 instances there is not one case in which the 
baptismal command is necessitated by the context; in most cases 
its insertion would impede the flow of thought and spoil the con- 
trast which is drawn between the universal, all-powerful law of 


Christ and the limited, weak laws of religious and civil legislators. 
It was Eusebius's purpose to stress the world-rule of the Savior, 
whose laws and doctrines were not confined to any special people 
or country, but embraced all the nations of the world. Not only 
were his laws adapted to all, but by his power he saw to it that 
they were actually observed '.everywhere, " in imperial Home, in 
Alexandria and Antioch, in the whole of Egypt and Lybia, in 
Europe and in Asia, in villages and hamlets, and among all 
people " ('Syriac Theophany 5, 49 ; Dem. Evang. 3, 7), thus proving 
incontestably the divine power, which raised him high above all 
other lawgivers, civil or religious. In such a context, there was no 
reason for Eusebius to mention the command of the Savior to the 
Apostles to baptise all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost; but it was sufficient that he adduced that 
part of the 'Savior's words which laid stress on his divine and 
universal power. 



By way of contrast let us now examine the texts in which the 
trinitarian citation occurs. 

25/26. Contra Marcellum 1, 1. 

Theme: Reasons why Marcellus wrote his book, and his method 
in writing. 


He wrote his book out of envy and hatred. He insults the most 
holy servants of God, living and dead, and blasphemes the Son of 
God. I shall refute him by his own words. But first let me 
admonish all those into whose hands his book may have fallen, 
especially if they hail from G-alatia, that they should not forget 
the words of St. Paul to the Galatians : " Though we or an angel 
from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have 
preached to you, let him be anathema". What was this Gospel? 
The same which our Savior is said to have given to his disciples, 
when he said to them : " Going make disciples of all the nations, 
baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
the Holy Ghost". 

So far, indeed, the words of baptism are in no way necessitated 
by the context ; but their presence is demanded by the words which 
immediately follow : " For he alone has favored us with the grace 
of knowing the Holy Trinity by means of the mystical regeneration, 
since neither Moses, nor any of the prophets supplied this knowl- 
edge to the people of the Old Law. For it was fitting that the 
Son of God alone should announce this gift of his Father to all 
men; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth thru 
Jesus Christ alone, as the only begotten Son of God. . . . This 
holy, blessed and mystic Trinity of Father, and Son, and Holy 
Ghost, unto hope of salvation thru regeneration in Christ, the 
Church of God has received and guards ". 

There is no denying that in this context, the trinitarian citation 
is absolutely necessary ; for in the words which precede and follow 
the citation of Matthew, Eusebius does not expatiate on the uni- 
versality and practicability of Christ's doctrine, but on the nature 


of that doctrine. That doctrine was the same as the doctrine which 
Paul had preached; it consisted especially in the revelation of the 
(t blessed and mystic Trinity ", which had been reserved for Christ 
alone to announce to the world. This doctrine of the Trinity 
Christ has enabled us to know " l)y means of the mystical regenera- 
tion ". Hence the command to baptise had to be quoted. 

27. De Eccles. Theol 3, 5. 

Theme: Christ's doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost. 


In the most clear terms Christ teaches that the Holy G-host is a 
distinct person from the Son. He cites in confirmation of this: 
John 16, 15-17; 20, 22; 14, 23; 25, 26; 16, 7. This Holy Spirit 
is the Comforter, Christ's representative on earth after his ascen- 
sion into heaven, who was to teach the Apostles all things which 
Christ had told them, Jn. 16, 12-14. He is called the Paraclete 
to show that he is distinct from the Father and the Son, and dis- 
tinct from the angels who are also spirits. 

"'None of these spirits can be compared with the Comforting 
Spirit. Therefore this one alone is comprised in the holy and 
thrice-blessed Trinity, as also our Lord in commanding his dis- 
ciples to administer baptism to all the nations who would believe 
in him, did not order them to administer it in any other way than 
by baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost ". 

The trinitarian passage in this text is demanded by the context, 
which emphasizes the dogma that the Holy Ghost is a Spirit, high 
above the angels, and on an equal footing with the Father and 
the Son. 

28. Syriac Theophany, 4, 8. 

Theme: The final commission of Christ to his Apostles according 
to Matthew. 


"After his resurrection from the dead, they all went according 
to his command to Galilee, whither he had told them to go. And 
when they saw him, some prostrated themselves but others doubted. 
But he drew near to them, spoke to them and said: All power 
in heaven and on earth is given me by my Father. Go, make dis- 
ciples of all the people, and baptise them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them 



to observe all that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with 
you all days until the end of the world ". 

The trinitarian citation is not necessarily postulated by this 
introductory description ; but its presence is demanded by the words 
which follow later in the text, viz : " But of necessity did he add 
the mystery of cleansing. For those who should be converted from 
among the heathens, he had to cleanse by his power from all pollu- 
tion and uncleanness, because they had been defiled by their de- 
moniac and polytheistic error, and had been laden with unclean- 
ness of all sorts, but had now for the first time renounced that life 
of abomination and lawless practices. These very persons, then, 
did he admonish to teach after this cleansing thru his mystic 
doctrine . . . the observance of all things which he had com- 
manded them". 

The cleansing here can only refer to baptism. Conybeare in his 
article of 1901, 1 calls attention to the expression the cleansing thru 
his mystic doctrine. "This expression" he says, "precludes the 
idea that the writer had in view the cleansing by the water of 
baptism and rather suggests the exorcism at use of the name, 
which preceded baptism, and were specially a cleansing by his 
power from the pollution of demons ". 

It cannot be denied that the expression the cleansing thru his 
mystic doctrine is a peculiar expression ; still, as Wilkinson observes, 2 
if we study this expression in connexion with Eusebius's doctrine 
on the Trinity as set forth in the Contra Marcellum, it will be 
evident that tho mystic doctrine of the text is the Trinity, and the 
cleansing thru his mystic doctrine is baptism. 

The passage in the Contra Marcellum 1, 1 reads : " For he alone 
has favored us with the grace of knowing the Holy Trinity by 
means of the mystical regeneration, since neither Moses nor any 
of the prophets had supplied this knowledge to the people of the 
Old Law. For it was fitting that the Son of God alone should 
annoimce this gift of his Father to all men ; for the law was given 
by Moses, but grace and truth thru Jesus Christ alone, as the 
only begotten Son of God. It was right therefore that the Old 
Law like a trainer of boys should teach the former childish people 
merely the first elements of theology, securing them from the de- 
ception of polytheism, and announcing to them the knowledge that 
God is one. But the grace of the Savior has bestowed upon us a 

1 ZNTW, n. 24, p. 282. 

2 The Hibbert Journal, 1903, p. 573. 


super-mundane and angelic knowledge, and has clearly unveiled 
the mystery which had been kept from the former people, inasfar 
as it announced to us that God himself, who is above all, and who 
was known to the men of yore, is at once the God and Father of 
the only begotten 'Son; and inasfar as it tells us of the power of 
the Holy Ghost, as it is supplied to those who are worthy of it, by 
the Son. This holy, blessed and mystic Trinity of Father, and 
Son, and Holy Ghost, unto hope of salvation thru regeneration in 
Christ, the Church of God has received and guards ". 

The Contra Marcellum was most probably written soms three or 
four years after the Theophany; and there can be no doubt that 
the mystical doctrine of the Theophany is the same as that of the 
Contra Marcellum, scil: the doctrine of the Trinity, which was a 
doctrine peculiar to the New Testament, reserved for the Son to 
announce to the world. Hence, the cleansing thru his mystic doc- 
trine can only mean baptism, which was made possible thru the 
revelation of the Trinity. 

29. The Letter to Caesar ea. 

This has already been extensively treated. Altho the trinitarian 
citation is not needed in the creed, it does not in any way " offend 
the context ", since the creed has the triple division : in the Father 
... in the Son ... in the Holy Ghost. 

Before closing this question of the baptismal command, it will 
be well to note Conybeare's statement in ZNTW 1905, 3 that 
Eusebius in his Praepar. Evang. speaks of a Trinity, but that he 
bases his doctrine on John 1, 1 sq. and Col. 1, 15, as if he did not 
know of Mt. 28, 19 ; whereas the author of the Contra Marcellum 
rests his doctrine exclusively on Mt. 28, 19. 

Both these statements are false. In Praepar. Evang. 11, 19 
(MG 21 900 sq.) Eusebius indeed cites John 1, Isq. and Col. 1, 
15, but not to prove the doctrine of the Trinity; the Trinity is 
not as much as mentioned in the whole chapter. He adduces these 
texts in support of the doctrine that the Son is the second cause 
or principle, thru whom all things are made. In the second refer- 
ence to the Trinity in the Pra^epar. Evang. 13, 13 (MG 21 1116), 
the doctrine is not based on any scripture text, as it is Eusebius's 
purpose to show that this doctrine was already known to Plato. 

Conybeare's second statement, that the author of the Contra 

8 N". xiii, p. 260. 


Marcellum rests his doctrine on Mt. 28, 19 exclusively, is more 
false than the preceding, if that were possible. To take one in- 
stance : In the fifth book Contra Marcellum (De Eccles. Theol. 3, 
5), Eusebius bases his doctrine of the Trinity on John 14, 15-17; 
20, 22; 14, 23; 25, 26; 16, 7; 16, 12-14; Col. 2, 3. The text of 
Mt. 28, 19 is added only at the end to cap the climax after the 
doctrine had already been firmly established by the other passages. 
In the following chapter 3, 6, texts are brought forward to estab- 
lish the same doctrine from Col. 1, 16, Eph. 4, 5. 6 etc, . . . 

Consequently, it cannot be said that the Contra Marcellum con- 
tradicts the Praepar. Evang. so that both could not have been 
written by the same author. 



F. H. Chase 1 has suggested that the expression 'in my name' 
which in 17 instances is connected with the parting words of 
Christ, might have been a variant which Eusebius found in some 
manuscripts at Caesarea, or it might be a peculiar reading due to 
Eusebius himself. Lebreton 2 decides for the second alternative, 
deriving the expression from the parallel passages of the synoptics 
and especially from Luke. He calls this solution most probable. 

In support of the first statement Chase calls attention to the 
fact that Eusebius repeatedly manifests an acquaintance with the 
e western' text of the New Testament. This ' western' text, he 
says, betrays a fondness for inserting references to the name of 
Jesus into the text of the Bible. Thus in Acts 6, 8 to the words : 
" And Stephen full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and 
signs among the people ", Codex Laudianus adds : " in the name of 
the Lord"; Codex Berne with some cursives has the reading: "by 
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Likewise in Acts 14, 10: 
" Paul said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet ", Ephrae- 
mi rescriptus, Bezae, and others insert after "voice": "I say to 
you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ". Again in Acts 18, 4 : 
"(Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persecuted 
the Jews and the Greeks ", Bezae and fragm. Floriacensia add after 
" sabbath " : " bringing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ", as 
it is still preserved in the Vulgate. Then in Acts 18, 8 after: 
" Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord ", the 
same two manuscripts add: "thru the name of the Lord Jesus 

Since, therefore, the ( western ' text shows a fondness for insert- 
ing references to the name of Jesus, and since this text is notice- 
able in the works of Eusebius, the possibility of the first alterna- 
tive cannot be denied. It is, indeed, possible, that among the 
manuscripts of Caesarea a variant of Mt. 28, 19 might ha^ve existed 
in the form : " Going make disciples of all the nations in my name, 
baptising them, etc.". 

'Tho this is possible, still it cannot be proved, since none of our 

J JThSt, 1905, p. 488 sqq. 

a Les Origines du Dogme de la TrinitS, 1910, p. 485. 



extant manuscripts or versions, or the works of any of the other 
Fathers, show the slightest acquaintance with such a variant. 
Moreover the existence of such a variant is not needed to account 
for the citations in Eusebius ; and its existence is not even probable. 
The reasons for these assertions are the following. 

In the five instances in which Eusebius is known to cite our 
text fully, scil : twice in Contra Marcellum 1, 1 ; De Eccles. Theol. 
3, 5; Syriac Theophany 4, 8; and the Letter to Caesarea, in- 
stances, consequently, in which if ever, he might reasonably be 
expected to cite exactly, since the context in each case is of a 
theological character, the words of Matthew are quoted as we have 
them in the textus receptus. The phrase in my name is not men- 
tioned. Had it been an original part of the Gospel, there would 
have been no reason for Eusebius to omit it, especially in the 
Syriac Theophany 4, 8, where he notes that the Apostles summoned 
courage to brave the dangers of their mission, from the recollection 
that Christ had said to them : " Behold I am with you all days 
until the end of the world". In most of the other cases (as for 
instance Dem. JEvang. 3, 7), he claims that the diffidence of the 
Apostles was dispelled by the fact that they recalled the words of 
Christ: " Going, make disciples of all the nations in my name 1 '. 
Here, however, since he is arguing merely from the Gospel of 
Matthew, as appears from the title of the chapter, he mentions as 
the source of their courage, not the command to preach in the 
name of Jesus, but the promise that Jesus would be with them until 
the end of the world. Consequently, Eusebius did not consider 
the phrase in my name as an original part of Mt. 28, 19 ; and had 
there been a variant with this reading among the manuscripts, he 
evidently considered it as an insertion, and in no way a saying of 
Christ, inasfar as his words are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. 

However, in the 17 instances in which it does occur, Eusebius 
cites it as a word of Christ. A good example of this is had in 
Dem. Evang. 3, 7. 3 After stating the command of the Savior to 
his disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations, and after 
noting the fear and uneasiness which the Apostles might experience 
at the thought of performing such a feat, Eusebius continues: 
"Lest the disciples might entertain or give expression to such 
thoughts, as it was most probable they would, the Teacher ' added 
the solution to these difficulties, saying correctly : ' in my name '. 
For he did not command them simply and indefinitely to instruct 

3 MG, 22, 240 B C. 


all the nations, but with the necessary addition : in his name. But 
since the power of this name was of such a nature that the Apostle 
said: 'God has given him the name which is above every name, 
that in the name of Jesus every knee might bend of those in heaven 
and on earth and under the earth 7 ; therefore he rightly stressed 
the excellent power of that name, which escapes (the notice of) 
the generality of men, inasf ar as he said to his disciples : ' Going, 
make disciples of all the nations in my name 7 . Thereupon, ex- 
ceedingly well and accurately does he foretell the future, saying : 
c For this G-ospel must needs be announced in the whole world as 
an evidence to all the nations ' " (Tavra. >} ^aavruv av Kara rb 

et/cos, T) SbavorjOevraiV TO>V rov 'If/crou piBrjTwv, /was -TT/OOCT^K^ Ae^ews avrois 
6 AtSaovcaAos Xvcriv r&v airoprjOevTuv, <j)r)cra<; fcaropOaxrw, iv rw 
ovopari jaov. Ov yap 877 aTrAws /cat dStoptcrrcos ju/atf^reikrai irdvra ra e6vr) 
TT/oooreraTTe, jaera Trpoo^K^s Se dvay/caias, rrjs iv TW oVojaart avrov . . . 
et/cortos, T^S rovs TroAAovs Aavflavovo^s Iv r<a ovofian avrov Swa/xeo^s T^V 
aperyv e/x^atvwv', rot? avrov jua^rats ec^^cre iropevOevres {jutOrjrevcrare 
iravra, ra Wvf] ev TW ovo/urn /AOU. Act yap KypvxOrjvai TO EvayyeAiov TOUTO 
iv oXy ry oiKOVfievy ets paprvpiov iravi rots eOveaw) . 

Here we have before our eyes an excellent object-lesson of 
Eusebius's method in presenting the parting words of the risen 
Lord. We have first the command: te Going, make disciples of 
all the nations " ; secondly, the addition : " in my name " ; thirdly, 
the prophecy: "for this Gospel must needs be announced in the 
whole world as an evidence to all the nations ". These three cita- 
tions seem to be taken from one and the same source; and the 
third part seems to follow immediately after the first two. Yet 
we shall look in vain for these last words in the final commission 
of Christ to his disciples, as that commission is set down in the 
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The parallel passages of the 
synoptics are: 

MK. 15, 16 sqq. 

Go ye into the whole 
world and preach the 
Gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is 
baptised shall be saved: 
but he that believeth not, 
shall be condemned. And 
these signs shall follow 
them that believe: 

MT. 28, 18 sqq. 
All power is given to 
me in heaven and in 
earth. Going, therefore, 
make disciples of all the 
nations, baptising them 
in the name of the Fa- 
ther, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
ing them to observe all 


LK. 24, 46 sqq. 

Thus it is written, and 
thus it behooved Christ 
to suffer, and to rise 
again from the dead, 
the third day; and that 
penance and remission of 
sins should be preached 
in his name unto all 
nations, beginning at 

things whatsoever I have my name they shall cast Jerusalem. And you are 


commanded you ; and be- out devils ; they shall witnesses to these things, 

hold I am with you all speak with new tongues; And I send the promise 

days even to the end of they shall take up ser- of my Father upon you; 

the world. pents; and if they shall but stay you in the city, 

drink any deadly thing, until you be endued with 

it shall not hurt them; power from on high. 

they shall lay their 

hands upon the sick, and 

they shall recover. 

From the paradigm it is evident that the prophecy of which 
Eusebius speaks, is not taken from the parting words of Christ, 
but is taken from his words uttered on another occasion in his life, 
at the time when he forgave the sinfnl woman who anointed his 
feet in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper. This incident 
has been preserved by both Matthew (26, 13) and Mark (14, 9). 
The prophecy runs: "Wherever this Gospel (TO Euayye'Aiov TOWO, 
in both) shall be preached (mipvxOji, i n both) in the whole world 
(Mt. lv 6'Ao) TO) KoVjtt<u; Mk. ts oXov rov Kocrpov), that, too, which she 
has done, will be spoken of in memory of her (ets /wyjwcrvvov avTy-s, 
in both) . 

All doubt on this point will be removed by the Syriac Theophany 
4, 10. In 4, 8 Eusebius, as is evident from the title of the chapter 
and the context, treats of the final words of Christ from the Gospel 
of Matthew ; in 4, 9, as we also know from the title and the context, 
he dwells on the same final words from the Gospel of Luke; in 4, 
10, as is again clear from the title and the context, he takes up 
the prophecy 'of Christ concerning the preaching of his Gospel, 
pronounced in connexion with the incident at Bethany, as related 
by Matthew and Mark. 

After producing this incident and the prophetic words of Christ, 
Eusebius .continues : " He foretold this, altho at that time the 
writing of the Gospel had not been thought of, and had not come 
to the hearing of anyone; and not even those who lived in the 
neighborhood were acquainted with the facts that had taken place, 
but only those persons knew of them who had happened to be 
present. Nevertheless, he uttered this great Word, and prophecied 
that the Gospel which would be composed by his disciples, would 
be announced in the whole world; and he followed up this word 
by his deed, when he said that together with his works, that, also, 
which this woman had done, would be recorded in the Gospel and 
told in the whole world in memory of her. That this was con- 
firmed in very deed is clear; for there is no people, no land, no 


place, in which the memory of this woman is not kept, that mem- 
ory which is set down in the Gospel concerning him, and which is 
announced in the whole world together with the doctrine about 
him ". 

Consequently, it cannot 'be denied that the prophecy which 
Eusebius in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 connects with the parting words of 
Christ, and which he introduces immediately after the command 
of the Savior to preach the Gospel to the whole world in his name, 
is taken ieither from Mt. 26, 13 sq., or Mk. 14, 9 sq. This prophecy 
is likewise thus connected with the final commission, in Dem. Evang. 
3, 7 (MG- 22 240 C), which corresponds exactly with Syriac Theo- 
phany 4, 10; then, too, in Syriac Theophany 3, 4; 5, 46; Ps. 67, 
34-35 (MG 23 720 C) ; De Laud. Const. 16 (MG 20 1425 C). 

In this last case it seems that Eusebius also had the words of 
Mark in mind, when he mentions the command : " Going, there- 
fore, make disciples of all the nations in my name ". For he con- 
tinues : " Having foretold and emphasized the fact that his Gospel 
must needs be preached in the whole world as an evidence to all 
the nations, he followed up this word by his deed. For at once, 
at no great interval of time, the entire world was rilled with his 
doctrine. IsTow, since the evidence of sight is stronger than any 
argument, what could he have to say to this, who at the beginning 
of this treatise found fault with us? Who by his invisible and 
mighty power drove from the company of men, like so many 
dreadful beasts, that dangerous and worthless tribe of demons, 
which of old had encroached on the entire nature of man, and had 
displayed much witchcraft among men by the movements of the 
idols? Who other than our Savior gave the power of driving out 
the remnant of the wicked spirits from men, to those who chastely 
and sincerely took up the manner of living which he had taught, by 
making use of the purest prayers with his invocation (8ia r^s ets 
avrov 7rucA^crws) , sent up to the God of all by him ? " 

Do not these words put us in mind of Mk. 16, 17 : " And these 
things shall follow them that believe ; In my name they shall cast 
out devils " ? 

Furthermore in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (MG 22 244 A.}, = Syriac 
Theophany 5, 49, we meet with a more curious combination. The 
Dem. Evang. 3, 7 reads : " Make disciples of all the nations in my 
name. When he had said this he added the promise, at which they 
should take courage, and give themselves over confidently to the 
things commanded them. He said therefore to them : And behold 


I am with you all days, until the end of the world. But he is also 
said to have breathed the Holy G-host upon them, and to have given 
them a divine and wonder-working power, saying both (rore) : 
Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost; and also (rdre) : Heal the sick, cleanse 
the lepers, cast out devils, freely have you received, freely give". 

The words receive ye the Holy Ghost, are taken from ,Jno. 20, 
22; and altho spoken by Christ after his resurrection, they do not 
form part of the final commission. The other citation is from 
Mt. 10, 8 ; -and the words were spoken, when Christ sent his twelve 
Apostles forth on their first mission. No doubt Eusebius quotes 
it here on account of its similarity in thought with ,Mk. 16, 17. 18 : 
" And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name they 
shall cast out devils; .they shall speak with new tongues; they shall 
take up serpents, and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall 
not hurt them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they 
shall recover". 

These examples reveal a tendency in Eusebius to weld together 
various passages which relate to the same subject, but which are 
separated in time and occasion, and to make it appear as if they 
were spoken at one and the same time, and were recorded in one 
and the same source. In view of this tendency to correlate similar 
passages, it will not be hard to admit that the phrase in my name 
is taken over directly from the parallel passage of Luke 24, 47: 
"And he said to them . . . that penance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name unto all the nations beginning at 
Jerusalem ". 

This is made the more plausible by the fact that in not one of 
the 17 cases, in which the expression is cited as a word of Christ, 
is it referred directly to the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius speaks 
of it in general terms as a saying of the Savior (almost always), 
or as occurring in the Gospels (Is. 41. 10 MG 24 377 D). Then, 
too, the circumstance that in the Syriac Theophany, Book 4, the 
entire eighth chapter is devoted to the parting words of Christ as 
they are recorded in Matthew's Gospel, whereas the entire following 
chapter is devoted to the same parting words as recorded in Luke's 
Gospel, brings the thought home to us that the words of Luke were 
present to Eusebius's mind, when he cites Christ's final commis- 
sion to his Apostles. 

In this ninth chapter of the Syriac Theoph. Eusebius quotes the 
words of Luke : Cf And he said to them : ' Thus must Christ suffer 
and arise from the dead on the third day, and penance and remis- 


sion of sins be announced in his name to all the nations, beginning 
at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things ' ". Then he con- 
tinues : " After having once said that in his name penance should 
be announced to all people, if this word were not fulfilled, then we 
should be justified in not believing in his resurrection from the 
dead". He goes on to say it was this word that inspired the 
Apostles with confidence in Christ's power, so that emboldened in 
spirit, they set their face against dangers and hardships, and so 
conquered the world. 

It is not far-fetched, therefore, to say that these words of Luke 
influenced Eusebius in the other instances where he treats of the 
final command of the Savior. This view is furthermore confirmed 
by the Greek fragment of the Theophany as it is preserved in 
Migne 24, 629 B-C. We read there that in order to fulfil the 
prophecy : Ask of me and I shall give the Gentiles for thy inheri- 
tance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession, Christ 
said to his disciples "according to Matthew: All power is given 
to me in heaven and on earth; but according to Luke; that re- 
pentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to 
all the nations ". 

Since F. H. Chase 4 considered these clauses as original parts of 
Eusebius's text, it is surprising that he did not draw the con- 
clusion that the phrase in my name, which is associated with the 
parting words, was taken over from Luke 24:., 47. Gressmann, 
however, in his critical edition (p. 21*) has reconstructed the text 
thus : " he said to his disciples : All power is given to me in heaven 
and on earth " ; and has omitted the rest as a gloss of Codex Vati- 
to explain the anomaly by the supposition of a double source. 
cani. Lebretoii 5 gives both the reading of Migne and that of 
Gressmann without deciding between them; but there can be no 
doubt that the clauses in question are not original, since in no 
other place is Eusebius at pains to distinguish so nicely between 
the sources of his citations. Still the gloss shows that Eusebius's 
peculiar citations had caught the eye of the amanuensis, who sought 
to explain the anomaly by the supposition of a double vsource. 

In view of what has been said, we must conclude as certain that 
the expression in my name is taken over with the necessary altera- 
tion from Luke 24, 47. 

'The psychological motive for such an act is to be found in the 
deep and at times superstitious respect, which ancient people had 

*JThS, 1905, p. 494. C L. c., p. 485, note 4. 


for names in general, and in particular for the name of their deity ; 
and in our case, in the power which Christians attributed to the 
name of Jesus. We have a clear instance of this view in the Dem. 
Evang. 3, 7 (MG- 22 240 B<C), quoted above: "But since the power 
of this name was of such a nature that the Apostle said : e God has 
given him the name which is above every name, that in the name 
of Jesus every knee might bend of those in heaven and on earth 
and under the earth'; therefore he rightly stressed the excellent 
power of that name which escapes (the notice of) the generality 
of men, inasf ar as he said to his disciples : ( Going, make disciples 
of all the nations in my name ' ". Therefore since Christ, accord- 
ink to Luke, told his disciples in his farewell words to preach the 
Gospel to all the nations in his name, Eusebius took out this phrase 
as best exemplifying the cause and origin of the rapid spread of 
Christianity thruout the world. 

The change of the person from "penance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name " , to : " Going, make disciples of 
all the nations in my name " , can cause no difficulty. It is a mere 
trifle, when we measure it by the flagrant license which Eusebius 
allows himself in citing Scripture generally. This will be the more 
evident from the following chapter. 



We have noticed that in citing the words of Mt. 28, 19, Euse- 
bius omits the baptismal command in 24 instances, and in 17 of 
these he inserts the phrase in my name. If we subject these pas- 
sages to a closer examination, we shall observe further liberties 
which Eusebius takes with this text of Matthew. 

The form : " Going make disciples of all the nations in my 
name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you", which Conybeare would have us believe was the 
original text, occurs only in the Dem. Evang. 3, 6, and the cor- 
responding part of the Syriac Theophany 5, 17. This same form, 
with the omission of in my name, appears in Dem. Evang. 1, 3 ; 
1, 4; 1, 6. An abbreviated form: "Going, make disciples of all 
the nations in my name ", is found in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (twice) 
and in the corresponding portions of the Syriac Theophany 5, 46 
and 5, 49, and also in 4, 16 ; in Dem. Evang. 9 ; Hist. Eccles. 3, 5 ; 
Ps. 59, 9; Ps. 65, 5; Ps. 67, 34; Ps. 76, 20; Is. 18, 2; Is. 34, 16; 
De Laud. Const. 16. 

But even here there are variants. Thus De Laud. Const, puts in 
yovv after Tropevflevres, Going therefore. In Ps. 65, 5 iropevBevre^ is 
supplied by the impossible form iropevovn?, which Conybeare as- 
serts 1 (perhaps rightly), is a corrupt reading for irepuovres, altho 
it might more easily be a corrupt reading for iropevdevres, as Lebre- 
ton suggests. 2 The word is missing entirely in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 
(MG 22 241 D) and in Is. 34, 16, so that we get the form: Make 
disciples of all the nations in my name. Ps. 46, 4; Ps. 95, 3, De 
Eccles. Theol. 3, 3 and Syriac Theophany 3, 4 give a differently 
abbreviated reading: Going teach all the nations. 3 

Therefore we can hardly speak of any uniform method in these 
citations. But on comparing them with the textus receptus, we 
shall observe the following peculiarities. 

1. Eusebius omits: 
a) the baptismal command 24 times ; 

1 ZNTIW, 1901, p. 283, n. 28. 

2 Les Origines Du Dogme de la TrinitS, 1910, p. 482, note 1. 

3 Cf . E. Riggenbach, Beitrage zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie VII, 
1903, p. 21. 95 


b) the phrase: "teaching them to observe all things etc. 19 times; 

c) the word iropevOtvTK twice. 

2. He inserts: 

a) the phrase: in my name, 17 times; 

b) the word yow once. 

This trait on Eusebius's part of omitting phrases, which he con- 
siders irrelevant to his subject, and of inserting others which he 
considers pertinent, is not restricted to his citations of Mt. 28, 19. 
It is a characteristic trait, which permeates all his writings, and 
is exemplified in many of his citations. This statement will be 
borne out by the following examples, most of which have been gath- 
ered at random. The examples have been restricted to New Testa- 
ment quotations, since his citations from the Old Testament are 
difficult to control, owing to the fact that he might have used the 
original text, or the Septuagint, or the versions of Aquila or Sym- 
machus, to whom he constantly refers in his Commentary on the 
Psalms. We shall first trace the citations of two specific texts thru 
the writings of Eusebius, viz: Mt. 11, 27, and Mt. 16, 18; then 
we shall take other passages promiscuously. 

I. Mt. 11, 27. 4 

The textus receptus reads: " All things have been delivered to 
me by my Father; and no one knows (KO! ouSeis eTnyiyj/aJo-Ket) the 
Son except the Father, neither does anyone know (ovSe TL<S lm- 
yiyvwovca) the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son may 

wish to reveal (him) (lav /3ov\r]Tai airoKakvif/at) . 

We notice the following renditions of this text in Eusebius's 
works : 

1. Dem. Evang. 4, 3 MG 22 257 B. 

"As nobody knows (oWe/> ouSei? eyv<o) the Father except the 
Son, so neither does anyone know (ovro> /cat ouSets eyi/a>) the Son 
except the Father, alone, who has begotten him (et /*,r/ ^wos 6 


2. Dem. Evang. 5, 1 MG 22 356 D. 

"No one knows (ouSet? eyi/w) the Father except the Son, and no 
one knows (K<U o-uSets eyi/w) the Son except the Father." 

*Of. H. Schumacher, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu, Freiburg im Breisgau, 
1912, p. 57 sqq. 


3. Hist. Eccles. 1, 2 MG 20 53 B. 

" For neither does anyone know (on 8*7 oure rts eyvco) the Father 
except the Son, nor on the other hand would anyone ever know the 
Son adequately (OUT' ai5 rts yvcoi? TTOTC /car' diav) except the Father 
alone who has begotten him". 

4. Epist. ad Const. MG 20 1545 B. 

"Neither does anyone know the Father (cure rts eyvco) except 
the Son, neither could anyone ever possibly know the Son ade- 
quately (ovS' avTOv Ytov yvoir) iro-ri TIS eVa^t'cos) except the Father 
alone who has begotten him". 

5. Eclogae Propheticae 1, 12 MG- 22 1065 A. 

"Neither does anyone know the Father (/jiytf els eyvco) except 
the Son, and to whom the Son might reveal him" (av a/Tro/coA^??) . 

6. Contra Marcellum 1, 1 MG 24 721 B. 

"All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no 
one knows the Son (ovSecs eViytyvtooxet) except the Father, neither 
does anyone know the Father (ovSl TIS eTriyiyvcoo-ycet) except the 
Son ". 

7. De Eccles. Theol. 1, 12 MG 24 848 C. 

"No one knows the Father (/wySets eyvco) except the Son, neither 
does anyone know the Son (/^Se rts eyvco) except the Father alone 
who has begotten him". 

8. Id. 1, 13 I. c. 852 A. 

" All things have been delivered to me by my Father ". 

9. Id. 1, 15 I c. 853 D sq. 

He quotes Marcellus as saying : " For no one knows the Father 
(ouSets yap ole) except the Son". Then a few lines later: "No 
one knows the Father (ovSets eWxiyvcoovcei,) except the Son and to 
whom the Son will reveal him" (av cbroKaAvi/'ei) . 

10. Id. 1, 16 I c. 857 A. 

"No one knows the Father (ouSets eyvco) except the Son, and to 
whom the Son will reveal him" (av cwroKaAityei) . 

11. Id. 1, 20 I. c. 873 B. 

" All things have been delivered to me by my Father. And no 
one knows the Son (ouSeis eVtyiyvcoo-Kec) except the Father". 


12. De Fide Adversus Sabellium 2 I. c. 1061 B. 

"JSTo one knows the Father (nemo novit) except the Son, and 
no one knows the Son (nemo novit) except the Father ". 

From these examples we notice : 

1. That Eusebius omits: 

a) "All things have been delivered to me by my Father", in 
nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 9, 10, 11. 

b) " and to whom the Son may wish to reveal him " in nn. 1, 2, 
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12. 

c) " No one knows the Son except the Father " in nn. 5, 8, 9, 10. 

d) " No one knows the Father except the Son " in nn. 8, 11. 

2. He inserts: 

a) " except the Father alone who has begotten him " in nn. 1, 
3, 4, 7. 

b) "ever . . . adequately" in nn. 3, 4. 

3. He changes: 

a) emytywHTxct into eyi/o> in nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10. 

b) the second emyiypuoxet into yvcfyy in no. 3 ; into yvofy in no. 4. 

c) lav j3ovXr)Tai airoKakvij/ai into av aTTOKaXfyy (no. 5) ', av 

XfytL (nn. 9, 10). 

d) KOI OU<5etS . . . Ov8l TIS, into &<Tirep OvSetS . . . OUTCO KOL 

(no. 1) ; ouSets . . . Kal ouSeis (no. 2) ', ovre rts . . . our 5 av 
rt5 (no. 3) J ovre rts . . . ovre ns (no. 4) ; pr)$' ets (no. 5) j 
/wySeis . . . /wySe TIS (no. 7). 

Would we be justified in concluding from these instances that 
the phrases " all things have been delivered to me by my Father," 
and " and to whom the Son may reveal him," were not in the text, 
which Eusebius used, simply because he omits the first 10 times, 
and the second 9 times ? Would we be justified in saying that the 
phrase " except the Father alone who has begotten him," originally 
belonged to the text, because Eusebius quotes it 4 times, each time 
with the same phraseology? Should we conclude that Eusebius 
read e'yvw instead of eTrtyiyi/wovcei, because he used the former 7 times 
and the latter only three times ? Yet this is just what Conybeare 
does with Mt. 28, 19 on account of similar peculiarities. 

Let us now take the second case: Mt. 16, 18. 5 

6 Cf. Reach Aussercanon. Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien TU X Band, 

II. Mt. 16, 18. 

The textus receptus runs: "And I say to thee that thou art 
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it ". 

1. This text is cited exactly in: 

a) Dem. Evang. 3, 5 MG 22 216 D; 

b) De Eesurrectione 2 MG 24 1111 B; 

c) 'Syriac Theophany 4, 11 (Gressmann, p. 181*) ; 

d) Hist. Eccles. 6, 25 MG 20 584 A. 

Here Eusebius quotes words of Origen which suppose the 
received text, scil: "Peter, on whom is built the Church of 
Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail ". 

2. However, we meet with the form : " Upon the rock will I build 

my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it , in 

a) De Laud. Const. 17 MG 20 1435 C; 

b) Praep. Evang. 1 3 " 21 33 B; 

c) Ps. 59 11 " 23 572 D; 

d) Ps. 67 34 " 23 720 C; 

e) Is. 33 20 " 24 329 B; 

f) Is. 49 16 " 24 457 A. 

3. We find an addition to this, in the form : " Upon the rock will 

I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it. The rock, however, was Christ" (taken from I 
Cor. 10, 4), in Ps. 17, 15. 16, MG 23 173 D. 

4. We find a still more abbreviated form in Is. 28, 16 MG 24 

292 A : " Upon the rock will I build my church ". 

Is it right for us, therefore, to maintain that the phrase " and I 
say to thee that thou art Peter ", did not exist in the manuscripts 
which Origen and Pamphilus had gathered at Caesarea, and which 
must have ante-dated our oldest uncials by 50-150 years ? Can we 
in defence of this theory overthrow Eusebius's authorship of the 
Dem. Evang. and of the De Eesurrectione , and accuse the Syriac 
translator of the Theophany " of garbling his text ", or of " copy- 
ing the phrase out of the Syriac Vulgate in order to save himself 
labor ? " We might reasonably hesitate in drawing, and surely, in 

I Theil, Leipzig, 1894, p. 187 . . .; also: Th. Zahn, Das Evang. des Matth. 
ad loc. p. 544, note 65. 

8 b 


positively asserting, such far-sweeping conclusions, even from the 
citations of a scrupulously conscientious author, let alone an author 
like Eusebius, whose freedom with the Sacred Text renders him 
unreliable in reconstructing the exact form of any text of Holy 
Writ. This will be more evident from the examples which follow. 

III. Miscellaneous Citations. 
A. Omissions. 

1. Dem. Evang. 10 MG 22 717 C. 

" He said to the evil ones : ' Why do you seek to kill me, a man 
who has spoken the truth to you ? ' " 

John 8, 40 : " But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken 
the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did 

2. Ps. 59, 8. 9 MG 23 565 C. 

" These things occurred after the disciples of the Savior suffered 
persecution at Jerusalem. For the Scripture says: ' There was 
raised a great persecution against the Church, which was at Jeru- 
salem, and they were all dispersed ' ". 

Acts 8, 1 : " And at that time there was raised a great persecu- 
tion against the Church, which was at Jerusalem, and they were all 
dispersed thru the countries of Judea and Samaria, except the 
Apostles " . 

3. Ps. 59, 8. 9 I. c. 568 C. 

" This was Esau, of whom it has been said : ' lest there be any 
fornicator, or profane person like Esau 5 ". 

Heir. 12, 16: "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person 
like Esau, who for one mess sold his first birthright " . 

4. Ps. 59, 13. 14 1. c. 573 C. 

" Such was Paul who said : 1 1 can do all things in him, who 
strengthens me' (exactly as in Phil. 4, 13) ; and again: 'yet not 
I but the grace with me ". 

I Cor. 15, 10: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and 
his grace in me has not been void; but I have labored more abun- 
dantly than all they; yet not I but the grace of God with me ". 

5. Ps. 62, 4-6 I. c. 608 B. 

" According to the one who says : ' I will that men pray, lifting 
up pure hands, without anger and contentions 


I Tim. 2, 8: "I will, therefore, that men pray in every place, 
lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention 

6. Ps. 62, 7-9 I. c. 609 A. 

" And in another place the Savior says : ( Be prepared because 
you do not know in what watch (<f)vXai<fi) your Lord will come'. 
And again: 'But this know ye that if the master of the house 
knew in which watch the thief would come'". 

M t. 24, 42 sq. : " Be prepared, therefore, because you do not 
know in what day (f^ipa) your Lord will come. But this know 
ye that if the master of the house knew in which watch the thief 
would come, he would certainly be prepared and would not allow his 
house to be 'broken open". 

7. De Eccles. Theol. 1, 20 MG 24 865 B. 

"(John the Evangelist) says of the Baptist: 'He was not the 
light, but was to give testimony of the light, which enlightens 
every man that comes into the world. He was in the world and 
the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He 
came into his own, and his own received him not ' ". 

John 1, 8 sq. : " He was not the light, but was to give testimony 
of the light. That was the true light, which enlightens every man, 
that comes into the world, etc.". 

8. Idem I. c. 869 A. 

" John bears testimony of him and says : ' This was the one that 
will come after me, who was preferred before me, because he was 
before me, because of his fulness we have all received'". 

John 1, 15 sq. : "This was the one of whom I spolce: He that 
shall come after me, is preferred before me etc ". 

9. Idem I c. 869 D sq. 

"We can hear (the Savior) himself, who teaches (us) thus: 
' For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believes in him, may not perish '. And again : ' For 
God seni> not his Son into the world to judge the world'. And 
again : ' But he that does not believe, is already judged ; because 
he does not believe in the name of the only begotten .Son of God ' ". 

John 3, 16 sqq. : " For God so loved 'the world, as to give his 
only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, may not perish, 
but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the 


world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved b'y him. 
He that believes in him is not judged; but he that does not believe 
is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the 
only begotten Son of Gk)d ". 

10. Idem I. c. 87'2 C, D. 

" That one will answer who says : ' He that comes from above, 
is above all ' ; and : ' He that comes from heaven, testifies what he 
has seen and heard ' ". 

John 3, 31 sq. : " He that comes from above is above all. He 
that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth does he 
speak. He that comes from heaven, is above all; and what he has 
seen and heard, that he testifies, and no man receives his tes- 
timony " . 

11. Idem. I. c. 873 A. 

"He (John the Evangelist) teaches us: ' The Father loves the 
Son, and has given all things in his hand. He that believes in the 
Son has life everlasting'". 

John 3, 36 adds: "but he that does not believe the Son, shall 
not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him ". 

12. Idem I. c. 873 D. 

"He also calls himself the bread of life, saying: 'I am the 
bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from 
heaven ' ". 

John 6, 48-51 : " I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat 
meat in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which comes 
down fr&m heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may mot die. I am 
the living bread which came down from heaven ". 

13. Idem 1. c. 876 C. 

"And continuing he proclaims the excellence of his Father's 
glory, saying: 'As the Father has taught me, these things I 
speak ' ". 

John 8, 28 : " When you shall have lifted up the Son of man, 
then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; 
but as the Father has taught me, these things I speak ". 

14. Idem I c. 880 A. 

. " (Christ) says : ' The testimony of two men is true. I am one 
that gives testimony of myself, and the Father that sent me, gives 
testimony of me ' ". 


John 8, 17: "And in your law it is wrfaten that the testimony 
of two men is true etc ". 

15. Idem I. c. 881 A. 

" And Paul, the divine Apostle, says : ' To us there is one G-od, 
the Father, of whom ;are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
by whom are all things ' ". 

I Cor. 8, 16 : " Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom 
are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things; and we by him". 

16. Idem I. c. 884 A. 

"(Paul) says: 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in 
Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
to be equal to God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a 
servant, and in habit found as a man } ". 

Phil. 2, 7: ". . . but emptied himself, taking the form of a 
servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as 
a man ". 

17. Idem 1. c. 884 D. 

" The same (Apostle) calls him the mediator of God and men, 
saying that the law of Moses was given in his hand, concerning 
which he says : ' The law, being 'ordained by angels in the hand of 
a mediator ; but the mediator is not of one, but God is one ' ". 

Gal. 3, 19 sq. : " Why then was the law? It was set because of 
transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the 
promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator ; now 
the mediator is not of one, but God is one". 

18. Idem I c. 885 A. 

" Moreover, Paul calls him the splendor of glory, and the figure 
and Son of God, and heir, saying: 'In these last days, he has 
spoken to us in his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, 
by whom also he made the world, who being the brightness of his 
glory and the figure of his substance 5 ". He does not complete 
the citation, which in Hebrews 1, 3 continues : " and upholding all 
things by the word of his power maJcing purgation of sins, sits on 
the right hand of the majesty on high " . 

19. Dem. Evang. 3, 5 MG 22 313 D. 

"Then keeping on, he (Matthew) gives the catalog of the dis- 
ciples, calling himself a publican, when he says : ' The names of 


the twelve apostles are these: First Simon, who is called Peter 
and Andrew his brother, James the Son of Zebedee and John his 
brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the 
publican ' ". 

On reaching this point, he does not care to complete his citation 
from Mt. 10, 2 sq. : " and James the son of AlpJifteus, and 
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also be- 
trayed him " . 

20. Idem I. c. 216 B. 

Same as above. Here he quotes from Luke 6, 31-35; and 
wishes to show that Luke places Matthew ahead of Thomas, and 
does not call him a publican. Hence he stops after "Matthew 
and Thomas". 

21. Idem 3, 6 I. c. 224 C. 

"His disciples testify that he ordained that they should not 
even look at a woman with lust, saying : ' It was said to them of 
old etc/'. He omits from Mt. 5, 27 : " You have heard that it was 
said to them of old ". 

22. Idem 4, 16 I c. 324 B. 

"The divine Apostle says: 'Let no one, therefore, judge you 
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or new moons, 
or sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things to come ' ". 

He omits the final clause as irrelevant: "but the body (is) of 
Christ" (Coloss, 2, 17). 

B. Additions, Combinations, Changes. 
1. Ps. 30, 10 MG- 23 26<8 D sq. 

" The Savior says : ' He who will drink of the water which I 
shall give him, out of his innermost soul (noiXia) shall flow rivers 
of living water, springing up into life everlasting ". Here we have 
a combination of the words which Christ spoke to the Samaritan 
woman at the well of Jacob (John 4, 13 sq.) : "Whosoever drinks 
of this water, shall thirst again; but he that ivill drink of the water 
which I shall give him, shall not thirst forever ; but the water that 
I shall give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing 
up into life everlasting " ; and the words recorded in John 7, 37 
sq. on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles : " If anyone is 
thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me as 


the Scripture says, out of his innermost soul (/coiAta) rivers of 
living water shall flow " . 

2. The same citation with the same phraseology appears in Ps. 
92, 3 Ibid. 1189 A. 

3. Ps. 60, 6 Ibid. 581 B. 

"Again you have the promise of our Savior, when he says: 
' And in this world (/ raj atom TOTJTW) he will receive much more 
(7roAv7rAaaioj/a A^erat), and in the future world (ev TW //.eAAovrt) he 
will possess life everlasting (/cAr/poj/o/^o-ce)". 

M t. 19, 29 runs : " And every one that has left house or 'brethren 
etc. for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold 
A^/rerat) and shall possess life everlasting 

Lk. 18, 29 has : " There is no man that has left house etc. for 
the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive much more 

(TroAAcwrAao-iova aTro\d(3rj) in this present time (ev rw Kcupw TOU-OJ) 

and in the world to come (lv TO> atom TW Ip^opivw} life everlasting ''. 
Tatian, the vetus latina, Syrus Sinaiticus, and Curetonianus add 
/cA^/aovojUT/o-ei to the text of Luke (cf. Vogels) ; still Eusebius r .s 
quotation is a combination of both Luke and Matthew, as is evi- 
dent from the verb A^J/KTCU. Then notice the change of eh/ TO> /CCU/DOJ 

into ev To> aiwj'i TOVTU> j of ej' TO> atwvi TW ip\op,ivw into iv rw 
of TroAAaTrAacrtora into the later form 

4. Ps. 36, 26 Ibid. 333 C. 

Here we have an abbreviated form of the preceding : " It has 
been said by the Savior : ' And in this world (lv TO> atwi/t roura)) he 
will receive a hundredfold (eKarovTrAao-tom A^i/K-rai)"- 

'EKaroi/TrAaa-tom is again added to the text of Luke by Syrus 
Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and 472 (cf. Vogels) ; however the verb 
Xrjif/eTai occurs only in Matthew, so that we have another combina- 
tion of the two Gospels. 

5. Ps. 68, 3 Hid. 729 B. 

" When therefore, Jesus had taken the vinegar with gall, he said : 
'This Scripture also is fulfilled (Terf\e<rOai) f " . 

John 19, 30 has : " When, therefore, Jesus had taken the vinegar, 
he said: It is fulfilled (rereAeo-^at)". Consequently the expression: 
/<at avrr] fj Tpa<f>r) was added by Eusebius. 

6. Ps. 68, 22 Hid. 749 C. 

The same citation with the same phraseology as the preceding. 


7. De Secies. Theol 1, 20 MG 24 872 C. 

" The Savior proclaims that he is the leader, saying : ' I am the 
light, and the truth, and the life ' ". 
John 8, 12 : " I am the light of the world ". 
John 15, 6 : "I am the way, and the truth, and the life ". 

8. Idem 1, 12 Hid. 848 D. 

"(The Savior) among other things has taught us this, saying: 
* That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born 
of the spirit, is spirit; but God is the spirit ' ". 

John 3, 6 : " that which is born of the flesh, is flesh ; and that 
which is born of the spirit, is spirit ". 

John 4, 24: " God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must 
adore him in spirit and in truth ". 

9. Idem 1, 20 Ibid. 868 D sq. 

"(Christ) teaches saying: ' Father, glorify me with the glory, 
which I had before the world was, with thee '. And the Father in 
answer said : ' And I have glorified and again I shall glorify 9 ". 

John 12, 28 : " Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore, 
came from heaven : I have glorified and again I shall glorify ". 

John 17, 5 : " And now glorify me, Father, with thyself, with 
the glory which I had before the world was, with thee ". 

Here we have a marvellous combination of two texts, referring 
to two different occasions and to two different contexts. Still that 
does not prevent Eusebius from blending them together as if they 
were spoken on the same occasion and in the same context. 

10. Ps. 61, 6-9 MG 23 593 C. 

"As the divine Apostle speaking of the Savior wrote: ' Being 
justified freely by his grace, thru the redemption which is in 
Christ Jesus, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation thru 
faith in his blood ' (exactly as in Eom. 3, 24 sq. altho we notice 
that he does not complete the citation) ; and again : ' If anyone 
sin, we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ the Just, and he 
is the propitiation for our sins ' ". 

The second citation follows on the first as if it, too, were taken 
from the " divine Apostle " ; whereas it is taken from I John 2, 1 : 
" And if anyone sin, we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ 
the Just, and he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
only l)ui for those of the whole world". 


11. Ps. 58, 8. 9 Ibid. 569 C. 

" On which account the Savior preached to them first, saying : 
'I did not come (%X6ov) except for the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel ' ". 

Mt. 15, 24: "I was not sent (dTrarroA^v) except for the lost 
sheep of the house of Israel ". 

12. Ps. 60, 2. 3 Ibid. 576 D. 

" Such was Paul, who said: ' For living (<5vTes) in the flesh we 
do not war according to the flesh 3 ". 

II Cor. 10, 3 : " For walking (irepnraTovvTes) in the flesh, we do 
not war according to the flesh ". 

13. Ps. 60, 2. 3 Ibid. 577 B. 

" Thus (Paul) mourns for many, concerning whom he says : 
'I shall mourn many of them, that sinned before, and have not 
repented of the sin (d/utpria), and lawlessness (dvo/u'a), and 
impiety (dcre/2eta), which they committed 3 ". 

II Cor. 12, 21 : " Lest again when I come, God shall humble me 
in your regard, so that (KCU) I shall mourn many of them that 
sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness (aKaOapvia), 
and fornication (rropveia*), and lewdness (acreXyeia), which they 
committed ". 

14. De Theol. Eccles. 1, 20 MG 24 868 A. 

"And (God) is light inaccessible, as the divine Apostle teaches, 
when he says : ' inhabiting light inaccessible, whom no one has 
seen, nor is able to see. But he was in the world enlightening 
every man coming into the world 3 ". 

First of all we notice that I Tim. 6, 16 has ouSeis dvfycoTrw, 
where Eusebius puts merely ouSei's. Moreover, he joins John 1, 9 
sq. to I Tim. 6, 16 ; but even the text of John is distorted to suit 
his purpose. John 1, 9 sq. reads : " That was the true light, which 
enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world, 
and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not 33 . 

15. 7s. 1, 31 Ibid. 101 B. 

" Therefore they cannot say like the disciples of Christ : ' We 
can do all things in him, who strengthens us, God ' ". 

Phil. 4, 13: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me". 


16. Dem. Evang. 5, 3 M;G 22 368 C. 

"And according to the Apostle, when 'he became obedient to 
the Father unto death, even the death of the Cross, therefore/ he 
says, ' God exalted him, raising him up from the dead, and setting 
him on his right hand, above all principality, and power, and vir- 
tue, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this 
world, but also in that which is to come ' ". 

Phil. 2, 8 sq. : "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto 
death, even to the death of the cross ; for which cause God also has 
exalted him, and has given him the name which is above all 

names ". 

Ephes., 1, 20 sq. : "which he wrought in Christ, raising him 
up from the dead, and setting him on his right hand in the heav- 
enly places, above all principality etc.". 


Similar instances of free citations could be multiplied to the 
point of nausea, since they litter the pages of Eusebius's writings. 
But the foregoing examples show that an author like Eusebius, 
who cites text after text and omits words and phrases which do not 
fit in with the trend of his thought; who inserts into the Sacred 
Text clauses of his own coinage; who fuses together various pas- 
sages of the same author, or of different authors, to bring out more 
vividly the salient points under discussion, that such an author 
cannot be taken as the basis for reconstructing any text of Scrip- 
ture, let alone a passage like Mt. 28, 19, which, as E. Eiggenbach 
has shown, is incontestably attested by a multitude of witnesses 
prior to Eusebius. 

Despite the fact that Eusebius was the most learned Scripture 
scholar of the early fourth century; despite the fact that he had 
at his disposal one of the best libraries of the age, in which Origen 
and Pamphilus must have collected manuscripts ante-dating our 
oldest uncials by 50-150 years, still his authority in re-establish- 
ing the exact form of the original text of the New Testament, is 
negligible, if we gauge that authority by the careless citations with 
which his writings teem. 

Consequently, Conybeare's efforts to discard the baptismal com- 
mand from the Gospel of Matthew, because that command is cited 
only five times out of 29 in the works which heretofore had always 
been ascribed to Eusebius, and his further attempt to brush aside 
Eusebius' s authorship of the works in which the textus receptus 
occurs, must be set down as complete failures. Even had Conybeare 
succeeded in establishing the spuriousness of the five books Contra 
Marcellum, the carelessness of the 'Syriac translator of the Theo- 
pJiany, and the illegitimacy of the baptismal command in the 
Letter to the Church at Caesarea, he would have proved absolutely 
nothing. For the notorious omissions, insertions, combinations, 
and changes in the citations of Eusebius, undermine the inference 
that the baptismal command was not in his text of the New 
Testament because he did not cite it in his works. 

Were Conybeare to follow his method to its logical conclusion, 
he would be forced to reject and to insert many another clause as 
unauthentic or authentic, and to shelve many a writing and pas- 



sage of Eusebius as spurious and forged. The omission of the 
baptismal command in 24 instances, and the insertion of the 
phrase " in my name " in 17 of these, is no more <a proof that the 
first is unauthentic and the second authentic, than is the similar 
omission and insertion of many another phrase and clause a proof 
of their spuriousness or authenticity. 

Eusebius in citing Mt. 28, 19 was true to that spirit of unfet- 
tered license, which he generously permitted himself in every one 
of his writings. When the baptismal command marred the devel- 
opment of his thought, he omitted it; when it was needed in the 
context, he adduced it. When his subject demanded some con- 
firmation over and above the words of Matthew, he sought it in the 
sjmoptics; and artfully wove it into the text of Matthew, giving 
us the impression that he had found it there. 'This conclusion is 
not subjective : it is based on the method used by Eusebius thru all 
his writings ; and it adequately accounts for the peculiar citations 
of Mt. 28, 19, without putting us to the trouble of dislodging a 
time-honored clause from the First Gospel, of introducing in its 
stead a hybrid phrase, of disqualifying at least two of Eusebius's 
writings as bastard products, and of devising interpolations in 

The fact that in spite of his carelessness, Eusebius in five in- 
stances in his works quotes the passage exactly as we have it in the 
received text, brings the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 into bold relief. 
In the spirit of his Letter to Caesarea, we can .say that Eusebius 
had received this text from the bishops before him; it had been 
officially imparted to him in his firs't catechesis, and when he had 
received baptism; he had learned and studied it from the Divine 
Writings; and he had believed the doctrine contained in it, and 
preached that doctrine thruout his priestly and episcopal career. 



No. 20 















The numbers used in the genealogy of St. Matthew are not inserted by 
chance; they are mentioned intentionally, and have a deep, sacred meaning. 


The best solution for the omissions in St. Matthew's genealogy is to be 
found in the " condemnatio memoriae ", a principle known to the people 
of antiquity. 


The text of Matthew 1, 16, despite the seemingly contrary reading of 
Syrus Sinai ticus, refers to the supernatural birth of Christ. 


The pericope of Luke 1, 26-38, despite the objections of higher criticism 
and the objections drawn from the comparative study of religions, is 
authentic, and refers to the supernatural birth of Christ. 


The best solution of the .Synoptic problem seems to be that the evange- 
lists made use of pre-gospel sources, which originated at Jerusalem. 


The opinion of the earlier scholastics, who tried to escape the seeming 
contradiction between the Acts (2, 38; 8, 16; 10, 48; 19, 5) and the Letters 
of St. Paul (Gal. 3, 27; Rom. 6, 3) and Mt. 28, 19, by postulating a divine 
dispensation for the Apostles to baptise in the name of Jesus alone, must 
be rejected as arbitrary and unfounded., 


St. Paul's statement in I Cor. 1, 17 : " Christ sent me not to baptise, 
but to preach the Gospel ", does not undermine Christ's command to bap- 
tise, as recorded in Mt. 28, 19. 


The authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 is established beyond doubt by the over- 
whelming testimony of all extant manuscripts and versions. 


The interpolation of the text of the Three Witnesses (I John 5, 7 sq.) 
cannot be adduced as an argument a pari for the alleged interpolation of 
the Lord's command to baptise (Mt. 28, 19). 


The opposition of the Apostles to Paul's missionary activity among the 
Gentiles (Gal. 2) does not militate against Christ's final commission to 
his disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations. 


It cannot be claimed that the doctrine of the universality of salvation 
contained in Mt. 28, 19 is a clear instance of historical anachronism, on 
the ground that such a doctrine only gradually and at a late period took 
the place of the narrow, nationalistic, and particularistic view of the 
Jewish disciples. 

' 12 ' 
It cannot be said that the Letter of St. Bernard of Clairvaux to Henry 

the Archdeacon is spurious on account of the doctrine which it professes, 
scil: that baptism is valid if it is performed with the formula: " Baptizo 

9 b 5* 


te in nomine Dei et sanctae crucis " since this doctrine is the logical 
outcome of the interpretation which Bernard's teacher and friend, Hugo 
de St. \ictor, gave to the words of Mt. 28, 19. 


The theory that the Apostles made use of a dual form of baptism, a 
christological form for the Jews, and a trinitarian form for the Gentiles, 
must be rejected on the same ground as the theory of the earlier scholastics. 


The " disciplina arcani " cannot be the motive which influenced Eusebius 
of Caesarea to omit the baptismal command in 24 instances thruout his 


The five citations of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius 
cannot be due to the influence of the Council of Nicaea. 


It is rash and unwarranted to maintain that the trinitarian citation of 
Mt. 28, 19, which occurs in the Letter of Eusebius to his Church in 
Caesarea, was interpolated from the Ariwi Council held at Constantinople 
A.D. 341. 


The 24 omissions of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius 
are due in each case to the nature of the immediate context. 


The five trinitarian citations in Eusebius's works are demanded in each 
case by the nature of the immediate context. 


The phrase " in my name ", which in 18 instances Eusebius connects 
with the parting words of Christ, does not prove that this phrase was an 
original part of the Gospel of Matthew; ; it is due to a 'combination of the 
texts of Matthew and Luke. 


The notorious omissions, combinations, insertions, and changes in Euse- 
bius's citations of Holy Writ weaken his authority in reestablishing the 
precise, exact form of the original text of the New Testament. 


The testimony of various books of the Old Law attest that Moses was 
the author of writings of an historical and legislative nature. 


From internal criticism of the Pentateuch it is highly probable that 
these writings of Moses were carefully preserved, and formed a literary 
work, which portrayed the events accompanying the promulgation of the 
Mosaic Law, and reproduced the essential contents of the Law. 


A number of observations in the Pentateuch of .an historical, geo- 
graphical, and archaeological nature date from various periods in post- 
Mosaic times, some perhaps from the time .after the exile. 


The theory of the Wellhausen school in the greater part of its applica- 
tion is untenable. 


The Pentateuch must be considered as trustworthy and authoritative in 

its narration of historical events. 



The Accadian version of the creation, the fall of man, and the deluge, 
cannot be taken as the source from which the Bible accounts are derived. 


The arguments brought forward against the genuineness of Isaias 40-56, 
altho not idle or trivial, are by no means sufficient to disprove the author- 
ship of Isaias. 


The Ebed-Jahwe pericopes in Is. 42-5 3, as a whole, cannot be interpreted 
as references to the : Israelitic people, or to a person living contempo- 
raneously with the prophet; they are real prophecies, which reach their 
ultimate fulfillment in Christ. 


It cannot be maintained that the religion of the patriarchs was a form 
of fetichism; or that it in any way sanctioned the worship of idols, or the 
sacrifice of human beings. 


The religion of the patriarchs was marked by ethical principles of a 
high character, and iby ceremonial observances. 


The story of St. Peter's vision at Joppe, related in the tenth chapter of 
Acts, does not militate against the authenticity of Christ's commission to 
the Apostles to make disciples of all the nations, as recorded in Mt. 28, 19. 


The Gospel sayings of Jesus plainly indicate that he meant his Church 
to possess the threefold authority to teach, rule, and sanctify mankind. 


The existence of this authority in the primitive Church is amply re- 
vealed in the Epistles of St. Paul. 


The New Testament concept of Church 'authority includes the recogni- 
tion of infallibility in its exercise. 


The Catholic intolerance of doctrinal error is reflected in the Epistles 
of St. Paul. 


The objection of Higher Criticism against the authenticity or histo- 
ricity of Mt. 28, 19, on rthe ground that the dogma of the Trinity which 
is there contained, was developed at >a period later than that in which the 
First Gospel was written, is futile in view of the fact that this dogma is 
clearly taught in other texts of the New Testament. 


The New Testament Writings attribute a distinct, divine personality to 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 


Despite this distinction in personality, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost have the same identical nature. 


The dogma of the Trinity is a mystery which cannot be grasped by 
reason; still we cannot maintain that it is contrary to reason. 



Light can be shed on the doctrine of the Trinity by arguments from 


Christian Baptism, as it is described in the Book of Acts, is an insti- 
tution essentially distinct from the ceremonial washings of the Jews and 
the Gentiles. 


In opposition to Harnack and other radical critics, it must be set down 
as certain, that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism in the New 


It is the unanimous verdict of Tradition that over and above the ablu- 
tion with water, an invocation of the Trinity is required in administering 
the Sacrament of Baptism. 


These two requirements cannot be clearly deduced from the Lord's com- 
mand to baptise, as that command is recorded in Mt. 28, 19. 


It is not certain that the invocation of the Trinity, which Tradition 
postulates as an essential requirement of Baptism, is identical with the 
the present baptismal formula: "I baptise thee in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ". 

Private landownership is a natural right. 


The arguments which furnish the basis of Henry George's attack against 
private landownsrship, will not stand investigation. 


The interest-taker is justified on the grounds of presumption, analogy, 
and possession. 


Possessors are under strict obligation to give of their surplus wealth to 
the indigent. 


The laborer has a right to a living wage. 


The marriage of baptised persons is regulated not only by divine, but 
also by canonical law, the civil power remaining competent in regard to 
the civil effects of marriage (canon 10'16). 


The supreme civil 'authority most probably has the right of exercising, 
with a view to temporal welfare, legislative, judicial, and coercive power 
over nori-christian marriages. 


The ancient law of the Church, which did not require any special for- 
malities for the validity of betrothals, was definitely specified by the 
decree " Ne temere " of Pope Pius X, August 2, 1907, and modified by the 
New Canon Law. 


The pastor is bound in conscience to investigate by personal inquiry 
whether the parties to be married give their consent freely, are duly 
instructed in Christian Doctrine, and have received the Sacrament of 


Baptism and Confirmation; he is likewise bound to investigate, especially 
by means of the banns, whether any impediment exist regarding the mar- 
riage (canons 1022-1029). 


The course to be pursued by a pastor, who after careful investigation is 
convinced of the existence of an impediment, or is doubtful of such exist- 
ence, is clearly laid down in canon 1031. 


The contention of F. C. Conybeare that in the seventh century the entire 
Celtic Church administered Baptism in the name of Jesus alone, and was 
for this reason cut off from communion with Rome, is not in accordance 
with historical truth. 


The five books " Contra Marcellum ", written against Marcellus of 
Ancyra, are the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, and not of Eusebius of 
Emesa, as F. C. Conybeare tried to maintain. 


Though chronologically the Franciscans were the first missionaries in 
Lower California (1535; 1596), the first real evangelisers of the country 
were the Jesuits (1683-1767), who were succeeded on their expulsion by 
the Franciscans (1768), who in turn ceded the territory to the Dominicans 


The evangelisation of Upper California (the present state of California) 
is the work of the Franciscan Friars, who entered the new territory in 
the year 1769 under the leadership of Junipero Serra. 


The secularisation of the Franciscan Missions in Upper California proved 
detrimental to the spiritual and the temporal welfare of the California 


BERNARD HENRY CUNEO was born November 14, 1895 at Santa 
Cruz, California. His primary studies he pursued at ,the public 
school of the same city, and at St. Francis School, Watsonville, 
California. In 'September, 1906 he entered the preparatory semi- 
nary for the Franciscan Order at Santa Barbara, California. After 
graduating in June, 1911, he took the habit in the Franciscan Order 
at Oakland, California, and after a year of probation, continued his 
classical course from July, 1912 .to July, 1913 at the same city. 
In the Franciscan seminary at West Park, Ohio, he pursued his 
course in Philosophy (1913-1915) and Theology (1915-1918), 
completing the latter course at St. Louis, Mo. (1918-1919). From 
July, 1919 to September, 1920, he was active as assistant pastor 
in the Italian Church of the Immaculate Conception, San Fran- 
cisco, California. From September, 1920 to September, 1921, he 
taught Greek and English at the preparatory seminary at Santa 
Barbara. In October, 1921 he matriculated at the Catholic Uni- 
versity of America, where he successfully passed the examinations 
for the S. T. B. in the same month, and for the S. T. L. in June, 




No. I. The Pauline ni2TI2-YIIO2TA2l2, According to Hebr. 
XI, 1. 

Eev. Michael A. Mathis, C. S. C., S, T. D., Holy Cross 
College, Brookland, D. C. 

No. II. The Pauline Formula " Induere Christum." 

Eev. Leo J. Ohleyer, 0. F. M., S. T. D., 3140 Mera- 
mec St., St. Louis, Mo. 

No. III. The Boyhood Consciousness of Christ (Luke II, 49). 

Eev. Patrick J. Temple, S. T. D., The Macmillan Co., 
New York. 

No. IV. St. Paul's Concept of IAA2THPION (Rom. Ill, 25). 

Eev. Eomuald A. Mollaun, 0. F. M., S. T. L., 1615 
Vine St., Cincinnati, Ohio. 

No. V. The Lord's Command to Baptise (Mt. 28, 19). 

Eev. Bernard H. Cuneo 0. F. M., S. T. L., The Old 
Mission, Santa Barbara, Calif. 


'yVj't' 1 

' >, - v i 


[ ] 080 207 



> 7 ** 

*. '. 




I '080' 20<T