Chapter V:

CHAPTER V: WHICH CONTAINS THE SECOND ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR AFFIRMING THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY

[The second argument from the New Testament: The institution of our Baptism.]

§ 85. We take the second principal argument from the institution of our Baptism, Matt. 28:19: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Before we form our argument from this passage, however, we must note three things about it: (1) The comparison of Christ’s Baptism with the institution of our Baptism. Ambrose says (Sermon 21): “It is not strange that the mystery of the Trinity was not missing in the washing of the Lord because our washing completes the sacrament of the Trinity. For the Lord was not able not to exhibit first about Himself what He would later command the human race.” For just as in the Baptism of Christ the three persons of the Deity reveal themselves distinctly, so our Baptism is commanded to be administered in the name of the same three persons because Christ, representing us all and being baptized, wanted to show in the Baptism that He received in common with us what benefits we should expect from God in our Baptism.

(2) We must note the unseparated connection of Baptism and invocation. Basil, Epistle 78: “We must be baptized as we have received and believe as we are baptized and glorify as we have believed: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” As we are baptized, so we worship. As we worship, so we believe, namely, in one true God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore because Christ commanded Baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thereby He instructs us to invoke the one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(3) We should note the time of this institution. When Christ had now finished on earth the office for which His Father had sent Him and was now about to ascend into heaven, He prescribed to His disciples that solemn form for administering Baptism. Although the first institution of Baptism is not set forth in these words when John the Baptist three years earlier began that new ceremony of the sacrament of Baptism (Luke 3:3; John 1:32), and though the apostles administered Baptism before then in accord with the mandate of Christ (John 4:2), nevertheless the solemn form of Baptism to be observed in the permanent use of the Church is explained in these words and the command is added to baptize all nations without exception, lest, because up to then Baptism had been administered only in Judea, the apostles conclude that it was a ceremony merely of a certain place and time. Therefore that solemn institution of Baptism contains something like a testamentary disposition of Christ, which He commended with grave counsel to His apostles before His departure from this world. Thus departing from its tenor even in the least bit ought to be a religious offense to us.

(4) It should also be observed that in the New Testament, through the incarnation of the Son, the mystery of the Trinity was more clearly revealed, as we pointed out earlier, and, therefore, in that solemn promulgation of Baptism, which is the sacrament of initiation of the New Testament, Christ distinctly mentions the three persons.

§ 86. Having considered these points, we also demonstrate from this passage the two sections, as we did in the case of the first: (1) the true deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (2) the personal distinction of these three. Once both sections have been established and confirmed, our confession of the Trinity will have been established, which actually contains nothing else but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God, yet that we must acknowledge not one person but three in the Godhead.

We demonstrate the first section in this way. In whosever name we are baptized, He is the true and eternal God. But we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God. The minor premise is in the text. The major is proved from an explanation of the expression “to be baptized into someone’s name” or “in someone’s name” (Acts 2:38; 10:48). For this includes: (1) The divine command and institution of Baptism. “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” That is, I am not administering some ceremony instituted out of human authority but a holy sacrament instituted by God Himself. I am not acting by private choice but in the place of God, by the mandate of God, and in the person of God Himself. (See our commonplace On Holy Baptism [Commonplace XXIII], § 80, and the Harmon., de resurrect., p. 461.)

From this we conclude: Whoever instituted Baptism is the one true God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit instituted Baptism. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God. The major premise is confirmed in this way. Instituting a sacrament is something that belongs to the true God alone, because establishing the means of grace belongs to Him who gives the grace. But now God alone gives the grace of justification; therefore it belongs to Him alone to establish the means of grace or the sacraments. (For a proof of this with more arguments, see our commonplace On the Sacraments [Commonplace XXI], § 26.) Baptism is properly called a sacrament because it has all the requirements for a sacrament, properly speaking. It has the external element, it has the word of command, it has the promise of grace that belongs to the Gospel. Furthermore, we cannot name anything that is required for a sacrament, properly speaking, that is not present in Baptism, as we teach elsewhere in greater detail. Therefore instituting Baptism is something proper to God alone. The truth of the minor premise—namely, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit instituted Baptism—is clear from the text.

In whosever name Baptism is administered, in His name also was Baptism instituted and commanded. But Baptism is administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore. We have given the proof for the major premise in our commonplace On Holy Baptism [Commonplace XXIII] and in Harm., resurrect., p. 461. (Cf. Exod. 5:23; Deut. 18:20; Matt. 18:20; 2 Cor. 2:10; etc.) The statements of Scripture can also be referred to this, in which the expression “in the name” means “in the power and might”: Matt. 7:22; Acts 3:6; 4:7; etc. Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit instituted the sacrament of Baptism, they also work effectively through it for the salvation of the person baptized, and in this respect Baptism is conferred in the name, that is, in the divine power and might, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(2) This includes the invocation of God upon the person baptized: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” That is, I invoke upon this water of Baptism the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that in this action that He has commanded according to His institution and promise He is present and takes you into His grace. We gather this sense of this expression from 1 Sam. 17:45; 2 Sam. 6:18; 1 Kings 18:22; etc. From this we draw the following conclusion: whoever is called upon to accept the baptized person into grace and to grant him spiritual benefits, among which is the inheritance of eternal life, He is true God, because religious invocation is worship owed to God alone. This is proved from the fact that God attributes religious adoration to Himself alone in such a way that He simply takes it away from all others except Himself (Deut. 6:13—cf. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8, where the exclusive particle is added—Exod. 23:24; Ps. 50:[15]; 97:7; Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Rev. 19:9; 22:9. Cf. our locus On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5], § 127.) I now resume. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are called upon to take the person baptized into grace and to grant him spiritual blessings, among which is the inheritance of eternal life, as we have shown. Therefore.

(3) It includes testimony of the covenant of grace that God enters upon with the person baptized. “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” That is, I bear solemn witness and confirm that this water upon which the name of God has been invoked according to His institution is not bare and simple water but a salutary sacrament, since it is water comprehended in and sanctified by the Word of God. Consequently, I also bear witness that through the application of this water made in the name of this Holy Trinity, the Father takes you into His grace and accepts you as His son; that the Son washes you of your sins with His blood, clothes you with the robe of righteousness, and accepts you as brother and coheir; that the Holy Spirit regenerates you and renews you for eternal life and wants you to be His temple and dwelling place from now on. This sense of this expression is gathered from Mark 9:39 and from other passages of Scripture. Compare the apostle’s words in 1 Cor. 6:11: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” From this it is evident that: First, to be baptized in the name of Christ is the same thing as to be washed of our sins in the virtue and merit of Christ. Second, Christ and the Holy Spirit are, no less than the Father, the author of our washing, sanctification, and justification. Third, He who washes us through Baptism is also the principal cause of our justification. Because the former is attributed to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, therefore the latter cannot be denied them. Furthermore, justification is the work of the true God alone, as is evident.

From all these we draw the following inference. Whoever accepts the baptized person into grace, enters a covenant of grace with him, washes him of his sins, and writes him down as an heir of eternal life is true God. The reason is that all these, taken at the same time, befit not the instrumental cause but the principal and primary cause of our salvation, which is God alone (Isa. 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 1:7; etc.). (See our locus On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5], § 113.) Just as circumcision in the Old Testament was a covenant between the true God and the man circumcised (Gen. 17:7), so Baptism, which in the New Testament took the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11), is the covenant of grace between the true God and the person baptized, and for this reason St. Peter calls it by that beautiful name: “the inquiry of a clear conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). Dr. Chemnitz gives the explanation of this title in the Harm., c. 17, p. 16:

Whenever in the Old Testament in some situation they would ask of the mouth of the Lord in order to be made certain of how God was disposed toward them in that situation, the Greeks always use the words [“they inquire in the Lord”] or [“through the Lord”]. Therefore Baptism is an inquiry that takes place between God and the sinner who is baptized and deals with a good conscience toward God for Christ’s sake, that is, how God is disposed toward the person baptized and of what the conscience of the person baptized ought to assure itself concerning the grace of God.

I now resume. It is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who take the baptized person into grace, enter a covenant of grace with him, etc. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God.

Tertullian, De bapt., c. 6: “The faith sealed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit gains the washing away of sins. For if every word will be established in three witnesses, how much the more—when through the benediction we have the same judges of faith and sponsors of salvation—is also the number of divine names sufficient for the confidence of our hope!” Socinus, Explicat. loco. Script., p. 82: “ ‘Preaching repentance and the remission of sins in the name of Christ’ means that Christ Himself performs and completes it.” (Therefore to be baptized in the name of Christ means also to be baptized while Christ Himself performs and completes it and to become through Baptism a partaker of the heavenly blessings.)

(4) It includes the obligation of the person baptized to acknowledge, invoke, and worship correctly, on the basis of the Word, Him in whose name he is being baptized. We gather this sense of the expression from Gal. 3:27, and from that we draw this conclusion: He to whom the person baptized is obliged to give divine honor and worship is true God, because God “does not wish to give His glory to another” (Isa. 42:8; 43:10; 46:9; etc.). Surely, to whomever divine honor is given, to Him also a divine nature is attributed because divine honor is owed only by reason of the divine nature. For as God is God only by reason of His divine nature, so He is worshiped with divine honor only by reason of His divine nature. To worship God is to acknowledge, venerate, and worship the divine nature in Him. I now resume. The person baptized is obliged to give divine honor and worship to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as is evident from earlier statements. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one true God.

§ 87. Moreover, note carefully: (1) Christ commands to be baptized not in the names but “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” to demonstrate that the one name of God, that is, the one essence of the Deity, belongs to these three—which proves the consubstantiality of these three persons. Ambrose, De Spiritu s., bk. 1, c. 4:

Who would dare to separate the unity of the name when he sees the unity of operation? But why do I affirm the unity of the name with arguments when we have the clear testimony of the divine voice that there is one name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? For it is written: “Go and baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” He said: “… in the name,” not “… in the names.” Therefore “Father” is not one name, “Son” another, and “Holy Spirit” still another, because there is one name, not several, because there are neither two Gods nor three Gods.

Theophylact, commentary on Matthew 28: “One name, one Deity.” All of this we must understand in this sense, that “name” is understood essentially. If, on the other hand, we take it personally, then we say “three names,” that is, three persons, as we have it in the confession of the Church: “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three names all of the same substance.”

(2) We are not baptized in the name of the Father through the Son but “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Arians formerly baptized “in the name of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit,” according to Sozomen (Hist., c. 26) and Nicephorus (bk. 16, c. 35), to confess by this form of Baptism the inequality of these three. Surely, then, they had been convicted in their own conscience that the form of Baptism instituted by Christ proved the consubstantiality and equality of these three persons.

(3) The Son and the Holy Spirit are joined together with the Father in such a way that Baptism is administered in their name no less than in the name of the Father. Therefore one power, one majesty, one and equal authority is attributed to them. For if there were not one power, one majesty, one and equal authority of these three, surely, then, they would not be joined together equally with the Father in the administration of the sacrament of Baptism. Isidore of Pelusium, bk. 1, epistle 109:

Because God and our Savior have taught that the Holy Spirit completes the Trinity of God and that He is numbered in the invocation of Holy Baptism along with the Father and the Son as one who frees us from our sins … why do you teach that the Holy Spirit is something fabricated or created or of a servile nature and is not consubstantial with and kin of the lordly, effective, royal essence? For if He is a slave, He should not be counted with God. If He is created, He should not be joined together with the Creator.

We say the same thing about the Son in every detail. However, if the Son and the Holy Spirit were to be joined together with the Father in an unequal manner, they would undoubtedly be joined together as instruments with their principal cause, as is gathered from other statements of Scripture that the Photinians urge and in which either human things or persons are joined together with God Himself either in our operations and actions toward God or in God’s operations and actions toward us. For example: “They believed Jehovah and Moses” (Exod. 14:31), “the sword of Gideon and of God” (Judg. 7:18), “They feared Samuel and the Lord” (1 Sam. 12:18), etc. But no such thing can be considered or asserted regarding the conjunction of the Son and of the Holy Spirit with the Father, because the Photinians certainly cannot claim with reference to the Holy Spirit whatever is of the Son (whose consubstantiality with the Father we shall show elsewhere) and still preserve their hypotheses, because the Spirit is joined together with the Father as an instrument when they claim that He is the might and power of God. But God does not act through His own power as through an instrument.

(4) When Christ wished to promulgate the solemn institution of Baptism, He first said: “All power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). With these words He shows that Baptism is administered in His name, not as in the name of a slave and servant but as in the name of the Lord and thus in the name of the one God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. You see, if He were not true God, He could not, according to His human nature, have truly and really become partaker of the divine and infinite power that is denoted by the words “all power in heaven and on earth,” as we teach in its own place.

(5) Acts 2:38 and 10:48 mention that the apostles baptized “in the name of Christ.” This should by no means be taken in the sense that some of the Papists would like: that the apostles temporarily changed the essential form of the words to make the name of Christ more illustrious and majestic. (Eck, Enchir. locorum; Harding, De communione sub una specie, art. 2, sect. 9.) For it is not at all likely that those who had heard Christ say in the promulgation of Baptism, “Teach them to keep what I have commanded you,” had departed rashly from the words of institution prescribed by Christ, their master. Rather, this should be taken to refer to the efficient and final cause, not to the form of the words they used, as we show in greater detail in our commonplace On Holy Baptism [Commonplace XXIII], § 91. Accordingly, we gather that the words “in the name of Christ” include the Father and the Holy Spirit, because they are of one undivided essence and come together in Baptism without any inequality.

§ 88. These things have been said about the first section of our argument—namely, about the true deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and, therefore, about the consubstantiality and equality of these three. Thus it remains for us to go on to the second section and to demonstrate the personal distinction of these three, namely, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is confirmed by: (1) The three distinct names. For He commands that Baptism be administered not merely in the name of the Father but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Basil, Epistle 64: “Because it is said: ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father,’ etc., we should not think that only one name was given” (that is, that one person is named, because Basil understands the word “name” personally). “For just as whoever names Paul and Sylvanus and Timothy indeed says three names, when he says three, having embraced [all three] by that conjunction, he teaches that the signified individuality [proprium] exists under each name. Therefore also the names have the signification of the things within them. However, no one with any sense doubts that the things have a distinct and complete essence. For the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same and the Godhead one, but the distinct names provide us with determined and complete intelligences.”

(2) The demonstrative article repeated three times and added to each name: “Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptize in the name of that Father whose voice you heard as it descended from heaven at My Baptism and transfiguration, from whom I proceeded and by whom I was sent, as I have confessed so many times. Baptize in the name of that Son whom up to now you have seen in the assumed flesh, whose glory as of the only-begotten of the Father you have seen. Baptize in the name of that Holy Spirit whom you saw coming down upon Me in the form of a dove and in a bright cloud and the promise of whom you have received from Me, etc. Indeed, even Socinus confesses that this repetition of the article does have unique emphasis. He says (De baptism. aq., c. 2, p. 28), “The words are stated not simply and indefinitely but with an obvious relationship by adding the article to each one. This has the force of designating certain individuals. To express the force of this article in Latin translation, one would have to add a demonstrative to each one in this way: ‘Baptizing them in or into the name of that Father and of that Son and of that Holy Spirit.’ ”

(3) The copulative conjunction “and” repeated twice, by which the Son and the Holy Spirit are joined equally with the Father in the form of Baptism: “Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” But if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not three distinct persons, for what purpose would that copulative be inserted?

(4) If other passages of Scripture are added, it will become apparent that each person distributes special benefits in and through Baptism, and giving consideration to this, Christ commanded that the three persons be mentioned expressly and distinctly in the administration of Baptism. Concerning the Father it says: “According to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration and of renewal” (Titus 3:5); “Baptism … is the inquiry of a good conscience to God” (1 Pet. 3:21). Concerning the Son it says: “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her to cleanse her by the washing of water in the Word” (Eph. 5:[25–26]). Through Baptism “we put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). We are baptized “into His death” (Rom. 6:4), and “we are planted together in His death” (v. 5). Concerning the Holy Spirit it says: “Unless one is born again of water and of the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5); “Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). (See our commonplace On Holy Baptism [Commonplace XXIII], § 101ff.) Yet that same distinct enumeration of benefits that comes down to us from each person of the Trinity is an argument that in the Godhead a real distinction comes between these persons that is denoted by the distinct enumeration of those external benefits.

§ 89. But let us take a look at the exceptions of our adversaries. (I) Some in their great shamelessness say that “this passage is spurious and was inserted in the text by the Athanasians” (Franciscus Davidis and Georgius Blandrata, Refut. scripti Georgii Majoris, letter N, fol. 4). We respond. (1) All heretics could play with all the passages of Scripture according to this deceptive strategy and destroy their force. (2) Without any proof and, in fact, without any probable conjecture, they assert this; therefore we justly reject this as false and made up. (3) The context requires that the form of Baptism be expressed clearly. (4) The earliest teachers of the Church quote these words as genuine and canonical. Ignatius, Epist. ad Philadelph.: “When the Lord sent the apostles to teach all nations, He commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, not into one ‘triname’ nor into three uncreated ones but into three of the same honor.” (See also Tertullian, Adv. Praxaem, c. 2, and all who have written of the Trinity.) (5) We do not read that any of the Arians used this exception, though with all their might they did attack the deity of the Son and, consequently, the doctrine of the Trinity. (6) The more recent Photinians are ashamed of this bold-faced fabrication.

§ 90. (II) “The apostle testifies that the Israelites also were baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), yet we cannot conclude from this that Moses is the true God. Therefore neither shall we be able to conclude the same from the fact that we are baptized into the name of Christ and of the Holy Spirit” (Socinus, Animadv. ad assert. 6. Posnan., p. 44; the Catech. Racov., p. 44; and all the rest). We respond. The word “baptism” in the passage cited is not taken properly as the sacrament of initiation divinely instituted to confer the remission of sins and eternal salvation, the sacrament that, as we showed earlier, can and should be given in the name of God alone. For this reason the apostle also says with great effort that the Corinthians were not baptized into his name (1 Cor. 1:13) but were baptized metaphorically and typically by being led through the Red Sea, which crossing of the sea was a type of our Baptism. Furthermore, it says the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” either because they were led through the Red Sea by the ministry of Moses or because through that divine benefit they were obligated to exercise their faith in Moses as the servant of God. (See our De glor. Dei, disp. 10, § 4.)

§ 91. (III) “To be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit is nothing else than to be gifted with the Holy Spirit, because we read in Acts 2:38: ‘Each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore from the fact that we are baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we cannot infer the consubstantiality of these persons with the Father” (Franciscus Davidis, Coll. Transylv., act. diei 5). We respond. This explanation is true but insufficient, as is evident from the words. We do not deny that those who receive Baptism in true faith are regenerated and renewed through the Holy Spirit and are endowed with the Spirit, but from this we should not infer that to be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than to be gifted with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the consequence would be that to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son is nothing else than to be endowed with the Father and the Son or at least with benefits proceeding from the Father and the Son, though this expression nevertheless includes far more, as we have seen.

§ 92. (IV) “The passage in Matthew indeed affirms that people should be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, but the words do not witness, nor can it be proved by any logic or consequence, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are individual divine persons, because the Son is a divine person but in a far different manner than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not a person” (Schmalz, Refut. thes. D. Frantz., p. 5). He says (p. 36) that the meaning of these words is this: “Those who want to become disciples of Christ must be educated in the doctrine concerning God the Father and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and this doctrine is utterly necessary for salvation, though the Son is not the one God, which is the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not a person.” We respond. (1) We have shown from the words of Christ, clearly, I hope, the true deity of the Son and the personality of the Holy Spirit. (2) We do not deny that those who are baptized are to be educated in the doctrine, but that nothing more is contained in these words of the institution of Baptism is that which we would like to see him prove. (3) Elsewhere it is demonstrated that one must take the words of Christ to refer not to the baptism of doctrine but to the baptism of water. Certainly, the word “baptism” grammatically does not signify doctrine, and the arguments used to establish the meaning of this word as doctrine include the baptism of water. Therefore the words must be taken synecdochically. The word “baptism,” then, is not being used absolutely.²⁰ Unless the evidence of the text should compel it to claim something else, it is always taken to refer to the baptism of water, which is its proper and native meaning. It is so far from the truth to say that anything occurs in the words of Christ that would force us to depart from the proper meaning of the letter and to take those words as referring to the baptism of doctrine. Instead, we conclude the opposite from this. For Christ had mentioned doctrine earlier, thus the word for baptizing cannot be referred to doctrine except through a conspicuous tautology. (See our commonplace On Holy Baptism [Commonplace XXIII], § 115.) (4) We are commanded to be baptized in the name of the Son in exactly the same way as we are commanded to be baptized in the name of the Father, as the copulative “and” reveals. Yet we are baptized in the name of the Father as of the true God. Therefore we are baptized in the same way in the name of the Son. (5) The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father in exactly the same way as the Son is distinguished from the Father in these words, as the series of the text shows. Yet the Son is distinguished from the Father as a person. Therefore the Holy Spirit also is distinguished from the Father as a person. (See our De glor. Dei, disp. 10, § 5.)

§ 93. (V) “It is not strange that in matters similar to Baptism things are joined together with persons and that the same thing is attributed to them as to persons, to the latter indeed properly but to the former improperly” (Schmalz, op. cit., p. 36, where he cites these examples: Acts 20:32; Eph. 6:10; Phil. 3:10). “Often mortal men themselves are joined together with God either in our operations and actions toward God or in God’s operations and actions toward us” (Socinus, Animadv. ad assert. 6. Posn., p. 44). We respond. It is clear from our preceding statements that: (1) When things or mortal persons are joined together with God, then it is clear from the antecedents and consequences that those created things are connected with God not equally but as instrumental causes. However, we have shown that in the form of Baptism the Son and Holy Spirit are joined with the Father equally. (2) In the examples cited, statements are brought forth that cannot apply to God and a creature equally, yet can in diverse ways. But “administering Baptism into or in the name of someone” is constituted in such a way that it can befit no created thing at all, but God alone.

§ 94. Socinus, however, worked hard to twist this passage in his Defens. animadv. contra Eutropium, which was published in 1618. Let us see, then, what he has to offer. He begins by arguing in this way: (I) “From the invocation of Christ along with the Father in Baptism, it cannot be concluded that the invocation of the two is equal, for the Father can be invoked as the first cause of regeneration and Christ as the second, because the Father is the one from whom all things are, and Christ is the one through whom all things are” (p. 322).

We respond. (1) As there is one God and one divine essence, so also there is one religious invocation. Those who teach that Christ is to be worshiped and invoked with divine honor and meanwhile deny that He is true God by nature are actually introducing multiple gods, as we shall show elsewhere in greater detail. (2) Wherever the religious worship of God is opposed to the worship of statues and to idolatry, there the sort of worship is understood that befits no one but only the God who is eternal and true by nature. However, this sort of worship is attributed to Christ in Ps. 97:7 and Heb. 1:6. (3) The apostle asks equally from the Father and from Christ peace and grace for the churches. (4) Baptism is administered equally in the name of the Father and of the Son. (5) As the Holy Spirit is invoked in Baptism upon the person baptized, so also is the Son invoked. Yet one cannot say of the Holy Spirit that He is invoked with an inferior adoration, for according to the hypothesis of the Photinians, He is the very might and power of God. (6) All should honor the Son in the same way as () they honor the Father (John 5:23). Thus they should not worship Him with an inferior adoration. (Cf. our locus On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5], § 142.)

§ 95. (II) “Unless the Holy Spirit is shown to be a person distinct from God the Father, the invocation of the Spirit can be equal to the invocation of God the Father Himself. Yet this will provide our adversary with no help, because he has endeavored to prove that there are three persons in one divine essence” (loc. cit.).

We respond. (1) If the invocation of the Holy Spirit can be equal to the invocation of God the Father Himself, surely also the invocation of the Son is equal to or, rather, the same as the invocation of the Father, because as the word “and” connects the Father and the Holy Spirit equally, so also it joins together the Father and the Son. (2) There are as many persons in the divine essence as there are persons involved in the administration of Baptism, because worship befits no one except Him who by nature is true God. Yet three persons are involved in the administration of Baptism. Therefore. (3) If the Holy Spirit is worshiped along with the Father and the Son, surely He is a person distinct from the Father and the Son, for why would distinct mention of Him be made if He were not a person distinct from the Father? Who has ever read in Holy Writ that the wisdom of God or the goodness of God or the righteousness of God is invoked distinctly? However, if the Holy Spirit is therefore not a distinct person but is only the power of God, surely He could not be distinctly mentioned in the invocation. Our adversary sees the invincible strength of this argument and consequently adds: “Although perhaps no example of this matter may be found, nevertheless we do not see why anyone cannot invoke God along with His might and power” (p. 322). But it was entirely necessary to provide an example of this matter, because our invocation ought to follow the norm of the Word and of divine revelation. (4) Our adversary acknowledges this and, therefore, anxiously searches for examples, but all the examples he provides do not apply. “The psalmist says that he will place his hope in the shadow of God’s wings, but in other passages he says that he has hoped in the mercy of God. (Ps. 57:[1]; 36:[7]; 13:[5]; 52:[8].) But what keeps one from invoking that in which he places his hope?” Yet the examples are completely different. We are correctly said to place our hope in the mercy of God, though mercy is not a person distinct from God. However, we cannot invoke the power of God unless power is a distinct person, because invocation has a person as its object. (5) Socinus continues: “It says in many places that the name of God is invoked, yet that denotes the divine power.” We respond. The name of God is God Himself (Ps. 48:[10]; 2 Chron. 14:11), and for this reason, Socinus adds: “The Hebrews commonly say ‘the name of something’ for the thing itself.” Therefore to invoke the name of God is to invoke God Himself. However, let our adversary show that anyone has invoked the name of God as something distinct from God. It is not like someone has objected: that “the human nature of Christ is invoked but that is not a person.” For we deny that that nature is distinctly addressed in our invocation and is worshiped together with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, we say that we invoke Christ, God and man, with one and the same invocation.

§ 96. (III) “From the fact that the Holy Spirit is invoked in Baptism along with the Father, it is perhaps shown that the Holy Spirit is something separate from the Father, but by no means that it is a person” (p. 324). We respond. We take our argument not from the invocation alone but also from the other attributes of “person,” for we draw the following conclusion: whoever is distinguished from the Father in such a way that He is addressed separately in the invocation, that Baptism is administered in His name equally with that of the Father, that He reveals Himself in a special external symbol, that He is said to be someone other than the Father and the Son—such a one is not distinguished from the Father in just any way but [specifically] as a person. Yet the things just listed befit the Holy Spirit, but they do not befit a divine attribute such as mercy, power, wisdom, etc.

§ 97. (IV) Our adversary senses the power of our argument and, therefore, in the end he shamelessly denies that the Holy Spirit is invoked in Baptism. He says: “It is false to say that from the words of Christ it can be concluded that the Son and the Holy Spirit are invoked in Baptism” (p. 364). However, we have shown the opposite above.

How, then, does Socinus prove this negative of his, and what does he respond to our arguments drawn from the institution of Baptism? He says: “The word ‘name’ in this passage does not mean a power and might of the Father, but ‘in the name of the Father’ is the same as to be baptized ‘into the Father.’ ” This he argues: “(1) From the fact that Holy Writ quite frequently speaks this way. (2) To be baptized into the name of the Son is to be baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). (3) If the word ‘name’ were to indicate power, it would have said ‘in the name.’ We admit that sometimes might is signified by this expression.”

We respond. (1) We concede that being baptized “into the name” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same as being baptized into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, being obligated by Baptism to acknowledge, worship, invoke, etc., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the true God. However, we deny that that is the only thing expressed by these words, because this expression includes far more, as we have seen above. (2) Being baptized into someone’s name or into someone is constituted in such a way that it expresses the power, majesty, and authority of the one into whose name or into whom the Baptism is conferred. Consequently, in Scripture this is attributed to no creature, for it is not fitting for Baptism to be administered in the name of one who is the administering cause of salvation and not the primary and principal cause. As a result, the apostle denies with so much effort that the Corinthians were baptized into his name (1 Cor. 1:13). (3) Scripture asserts both that we are baptized into the name of Christ and in the name of Christ, as is clear from Acts 2:38; 10:48. But if being baptized in the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit signifies to be baptized in the power and might of the Son, he should admit that it is correct to deduce the invocation of the Son and of the Holy Spirit from the formula of Baptism.

§ 98. Our adversary objects: (1) “What does this have to do with our passage, where there is a different expression and where the Holy Spirit is also being discussed, who elsewhere, it appears, is in no way invoked in Baptism?” (p. 325). We respond. Our adversary cannot deny that that Son, in whose name Baptism is administered, is Christ. Surely, then, those passages in which Baptism is said to be administered in the name of Christ can be compared as parallels with those in which we are said to be baptized into the name of the Son. To the fact that he denies that “there is anywhere else that the Holy Spirit is invoked in Baptism, thus we must not conclude that from this passage,” we respond with the words of Socinus himself: “What keeps this from having happened despite the fact that it is not found to have happened elsewhere? Surely, if the explanation of our adversary Eutropius were true, we would never discover anything unique in Holy Writ, that is, whose likeness has not been mentioned anywhere else. Yet we find many things of this kind” (p. 326).

We add that the invocation of the Holy Spirit can be proved not only from the formula of Baptism but also from other sources. For He who told the prophet, “Go and stop up the ears of the people,” is honored by the angels with the heavenly doxology (Isa. 6:3, 5, 6). However, the apostle testifies that it was the Holy Spirit who said it (Acts 28:25). Therefore the Holy Spirit is worshiped by the angels with the heavenly doxology. Thus 1 Cor. 6:19–20: “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you. … So glorify God in your body.” 2 Cor. 13:[14]: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Rev. 1:4: “Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come and from the seven spirits who are before His throne.” Here the seven spirits are understood by metonymy to refer to the Holy Spirit, sevenfold in regard to His gifts. The priestly benediction in Num. 6:[24–26] can also be referred to this.

(2) Socinus continues: “Nevertheless we do not say this because we concede that that phrase ‘in the name’ being taken by itself in Baptism indicates invocation. Indeed, we can acknowledge it to be a common Hebraism. Thus to be baptized ‘in the name of Christ’ means the same thing as to be baptized ‘in Christ.’ Or if the word ‘name’ here signifies something more expressly, it declares it as the naming from Christ and the subjection to Him that he who is baptized professes.” We respond. Our adversary does not deny that Christ can be invoked in Baptism and, therefore, should be invoked. Why, then, does he refuse to acknowledge that being baptized in the name of Christ includes the invocation of Christ? We repeat and press our argument: He into whose name we are baptized and who instituted the sacrament of Baptism and who commanded that it be administered, the same one also acts effectively through Baptism for the salvation of the person baptized as the primary and principal cause, the same one also enters upon a covenant of grace with the baptized person, and the person baptized is solemnly obligated to acknowledge Him as true God and to invoke and worship Him. Yet we are baptized into the name not only of the Father but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Therefore.

Furthermore, that subjection and naming from Christ (which Socinus concedes is meant by that expression) argues clearly that Christ is true God and that the reverence of invocation is owed to Him, something that can be gathered from 1 Cor. 1:12–13, for there the apostle forbids the faithful to be named from Paul, Cephas, Apollos, etc. However, that Christians could have been named and were named from Christ is evident from Acts 11:26 nor did the apostle disapprove of that, as we gather from Acts 26:28. This naming argues that He is the master of faith and the author of salvation.

(3) “When the expression ‘in the name’ is applied to God, it often means nothing more than if God Himself were being named simply. Yet it is evident from Exod. 14:31; 2 Chron. 20:20; 1 Sam. 12:18; Judg. 7:18 that creatures are joined together with God named simply and that this occurs in the most important matters that otherwise are proper to God.” Our response is clear from what has been said.

§ 99. (V) He concedes: “The Son is joined together with the Father in regeneration,” but he denies that “one can conclude the equal work of both in regenerating from that joining, since other persons are also joined with God in divine works and these do not have the same operation with God” (p. 328) “and because we are said to be regenerated in Christ, that is, through Christ” (p. 329). This he explains in this way: “The Father is the primary and supreme cause of regeneration, but Christ is the second and middle cause” (p. 331); in fact, “Christ is not only the second cause, but in this work of regeneration—and in all other works related to the Church—He acts as the vicar of God Himself” (p. 332).

We respond. How and on what level the Son is joined together with the Father in the work of regeneration and in other purely and truly divine works must be defined not on the basis of our reason but on the basis of the tables of divine truth. However, these show that Christ is by no means joined together with the Father as a second and inferior cause but as chief and supreme cause, acting with equal and, in fact, the same divine might, and is not subordinated to the Father as His vicar but is joined together equally with Him as a partaker of the same essence and power with the Father.

We prove this: (1) In general. John 5:19, 23: “Whatever the Father does, the Son does these things in like manner () … that all may honor the Son in the same way as () they honor the Father.” From Christ’s statement, “My Father works up to this point, and I work,” the Jews inferred that Christ was confessing Himself as equal to God. Christ does not refute this conclusion but proves that equality from the sameness of His works and the likeness of His acting, out of which stems also the equality of divine honor and worship. Nazianzen, Orat. 4. de theol.: “He does not say ‘likewise’ because there is a similarity of their works but because both have the same ability and the same majesty.” John 10:28–30: “No one will snatch My sheep from My hand . … No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Therefore the Father and the Son have the same hand, the same power and might, and as a consequence the same essence. John 14:13: “Whatever you ask the Father in My name I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” Therefore the glory of the Father shines in the Son, and that cannot be an inferior glory and majesty.

(2) In particular. Creation is a divine work and is attributed to the Son not as the middle and instrumental cause, as the Photinians conclude ignorantly from the preposition “through,” but as the principal cause, because not only are all things said to have been created “through the Son” (and this expression signifies the order and distinction of persons but not an inequality in acting), but it is also said of Him in the nominative case that He “created all things” (Heb. 1:[10]; Rev. 4:11). Cf. our locus On God the Father and His Eternal Son [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5], § 83. In that locus we proved the same thing concerning the preservation of all things, the working of miracles, the redemption of the human race, the gathering of the Church, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the dispatch of the angels, the forgiveness of sins, the defense of the Church, the raising of the dead, the execution of the last judgment and salvation; that is, that the Father and the Son accomplish these things in those divine works with equal power and might.

Here we draw the following conclusion concerning regeneration. Christ regenerates in the same way as He saves. Yet He does not save as an instrumental, middle, and inferior cause but as the principal and highest cause. Therefore. We prove the minor premise: Christ is “the author of life” (Acts 3:15). According to Heb. 12:2, He is “the author and perfecter of faith to salvation.” And according to Heb. 5:9, He is “the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” in such a way that He gives to those who believe in Him eternal life by the same authority and power by which the Father does so (John 10:28, 30) and is the only foundation for our salvation (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet one cannot say these things about a mere instrumental and intermediate cause.

I also employ this argument: Christ saves as Jehovah and true God (Isa. 35:4; Hosea 1:7). Note here the emphasis in the first prophetic statement: “Behold, your God will come with vengeance; He will come, and will save you.” Therefore He will not do this as an instrumental cause. Christ is Savior in such a way that “there is salvation in no other” (Acts 4:12). Therefore either He is the eternal God or salvation is not in the eternal God. Christ saves “not as a minister,” according to Socinus (Cont. Bellarminum et Wiekum, p. 462). Otherwise, He would not differ from the apostles and prophets. Therefore He saves as the principal and highest cause.

§ 100. (VI) “The Israelites are said to have believed in God and Moses (Exod. 19:9; 14:31). But whoever is connected with God by believing in Him can, by being baptized in Him, be even more connected with the same God to the very degree that faith excels Baptism and all the more displays an interior worship” (p. 334).

We respond. (1) We urge the apostle’s words in 1 Cor. 1:13. We can be baptized into the name of no one who is mere man and only an intermediate cause of salvation. (2) This is something that the matter itself shows, because instituting sacraments, working salvation effectively through them, entering a covenant of grace with someone, etc., befit only the true God. Yet all these things are attributed to Him into whose name Baptism is administered. (3) Historical faith that includes knowledge and assent is one thing, but saving faith that includes the confidence of the heart is another. The Israelites believed Moses with historical faith but not with saving faith of the heart because that has God alone as its object, and from Him alone, to be sure, can one hope for eternal life. Jer. 17:5: “Cursed is he who trusts in man.” Augustine, treatise 29 on John: “We believe Paul, but we do not believe in Paul; we believe Peter, but we do not believe in Peter . … The consequence is, ‘if you believe in God, you should also believe in Me,’ which certainly would not be the consequence if Christ were not God.” He repeats the same thing in his Enarr. Ps. 77; sermon 61, on the words of the Lord; sermon 181, on the times; and, from him, Lombard, 3, Sent., dist. 23, letter D. Although in the Hebrew text the prefix is used, nevertheless one cannot infer from this that the Israelites divided and should have divided the confidence of their heart in such a way as to put part of it in God and part of it in Moses, since all confidence of salvation must be placed in God alone. Rather, we must explain with just as the Septuagint translators also rendered it: [“They believed God and Moses”], which translation Christ approves (John 5:46). Jerome translates it in the same way: Crediderunt Domino et Moysi servo ejus [“They believed the Lord and Moses, His servant”]. The Hebrews have their own idioms, which the translator must render in such a way that none of their meaning is lost. See Pererius on Genesis, vol. 3, p. 736, where he proves with many references to Rivera that to believe God and to believe in God do not differ in the usage of the Hebrew language, though in the matter itself and in the Church’s way of speaking there is a difference.

§ 101. (VII) “Even if the Holy Spirit were both a person distinct from the Father and were invoked, one could not for that reason conclude that He and the Father have the same essence in number for the same reasons one concludes that, though the Son is a person distinct from the Father and though it befits Him to be invoked, nevertheless He is not of the same essence with the Father” (p. 370).

We respond. (1) Our adversary is begging the question when he asserts that religious invocation can be addressed to someone who is not by nature true God. The opposite has been demonstrated in its own place. (2) Our adversaries say that the Holy Spirit is the might and power of God. But will they say that we should attribute to divine might an inferior worship? (3) If the Holy Spirit is a distinct person and is invoked, this proves firmly the consubstantiality of the Father and the Holy Spirit because the worship of invocation owed to both argues equal honor, and that equal honor argues the equality of power and majesty, and the equality of power and majesty argues consubstantiality. Let the judgment concerning the Son be the same. (4) The reasons the Photinians deny that the Son is of the same essence with the Father—though He is invoked religiously along with the Father—are inventions of no value, for they oppose as contraries the unity of the divine essence and the trinity of persons, whereas in the rule of faith both are set forth as things to be believed.

§ 102. So much for the points that Socinus produces in his Defens. animadv. against that classic passage. (In his preface, Moscorovius commends that book of Socinus, saying: “In it Socinus somehow surpasses me as he surpassed others in other writings.”)

Eniedinus, Explicat. locor. V. et N. T., on Matthew 28, argues:

The sense of the baptismal formula is nothing else and no more than what was once required of those who were to be baptized, that they should confess that Christ was the promised Messiah. This is especially evident from the confession or testimony of the Father, who cried out from heaven, “This is My beloved Son.” It is also evident from the testimony of the Son, who said that He was the true Messiah and the Son of God, and whose testimony is truthful. Finally, it is evident from the witness of the Holy Spirit, who was poured out upon the apostles in the name of the Son. To prove that baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit here means to teach and baptize on the basis of the testimony or because of the testimony or upon the testimony of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit concerning the man Jesus and the Messiah exalted to the right hand of God—I say, the proof of this rests on 1 John 5:7: “There are three who bear witness.”

We respond. (1) Eniedinus considers the statement about the three witnesses in heaven as spurious, as we show in its own place. How, then, can he take his explanation of the formula of Baptism from it? (2) The principal subject in John’s statement is the strengthening of our faith, but in the passage of Matthew it is the institution of Baptism and the administration of the new sacrament. (3) Even if we conceded that from the confirmation of the three witnesses it is evident that Christ is the promised Messiah, it has not yet been proved that the formula of Baptism includes nothing else than the confirmation of the three witnesses concerning Christ, that He is the true Messiah. (4) Eniedinus is begging the question when he applies the words of the institution of Baptism to the baptism of doctrine and presupposes that Baptism is to be considered an indifferent [] and temporary ceremony. (5) Those three witnesses confirmed that Christ was the promised Messiah not only with those transitory acts that Eniedinus enumerates, but they still confirm this very thing perpetually, as the administration of the sacrament of Baptism in Christ’s name endures perpetually in the Church. However, this proves not only that Christ is the true Messiah but also that He is true and eternal God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. (6) It says those three witnesses are “in heaven,” that is, they are witnesses divine in nature and essence, as we have shown in our latter disputation on this passage [Disp. 2. ex dicto 1 Joh. 5].

20 That is, without reference to anything else.

↑ Back to top