Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew". William L. Petersen, The Pennsylvania State University:http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998.
In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."
A Response to William L. Petersen's Review of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
George Howard, University of Georgia:http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1999.
68. In this section I consider the short ending of Matthew in Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and a similar short ending that F. C. Conybeare observed in some manuscripts of Eusebius. Conybeare suggested that the short ending in Eusebius, lacking the Trinitarian baptismal formula, was reflected in Justin Martyr (Dial. 39, 53) and Hermas (Sim. 9.27.4) (see Conybeare 1901). Others have added new evidence for a short ending of Matthew, and this evidence is discussed as well.
Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.
73. The Hebrew text reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."
Without the resurrection, there would be no churches, Keathley tells seminarians. By Shannon Baker. Gatekeeper 30(30):1,3. April 16, 2001.http://22.214.171.124/u/nobts?q=cache:FU2RfrYG1-YJ:www.nobts.edu/publications/gkr%252030-30.pdf+Matthew&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 [broken link]
The risen Lord had a job for the disciples to do, Keathley maintained, pointing to Jesus' words in Lc. 24:46-47: "Then He said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'" Also known as the Great Commission, this mandate from Jesus, confirmed in the passage's parallel account in Matthew 28, is the same for Christians today. Accordingly, the content of our message should be the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, Keathley said, to which the expected response should be repentance, and the expected result, the forgiveness of sins.
The Eusebian Form (Study of Conybeare, 1901, PDF printable file) [htm full version further below]
by Brian Hoeck
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Mt 28:19,20 )
This "Great Commission" of Jesus Christ is an oft-quoted proof-text of trinitarians used to promote their belief in the three-in-one/triune God. This is based on the use of the single noun, "name" (as opposed to "names"), applied to three separate nouns---the Father, Son, and holy spirit---thus supposedly three beings with one name (or, according to some versions of triune theology, one being in three manifestations).
The 1917 Scofield note on this verse states: "The word is in the singular, the "name," not names. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one triue God. It affirms: (1) That God is one."
Is this true? Is this Scriptural proof of a trinity? Let's dig down past the surface of this text and get a little deeper into a study of this matter.
Concerning these words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," noted Bible scholar, E.W. Bullinger, in his Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.47, 48, states: "These words are contained in every Greek MS. [editor's note: MS. = manuscript] known, and are, therefore, on documentary evidence, beyond suspicion: but yet there is one great difficulty with regard to them.
"The difficulty is that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus."
Is this true? Let's examine the Scriptures to prove all things.
Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." [Baptism is to be performed in His name for the remission of sins because "...he had by himself purged our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3)].
Acts 8:16 "For as yet he [it] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 10:48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
Acts 19:5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 22:16 ". . . arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
1Cor 1:12-15 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
[Editor’s note: Paul is implying here that the few baptisms that he performed there, without the use of water, but rather in spirit, as explained in Mk. 1:8 and in many other places, were all done in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified for us. Paul was referring to Jesus Christ---in whose name, he baptized spiritually the disciples.]
1Cor 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Some other Scriptures to consider include:
Rom 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? "
Gal 3:27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
NOTE: In Matt 28:19, the word translated "in" in the phrase "in the name of..." is the Greek word "eis" which means "into." The above two scriptures show what we are truly to be baptized into---not the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit ---but, into Christ and His death. "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)--'for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ.'" (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).
John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom [which] the Father will send in my name . . . " [Note: How does one receive the holy spirit? In the name of Jesus!]
Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
[Note: This verse ties directly with Matt 28:19 (preaching the Gospel among all nations) and Acts 2:38 (repentance and remission of sins, which comes in the name of Jesus Christ), and as we see here, both are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ---not in the name of a "triune god".]
In the light of Scripture, we see baptism was never performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost," but rather, in the name of Jesus Christ alone. Bullinger comments, "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text."
"It is a question, therefore, whether we have here something beyond the reach of science, or the powers of ordinary Textual Criticism.
"As to the Greek MSS., there are none beyond the fourth Century [Of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS. are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words." (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, p.48)
Why is it that no Greek MSS. exist from prior to the fourth century? It is due to the fact, that in 303 AD, Diocletian ordered all the sacred books to be burned. Church historian, Eusebius, wrote, "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place." (H.E. viii 2). This has left a large gap of three centuries (a time of great apostasy, which was already starting in Paul's and Jude's day - II Thes 2:7 & Jude 4) from which there are no known complete Greek MSS--from the first century in which Matthew recorded his Gospel account until the fourth and fifth centuries. This left plenty of time for perversion of the text to occur.
Fred Conybeare notes, "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew." (Hibbert Journal, 1902, Fred C.Conybeare).
Is it possible that the destroyed manuscripts and these missing pages may have included a different reading of Matthew 28:19---a reading that would agree with the above listed Scriptures which show baptisms performed in Christ's name alone? Let us examine some of the writings of the so-called "early church fathers" who had access to older manuscripts. Please note that we are NOT turning to them for any theological doctrine. The "early church fathers" were pagan converts who did not truly convert, rather they "Christianized" their pagan doctrines by applying Christian names and ideas to them. The only real value of these writings lies in the fact that their authors had access to these missing manuscripts, and they quoted from them quite frequently---so much so, that almost the entire New Testament could be gathered from these sources alone. What text did their manuscripts contain? How did they quote Matt 28:19,20? We shall see.
Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' " (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare). Eusebius' rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS [Jesus'] NAME among all nations).
Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136):
"For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says: 'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasise the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name.' " (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius)
Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice." (Hibbert Journal, p.105).
This has led scholars to suspect that he was persuaded to replace the original text.
"The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities (Hibbert Journal)."
Conybeare concludes: "It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of the words ' Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ' [in Matthew 28:19] " (Fred Conybeare).
At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things:
"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636)
"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's Evan Bohan)
Let's now examine some writings of the other early "church fathers."
"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' " (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7).
In the Shepherd of Hermas (dated approximately 120 AD), it notes, "Before man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he has received the seal [through baptism], he lays aside mortality and receives life." It also states, "They are such as have heard the word and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (emphasis mine)
The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck out." (Conybeare).
"In Justin Martyr, who wrote about AD 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text.
The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p 258: 'God hath not yet afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.' The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation of our text was that they ignored the formula 'baptising them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text ["in My name"] as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare - emphasis mine).
"Justin quotes a saying of Christ, ...as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah ["Through the washing of repentance and knowledge of God, therefore, which was instituted for the sin of the people of God, as Isaiah says, we have believed, and we make known that the same baptism which he preached, and which is alone able to cleanse those who repent, is the water of life" (Justin's dialogue with Trypho)] and [so-called] Apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula.
This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional [trinitarian]text of Matthew 28:19." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).
Concerning Aphraates, of Nisibis, Conybeare states, "There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates, ...who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites out text in a formal manner as follows: 'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.' The last words appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.' But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptise in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible." (Conybeare).
"Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MS. there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them."
"Professor Lake...and Mr. Conybeare have called attention to this fact, and shown that neither Justin Martyr (who died in 185 A.D.), nor Aphraates, of Nisibis (who flourished in Syria, 340 A.D.), knew anything of these words."
"It looks, therefore, as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, as we'll look at in a moment]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS. at their disposal." (Bullinger, Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.48,49)
Many reference works denote the skepticism of scholars concerning the accuracy of this verse. The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states: "It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism." It continues, "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent." It also comments on the verse as such: "If it be thought as many critics think, that no MS represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice [which was almost universally performed with the triune formula in the post-apostolic days]. It seems easier to believe that the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian ["in My name"] text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it." (Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics; article: Baptism). In fact, Sir William Whiston stated, "We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them [the Scriptures] by either the Eusebians or Arians." (Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p 15). "Different from the post-apostolic and later Christian liturgical praxis, which is marked by the trinitarian formula of Mt 28:19 (see Did. VII. i. 3; Just. Apol. LXI 3, 11, 13), the primitive Church baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus,' (or 'Jesus Christ,' or 'the Lord Jesus'; see I Co 1:13,15; Ac 8:16, 19:5; Did. ix. 5). (Dictionary of the Bible, James Hasting, 1963, p.88, article: Baptism). "...the trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition..." (Harper's Bible Dictionary sixth edition, 1959, p.60 article: baptism). And in the eighth edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary, it states, "While the earliest formula of baptism seems to have been 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16, 10:48) the trinitarian formula obviously became the standard at a very early time." "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as a later origin." (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Henry Austryn Wolfsan, p. 277).
"In the last half of the fourth century, the text 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' was used as a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called 'pneumatomachi' or 'fighters against the Holy Spirit', because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal with the Father and the Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius [meaning, they lacked the triune reading of Mt 28:19]" (Hibbert Journal , F. Conybeare).
How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come? Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287).
Alexandria was a hotbed of philosophical thought. Jewish philosopher, Philo, lived in Alexandria and taught his false doctrines of Gnosticism there. He spoke of "...one God, who in Himself is unity, yet appears in the likeness of a triad." He stated that a "holy and divine vision" of the Rulership is perceived "...in such a way, that a single vision appears to him [the one having the vision] as a triad, and a triad as unity..." And again, he states that "...the intellect perceives most clearly a unity although previously it learned to apprehend it under the similitude of a Trinity." (E.R. Goodenough Light, By Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, p.33). Philo clearly taught the trinity doctrine, as did fellow philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato - a doctrine which they all received from the Mystery teachings of Babylon. These Mystery teachings were the source of Theodotus' "Christianized" Gnostic trinitarian doctrine cited by Clement of Alexandria.
When did the corruption of the baptismal formula arise? According to Canney's Encyclopedia of Religion, the early church baptized in the name of Jesus until the second century. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (11th ed., Vol 3, p365) agrees, stating that baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the 2nd century. And in Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, p.389, it notes that baptism was always performed in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr.
It should now be clearly seen that all things are to be done in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), and that the words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," have been added to God's word to support the trinitarian doctrine brought in by the philosophers and other pagan "converts" to "Christianity". These words were not part of the original God-inspired text, much like the added words recorded in I John 5:7 (which are not in any Greek MS. prior to the 16th century).
"Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses, 1 John 5:7-8, shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity. [These added words of I Jn 5]...are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence, the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19." (Conybeare). And we have just seen that in light of Scripture and the early "church" writings, that it too, is unauthentic.
"In the course of my reading, I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty, that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses [I Jn 5:7,8]." (Hibbert Journal F. Conybeare).
So what is the true "Great Commission" of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Matt 28:19,20 should read as such:
"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations in My name: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen."
** If anyone finds information PROVING OR DISPROVING the claims of this study, by all means, contact me with that information so that I may update, revise, correct, or even remove--if disproven, the information I present here. ** Thank you
Author’s Email: Brian Hoeck
©1998 Truth On The Web Ministries: All the articles originated by Kenneth Hoeck or Brian Hoeck may be freely distributed or mirrored as long as presented in their entirety (including this statement), attributed to Truth on The Web, and that proper author credit is given.ARTICLES.
Various Quotes from Books, Commentaries, and Dictionaries relating to Matthew 28:19
From Our God Is One Talmadge French, 1999, page 216:
"Generally, the Oneness position has been the complete harmonization of the Matthean expression with that of the Jesus' name form. But, interestingly, some Oneness arguments have appealed to textual critical scholarship which denies Jesus ever spoke the words recorded in the Matthew 28:19 account. More typically, it is maintained that the one apostolic formula is 'in the name of Jesus,' and the account in Matthew was interpreted by the apostles, including Matthew himself, to be the invocation of the name of Jesus."
From The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585:
"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism."
From The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83:
"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15).
From Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723:
Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit."
From The International Critical
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
S. Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs
A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew
Third Edition, 1912, pages 307-308:
"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October 1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481 ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." An insertion of this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer clause."
[This is one of my favorite quotes! The double talk is incredible!]
Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B,
Donald A. Hagner, 1975, page887-888:
"The disciples are further told to "baptize" (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus' or his disciples' baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2;38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). The threefold name (at most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf. Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form, the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of "name of Jesus" in early Christian preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage: "There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16; 19:5)."
Also present in William Arnold III page: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm
History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79 fn.:
"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged."
The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568:
"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats."
History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112:
"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus―this long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading."
"It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance."
A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J. Hastings, 1906, page 170:
"It is doubted whether the explicit
injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...
But the Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398:
"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and
Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in
Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles."
The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64:
Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same."
The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351:
Matthew 28:19 "... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom 6:3, suggest that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the verse at the end of Matthew."
The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143:
Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin.
Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form.
Many of the above quotes were found in the reference section of a local Nazarene University library.
Clinton D. Willis
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confessed, is very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the triune formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus, while the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache of the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the triune (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the triune formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the triune 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 this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, revises the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles Creed."
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19
As found in:
Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
(Edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt)
1901, pages 275-288
Frederick C. Conybeare, from Oxford
Taken and Pursued From the Preliminary Effort Found in:
Tischendorf in his eighth edition of the Greek N.T. prints Mt 28, 19. 20 (with the trinitarian formula):
(19) πορευθεντες TSA ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος (20) διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος TSB αμην [(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, unto the end of the world. Amen.]
His apparatus criticus suggest that verse 19 stands in all patristic quotations in the form given above. In all MSS and versions the passage is so read, though it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared. Others besides Tischendorf have assumed that the patristic citations of Mt. 28,19 endorse, with no exception, the received text. Thus Dr. A. Plummer in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (Art. on Baptism, p. 252) writes: "The baptismal formula in Mt. 28, 19 is in all authorities without exception." And Renan in his work Les Evangiles ch. X writes of this text as follows: "La formule du baptême s'est élargie et comprend sous une forme assez syncrétique les trois mots sacramentels de la théologie du temps, le Père, le Fils, le Saint-Esprit. Le germe do dogme de la Trinité est ainsi déposé dans un coin de la page sacrée, et deviendra fécond."
The following testimonia from works of Eusebius imply another form of text:
[Note: Many of the following passages are given in Greek in the original with few comments in English. Here I present the long Greek paragraphs in unaccented Greek, for the accurate accents go to the PDF at the top of the page (I used the Symbol font found in my Word processor)].
1. Comment. in Psal. Ed. Migne Vol. 23, col. 569 (where Eusebius also quotes Mt 15, 24 and Mt 10, 5.6): plhn alla prwtouV touV apo tou Israhl kalei... legwn Ouk hlqon ei mh eiV ta probata ta apolwlota oiokou Israhl (Mt.15:24) kai toiV apostoloiV de autou prwtoiV autoiV khrussein to euaggelion parhnei jaskwn XiV odon eqnwn mh apelqhte, kai eiV polin Samareitwn mh eiselqhte poreuesqe de mallon proV ta probata ta apolwlota oikou Israhl (Mt.10:5,6). Eita met ekeinouV prosetatte toiV eautou maqetaiV euaggelizesqai panta ta eqnh en tw onomati autou.
2. Ibid. col. 416: outoi (sc. apostoloi) prostacqenteV up autou tou swthroV maqhteusai panta ta eqnh, upo thV autou dunamewV empneusqenteV, thn eiV panta ta eqnh poreian steilamenoi, dihlqon kai ta barbara jula kai thn oikoumenhn dieddramon sumpasan
3. In Ps 65, 6, col. 653: sjodra de akolouqwV eipwn Ekei eujranqhsometa en autw, epijerei tw despozonti en th dunasteia autou tou aiwnoV nohseiV de kai touto autou legontoV akouwn tou swthroV Edoqh moi pasa exousia en ouranw kai epi thV ghV poreuonteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Dio kata men ton Akulan eirhtai tw exousiazonti en th dunasteia autou di aiwnoV
4. In Ps 67, 31-36, col. 720: yilh gar jwnh toiV autou maqhtaiV eipwn Deute akolouqeite moi kai poihsw umaV alieiV anqrwpwn, dunamei to ergon epoiei kai palin enteilamenoV autoiV kai eipwn poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Ergw thn dunamiV edeiknu kai auqoiV eipwn Dei khrucqhnai to euaggelion thV basileiaV
5. Ibid. Ps 76, 20, col. 900: opqV de en th qalassh h odoV autou gegone kai ai triboi autou en udasi polloiV kai wV ta icnh autou ou gignsketai, eish episthsaV th proV touV maqhtaV epaggelia autou jhsash poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou kai idou egw meq umwn pasaV taV hmeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou kosmou
6. In Ps 94, 3, col. 1222: poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh. Bouletai gar k. t. l.
7. Comment. in Isaiam, 18; P. G. tom. 24, col. 213: poreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Poreuomenoi de jhsi koujoi ginesqe k. t. l.
8. Demonstr.Evang.I,3,p.5: eikwtos o swthr kai kurioV hmwn IhsouV o uioV tou qeou meta thn ek nekrwnanastasin toiV autou maqetaiV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh epi legei didaskonteV autouV threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin Ou gar ta MwusewV nomima didaskein panta ta eqnh parekeleusato, all osa autoV eneteilato. Tauta d hn ta en toiV euaggelioiV autou jeromena [of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: "Go and make disciples of all the nations,'' and added: "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.'' For He did not bid them to teach the laws of Moses to all nations, but whatsoever He Himself had commanded: that is to say, the contents of the Gospels] [Online at: eusebius_de_03_book1.htm]
9. Demonstr. Evang. I, 4, p. 8 (where also quotes Is.2:3,4): TiV d ah eih o ek Siwn proeklhluqwV nomoV... (Is.2:3,4) all h o euaggelikoV logoV o dia tou swthroV hmwn Ihsou tou Cristou kai twn apostolwn autou ek thV Siwn proelhluqwV kai dielqwn panta ta eqnh; prodhlon gar wV apo thV Ierousalhm kai tou tauth prosparakeimenou Siwn orouV... o thV kainhV diaqhkhV autou arxamenoV taiV autou jwnaiV, aV proV touV autou maqhtaV pepoihto, jhsaV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh, didaskonteV autouV Threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin. Tina de tauta hn, all h ta thV kainhV diaqhkhV maqhmata te kai paideumata [For out of Sion shall go forth a law… (Is.2:3,4) what can it be but the word of the Gospel, "going forth from Sion" through our Saviour Jesus Christ, and going through all the nations? For it is plain that it was in Jerusalem and Mount Sion adjacent thereto, where our Lord and Saviour for the most part lived and taught, that the law of the new covenant began and from thence went forth and shone upon all, according to the commands which He gave his disciples when He said: "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?]
[8 and 9 can be found Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm]
10. Demonstr. Evang. III, 6, col. 233, p. 131 D (which recurs in the Syriac Theophany, see Nr.14): O de swthr kai kurioV hmwn ouk enenohse men, ou tetolmhke de eni de rhmati kai mia jwnh jhsaV proV touV eautou maqhtaV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou, didaskonteV autouV Threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin, ergon ephge tw logw [With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and He joined the effect to His Word]
11. Demonstr. Evang. III, 6, col. 240, p. 136: o de mhden qnhton kai anqrwpinon dianohqeiV ora ei mh wV alhqwV qeou palin prohkato jwnhn autolezei jhsaV toiV eutelestatoiV ekeinoiV autou maqhtaiV Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh kai pwV eipon an oi maqhtai tw didaskalw pantwV pou apokrinamenoi, touq hmin estai dunaton... Tauta h jhkantwn an kata to eikoV h dianohqentwn twn tou Ihsou maqhtwn, miaV prosqhkh lexewV autoiV o didaskaloV lusin twn aporhqentwn upeqeto, jhsaV kat orqwsin en tw onomati mou. Ou gar dh aplwV kai adioristwV maqhteusai panta ta eqnh prosetatte, meta prosqhkhV de anagkaiaV thV en tw onomati mou. Epeidh gar h dunamiV thV autou proshgoriaV tosauth tiV en, wV janai ton apostolon oti dh Ecarisato autw o QeoV to onoma to uper pan onoma, ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan gonu kamyh epouraniwn kai epigeiwn kai katacqoniwn. EikotwV, thV touV pollouV lanqanoushV en tw onomati autou dunamewV thn arethn emjainwn, toiV autou maqhtaiV ejhse Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou [who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it?… "By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"… But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of "In my Name." And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name."]
12. Demonstr. Evang. III, 7, col. 244, p. 138 (Here is what, after dwelling on the ecumenical spread of Christianity Eusebius desires us, again this also occurs in the Syriac Theophania v, 49, without any difference): sunomologein me allwV autouV kekrathkenai tou tolmhmatoV h qeiotera kai wper anqrwpon dunamei kai sunergia tou jhsantoV autoiV Maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Touto oun eipwn episunhyen epaggelian, di hV emellon epiqarrein kai proqumwV epididonai sjaV autouV toiV parhghlmennoiV jhsi goun autoiV, Kai idou egw meq umwn eimi pasaV taV emeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou aiwnoV [I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name." And when He said this He appended a promise, that would ensure their courage and readiness to devote themselves to carrying out His commands. For He said to them: "And lo! I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world."]
[10, 11 and 12 can be found Online at:http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_05_book3.htm]]
13. Demonstr. Evang. IX, 11, col. 693, p. 445 (where is inserted an explanatory sc. Iudaeorum): Kai toiV ge autou maqetaiV meta thn ekeinwn (sc. Iudaeorum) paraithsin prostattei Poreuqentes maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou. Outw dhta hmeiV men ta eqnh ton proanajwnhqenta kai proV tou patroV apestalmenon projhthn... egnwmen kai katedexameqa [And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' So, then, we that are the Gentiles know and receive the prophet that was foretold…] [Online at: http://www.tertullian.org/eusebius_de_11_book9.htm]
14. (= 10). Mt. 28, 19. 20 is cited three times in the fifth book of the Theophania of Eusebius, published and translated by Dr. Samuel Lee in 1842 and 1843. Lee took his text from the Nitrian Codex of the British museum written in A.D. 411. The first citation is made in V, 17, as follows (cp. Lee Theoph. in English p. 298): "He (the Saviour) in one single word and in one single oracle, said to his disciples, Go ye and make disciples of all peoples in my name, and teach ye them every thing which I have commanded you. And the deed he made to follow the word. And forthwith (lit. ad instar eius) were made disciples in a brief time all the races of the Greeks together and of the barbarians. But the law was not in a book of the Saviour, but unwritten was by his command sown among all peoples."
15. (=11). Theophania V, 46: "But he who used nothing human or mortal, see how in truth he again conceded the oracle of God, in the word which he spake to his disciples, the weak ones, saying, "Go ye and make disciples of all the peoples... These things then (scil. How can we do this? How preach to the Romans etc.) his disciples of our Saviour would either have said or thought, so by a single addition of a word, he resolved the sum of those things of which they doubted, the sum of them he committed to them in that he said, ye conquer in my name (lit. in nomine meo proprio). For it was not that he ordered them simply and without discriminating, to go and make disciples of all peoples, but with this important addition, that he said, In my name (lit. in nomine meo proprio).
16. (=12). Theophania V, 49, p. 336: "I am again compelled to recur to the question of cause, and confess that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise than by a divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them: "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name." And when he had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For he said to them Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world."
[14, 15 and 16 can be found Online at:
We now give those passages of the earlier books of the Theophania in which Mat 28,19-20 is cited. The first of these is in III, 4, in Lee's version p. 159:
17. "Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, ... who bore all this preeminence... and could effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth? But this no man has done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word and fulfilled it by deed: "Go and teach all peoples." [The Greek is given below in Nr. 20. It adds έν τω ̀ονόματί μου which must here have stood in the original. Here then we catch the Syriac translator in the act of garbling his text.] - and after a little (Lee p. 160): - “And who is that other (person) who, since the life of man was set up, ever sought to constitute a people after his name – a thing never yet heard of – and this not in a corner or obscurely in some part of the earth, but in the whole earth under the sun?” [Online at:
18. The next passage is in IV, 8, Lee p. 223: "That at the outset he said that he would make them fishers of men, and in the end openly after his example they should make disciples of all peoples, together with his peculiar aid (or power). From the Gospel of Matthew:--
"After his resurrection from the dead, all of them together, as was commanded them, went to Galilee, as he told them. But when they saw him some of them worshipt him, but others doubted. But he drew near, gazed on them and said, All power in heaven and on earth is given to me of my father. Go ye and make disciples of all peoples, and baptise them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always even to the end of the world."
And after a little p. 225 he continues thus:--
“And on this account, he commanded his disciples, not from the first, but now, that they should go around and make disciples of all nations. But of necessity be added the mystery of cleansing. For it was right, that those who should be converted from among the heathen, should be cleansed by his power from all pollution and uncleanness; because they had been defiled by the error of demons, and had been holden by the worship of idols, and by uncleanness of all sorts but had now first been changed from that life of abomination and lawless practices. These very persons then, did he admonish to teach, -- after this cleansing which is by the mystery of his doctrine, -- not, that they should observe the precepts of the Jews, nor yet the law of Moses, but all those things which he commanded them to observe... He necessarily therefore stirred them up, and made them readily to confide, - to undertake the circuit of all peoples and to make disciples of all races of men, through the promise by which he counseled them, saying: Behold, I myself am with you.
19. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 5, 2: epi de th tou khrugmatoV didaskalia thn eiV sumpanta ta eqnh steilamenon poreian sun dunamei tou Cristou jhsantoV autoiV PoreuqenteV maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou [went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name".]
20. (=17). Oratio de Laudibus Constantini 16, 8 (p. 294 sq H): TiV pwpote... tosouton arethV aphnegkato... wV pantwn twn epi thV anqrwpon akohn kai glwttan emplhsai thV autou proshgoriaV; alla touto ge oudeiV h monoV eiV o hmeteroV swthr meta thn kata tou qanatou nikhn diepraxato toiV autou gnwrimoiV logon eipwn kai ergw telesaV poreuqenteV goun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh en tw onomati mou, jhsaV autoiV, proeipwn te kai apojhnamenoV oV ara dei to euaggelion autou khrucqhnai en olh th oikoumenh eiV marturian pasi toiV eqnesin, ama logw tourgon ephgagen [What… has attained so great a height of excellence… as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and immediately verified his word]
[19 and 20 can be found Online at: (Look inside that site for the book: NPNF2-01)]
21. 22. In the Greek controversial works of [or
“attributed to”] Eusebius Mat 28,19 is cited fully twice, viz. in the Contra
Marcellum Ancyranum, p. 3, C; and De Ecclesiastica Theologia 5,
p. 174, a. In both passages we have the textus receptus, and the
context also implies it.
23. In a third passage, De Eccles. Theol. 3, p. 159 d, it is cited, but only as far as the word έθνη. The author [whoever it was] of these treatises which were written sometime after 336, and before 340, had the textus receptus before him, at least in the two passages.
24. The only evidence which remains is that of the letter, addressed by Eusebius after the council of Nicea, to his church of Caesarea. In this at the end of his baptismal creed, after the words πιστεύομεν καί είς έν πνεύμα άγιον, is introduced a citation of Mt 28,19 in its usual form. This letter has only come down to us through the medium of Socrates the historian (I, 8, 38 p.23), who perhaps took it from the work of Sabinus. There is hardly reason to suspect an interpolation [but only from Sabinus to Socrates].
[Next, Conybeare comments on the points 23 and 24 and gives the summary thus far in 25]
23. The evidence of these later writings of Eusebius emphasizes by contrast the form of text preserved in the rest of his works. He seems to have found in the codices of Caesarea the following form of text:
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τά έθνη έν τώ όνόματί μου, διδάσκοντες αύτούς τηρεϊν πάντα όσα ένετειλάμην ύμϊν.
Go disciple ye all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
In passages 8 and 9, έν τώ όνόματί μου has perhaps been removed after έθνη by a scribe who resented so unusual a reading [“Plerumque in codicibus Graecis, ubi Origenes, Eusebus, Apollinarius in medium afferuntur ad marginem scriptum observes, ψεύδη, mentiris. Incidi ego in centonem Colbertinae bibliothecae manuscriptum, qui ad singula Origenis, Eusebii, Apollinarii, etc., loca, singularem hanc cautionem, minio exaratam, in margine affert, ̀ανάθεμά ζοι, anathema dzibi [dzoi]. Quamobrem miror hunc Eusebii commentarium ad nos usque devenisse.” Bernard de Montfaucon, Preliminaria in Eusebii commentaria in l’salmos.] Both passages occur at the very beginning of the treaties, and so caught the eye of the casual reader. Few can ever have methodically perused so long and learned a work, and therefore the work of correction [or I, the transcriber, must say, “the work of adulteration”] went no further. It is worthy to notice that in the Greek fragment of the Theophany given in Migne P. G. vol. 24, col. 629 the context involves that verse 19 as well as 18 should have been cited. Verse 18 however stands alone. Verse 19 must therefore have been left out by a copyist.
The passage from the Theophania take rank as independent evidence of the text used by Eusebius, although they repeat passages of his Demonstratio Evangelica and De Laudibus; for where a writer deliberately incorporates entire sections of an earlier work in a later, he must be held to endorse the character of the scripture citations which the earlier contains.
24. Nr. 18 of the above testimonies breaks the harmony of the other citations. The Syriac translator, obliged to render so long a consecutive passage of the Gospels, has merely availed himself of his Syriac vulgate; and copied out from it the entire five verses. Those familiar with Armenian or Syriac versions know how common was this device of saving labour. At first sight the comment upon this citation when it speaks of the "mystery of cleansing", seems to involve the presence of βαπτίζοντες in the original Greek; but the definition which immediately follows of this cleansing, [written] as being “by the mystery of his doctrine”, 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.
25. Thus we have [at lest] some 17 attestations of the reading έν τώ όνόματί μου, to the exclusion of the words βαπτίζοντες and τοû πατρός καì τοû υίοû καì τοû άγίου πνεύματος. We have also two passages viz. 8 and 9, favorable to it. One, viz. 18, that is doubtful. Two at least that are neutral. As a matter of fact there are other neutral passages, where the citation only extends as far as the words τά έθνη, but they where not worth while collecting.
Against this body of testimony we have three passages in the works of [or attributed to] Eusebius, in which the textus receptus of Mt 28, 19 is cited; and these all belong to the last period of his literary activity which fell after the council of Nice.
26. [More than] two writers earlier [and one contemporaneous, not quoted by Conybeare, which is Aphrahat the Persian Sage] than Eusebius, shew a knowledge of this shorter form of text; and neither of them formally cite the passage, but rather echo it. The first is Justin Martyr in the Dialogue with Tryphon (Trypho) 39, p. 258: On oun tropon dia touV eptakisciliouV ekeinouV thn orghn ouk epejere tote o QeoV, ton auton tropon kai nun oudepw thn krisin ephnegken h epagei, ginwskei eti kaq hmeran tinaV maqhteumenouV eiV to onoma tou Cristou autou kai apoleipontaV thn odon thV planhV, oi kai lambanousi domata ekastoV wV axioi eisi, jwtizomenoi dia tou onoma tou Xristou toutou [Therefore, just as God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men, even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ]
In another passage of his Dialogue [with Trypho], c. 53, p. 272 D, Justin glances at Mt 28, 19 (after quoting Gen. 49:11): Kai to Desmeuwn… (Gen. 49:11)… kai twn eqnwn omoiwV, twn mellontwn pisteuein autw, prodhlwsiV hn. Outoi gar wV pwloV asaghV kai zugon epi aucena mh ecwn ton eautou, mecriV o CristoV outoV elqwn dia twn maqhtwn autou pemyaV emaqhteusen autouV [ And that expression… (Gen. 49:11)… and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them]
Here there is no confirmation or rejection of the words έπì τώ όνόματί; nevertheless the very occurrence of the passage strengthens the surmise that Justin was acquainted with Mt 28, 19, and really glanced at it in p. 258. In this latter place the words “and abandoning the path of error” indicates that it was the Gentiles and not the Jews that were daily being made disciples into the name.
The first of the above passages has been recognized by Resch in his Aussercanonische Parallelstellen as a citation of Mt 28, 19; but he sets it down, along with three of the passages above adduced from Eusebius, under the head of Abbreviaturem, or abridgements of the ordinary text. From such an error a wider reading of Eusebius would saved him.
27. The second passage is in the Pastor Hermae [Hermas, Hennas] and is a less certain reference, Simil. IX, 17, 4: panta ta eqnh ta upo gon ouranon katoikounta, akousanta kai pisteusanta epi tw onomati eklhqhsan [tou uiou] tou Qeou labonteV oun thn sjragida mian jronhsin escon kai ena noun ["all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received the seal, they had one understanding and one mind]
The above might almost as well be taken to echo Lc 24, 47, although Harnack commenting on the words πάντα τά έθνη, remarks: “Haec vox omnes expellit dubitationes; cf. Mt 28, 19.” It is to be remarked that Lc 24, 47 with its keynote: ̀αρξάμενοι απο Ίερουσαλήμ, is seldom absent from Eusebius’ mind when he quotes Mt 28, 19; and the Lucan passage itself has the air of being a remaniement [confirmation] of the Eusebian text of Mt 28, 19. For Luke has merely added the words μετάνοιαν εìς ̀αφεςιν άμαρτιών, and substituted κηρυχθήναι… εις for μαθητεύσατε.
28. The earliest writer who cites Mt 28, 19 in a form approximating to the text established in the manuscript [textus receptus as in Tischendorf] of the Gospels, is the Gnostic Theodotus, whose literary activity cannot be precisely dated, but must have been as early as 160. It has been conjectured that he used the Gospel according to the Egyptians. An excerpt (§ 76) from his writings appended to the eight book of the Stromateis contains it (Sylb. P. 987):
Kai toiV apostoloiV entelletai periionteV khrussete kai touV pisteuontaV baptizete eiV onoma patroV kai uiou kai agiou pneumatoV [And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit].
Dr. P. M. Barnard who has collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests, perhaps without good reason, that the [trinitarian] words in the above were added by Clement to the text of Theodotus. The use of the word περυóντες suggests that in the third of our excerpts from Eusebius on the psalms col. 653 the impossible reading ποερυóντες is a corruption of περυóντες. And this conjecture is confirmed by a neighboring passage in ps. col. 409.
In Rufinus’ version also of Origen in Numeros Hom. XII, 2, we have the following given as comment on 1 Pet 2, 6: “Apostoli… secundum praeceptum domini circumeuntes orbem terrae et implentes, quod mandatum est, ut doceant ommes gentes, baptizantes in nomine patris et filii et Spiritus sancti etc.” Here circumeuntes reflects περυóντες in the original text. It may well be that this word which well fits in with the early belief in the περίοδοι of the Apostles was, if not original, at the least an early variant for ποερυóντες in Mt 28, 19.
The same reading περυóντες is implied in the citation Nr. 18 of Eusebius by the Commentary which accompanies it: “he commanded his disciples that they should go around and make disciples of all nations”, and below: “he stirred them up… to undertake the circuit of all peoples and to make disciples of all races of men”. That, in the long extract which the Syriac translator makes from his vulgate, no equivalent to this phrase is to be found is additional proof that that extract is not to be relied upon as a faithful rendering of what stood in the text of Eusebius.
29. The textus receptus of Mt 28, 19 is found in the Latin version of Irenaeus III, 17, I; in Tertullian de Baptismo, c. 13 and De Praescriptione c. 8 and 20; in the Διδαχή (Didache) 7, 1-4, where however it is suspect because of the occurrence in 9, 4 of the same document of the phrase of βαπτίζθέντες εìς όνομα κυρίου; in the Clementine Homilies XI, 26, and oftener in the Recognitiones as translated by Rufinus; in Hippolytus Contra Noetum; in the Acta Thomae, there balanced however by a rival gnostic formula.
30. Clement of Alexandria never cites Mt 28, 19 in his works as preserved to us. In the works of Origen preserved in Greek, Griesbach in his Symbolae criticae notes three cases of explicit citation of Mt 28, 19; but in each case the citation stops short at τά έθνη, leaving us in doubt how his texts continued, whether in agreement with those of Eusebius or with the received text. An indirect reference to the text in the contra Celsum II, 42, (I, 165, K.) points, though not conclusively, to the former alternative. The passage is this: kai aei orwnteV plhroumena ta eirhmena up autou, prin genhtai, to khrucqhnai to euaggelion en olw tw kosmw, kai poreuqentaV autou touV maqhtaV eiV panta ta eqnh ton logon autou kathggelkenai [And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine]. Here the last four words answer to these: “Teaching them all things whatsoever I have commanded you”. And it is significant that Origen gives no hint of the important precept to baptize in the triune name which in our texts intervenes.
31. If we could trust Rufinus’ versions of Origen’s homilies, we would have to admit that he used the textus receptus at Mt 28, 19 and even set store by it. But we cannot trust them. At the conclusion of his version of the commentary on Romans Rufinus boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”, “laborem adimplendi quae deerant” for this reason “ne pulsatae quaestiones et relictae, quod in homiletico dicendi genere ab illo fieri solet, latino lectori fastidium generarent”. The learned Benedictine editor deplores in the following words the zeal shewn by Rufinus for rewriting the author he professed to translate: “Sed utinam hoc labore adimplendi quae deerant supersedisset! Ex ejus enim licentia factum est, ut qui legit has homilias, incertus sit utrum legat Origenem, an Rufinum.”
The text Mt 28, 19 comes thrice in Rufinus’ version of the Commentar in Romanos, in V, 2 and 8; and VIII, 4. The last two passages smack of Rufinus rather than of Origen. No sane critic would undertake to say where Origen ends and Rufinus begins. “Vix certo distingui potest, ubi solus Origenes loquatur, aut ubi suas merces obtrudat Rufinus”, says De la Rue (monitum in Exodum). In Hom. Viii, § 4 in Exodum, as rendered by Rufinus comes the fourth reference to Mt 28, 19:
“Cum ergo uenimus ad gratiam baptismi, uniuersis aliis diis et dominis renuntiantes, Solum confitemur Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Sed hoc confitentes, nisi toto corde diligamus Dominum Deum nostrum… non sumus effecti pars Domini… et Dominum, ad quem confugimus, propitium non efficimus, quem non ex toto et integro corde diligimus.” Why is “Dominum” alone mentioned, if just before the trine formula had stood in the original Greek? The commentary awakes this suspicion in us.
Thus it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28, 19 occurs; in three cases embedded in comment which smacks of him rather than of Origen, while in the other two the trine formula is in no way necessitated by the context.
32. It is true that Origen attests the use of the trinitarian formula [not mentioning it] of baptism, in his Greek commentary [if that comment was ever original of him, as that work has been “preserved” by the catholic church] on John tom. VI, § 17 (Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Book VI. 17. Of The Testimony Of John To Jesus In Matthew's Gospel) in the words used of the person baptized: tw empareconti eauton th qeiothti thV dunamewV twn thV proskunhthV triadoV epiklhsewn [to him who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable Trinity]. But because the trine epiclesis was used in his ̀ακολουθία of Baptism, it does not follow that the text Mt 28, 19 was in his copies of the N. T. anymore than in those of Eusebius [furthermore, before and after that quotation we read: “…the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought… are symbolical of those who at any time are set free by the word of God... the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water…”, so the isolated statement of the “adorable trinity” in that books smacks of another pro-Nicene interpolation]; and the same caution must be used in regard to the references made by Irenaeus [if written by him] and [by] Justin to the use of a trine formula in Baptism (see our note at the end *).
33. Cyprian of Carthage [called “saint” by the catholic church] used the text: “Baptising them in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, as a “battle-cry” in his strife with Pope Stephen: “Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt, foris extra ecclesiam, immo et contra ecclesiam, modo in nomine Christi,” ubicunque et quomodocunque gentilem baptizatum remissionem peccatorum consequi posse, quando ipse Christus gentes baptizari iubeat in plena et adunata trinitate? (Epist. 73 ad Iubaianum). And just before in the same letter: “Insinuat trinitatem, cuius sacramento gentes baptizarentur.” The official church of Rome however ignored his arguments, and adopted the position that baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid. As the canon of the Synod of Nemours (1284) expresses it: “Dicimus, infantem baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi”.
It in some measure explains this decision of the Popes that the text of Mt 28, 19 was not yet authoritatively fixed by the church. That the Pneumatomachi of the fourth century retained the Eusebian reading can be inferred from the arguments used by and against them.
34. In his discourse: “de communione sub utraque species” addressed A. D. 1433 to the Council of Bàle (Mansi concilia XXXIX; col. 858), John of Ragusa used these words: “Dominus noster Jesus Christus ascendens in coelum praecepit apostolis dicens, Ite docete – Spiritus Sancti, in quibus verbis dedit eis et limitavit formam baptismi et in persona eorum toti ecclesiae. Et tamen non post longum tempus ipsi apostoli et ecclesia dimittendo dictam formam, in nomine Patris etc. traditam per Dominum baptizabant tantum in nomine Christi dicentes: Te baptizo in nomine Domini Jesu Christi” [Thomas Aquinas propounds the same [ill] argument [and he is considered “saint” and “doctor of the catholic church”] III, 9. 66, a. b., ad. I. John writes (l. c. col. 863): “Si enim immutaverunt Apostoli formam baptismi, quae dat essentiam sacramento, taliter ut si quis nunc in illa forma, qua ipsi apostoli, baptizaret, non esset baptismus, quanti magis potest ecclesia mutare vel tollere unam speciem…”]
[Aquinas, Thomas, sometimes called the Angelic Doctor and the Prince of Scholastics (1225-74). He studied under the German Scholastic philosopher Albertus Magnus, following him to Cologne in 1248. Because Aquinas was heavyset and taciturn, his fellow novices called him Dumb Ox, but Albertus Magnus is said to have predicted that “this ox will one day fill the world with his bellowing”. Early in the 13th century the major works of Aristotle were made available in a Latin translation, accompanied by the commentaries of Averroës and other Islamic scholars. The vigor, clarity, and authority of Aristotle's teachings restored confidence in empirical knowledge and gave rise to a school of philosophers known as Averroists. Under the leadership of Siger de Brabant, the Averroists asserted that philosophy was independent of revelation.Averroism threatened the integrity and supremacy of Roman Catholic doctrine and filled orthodox thinkers with alarm. To ignore Aristotle, as interpreted by the Averroists, was impossible; to condemn his teachings was ineffectual. He had to be reckoned with. Albertus Magnus and other scholars had attempted to deal with Averroism, but with little success. Aquinas succeeded brilliantly. Reconciling the Augustinian emphasis upon the human spiritual principle with the Averroist claim of autonomy for knowledge derived from the senses, Aquinas insisted that the truths of faith and those of sense experience, as presented by Aristotle, are fully compatible and complementary. Some truths, such as that of the mystery of the incarnation, can be known only through revelation, and others, such as that of the composition of material things, only through experience; still others, such as that of the existence of God, are known through both equally. All knowledge, Aquinas held, originates in sensation, but sense data can be made intelligible only by the action of the intellect, which elevates thought toward the apprehension of such immaterial realities as the human soul, the angels, and God. To reach understanding of the highest truths, those with which religion is concerned, the aid of revelation is needed. Aquinas first suggested his mature position in the treatise De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas (1270; trans. The Trinity and the Unicity of the Intellect, 1946). This work turned the tide against his opponents, who were condemned by the church. Aquinas was canonized by Pope John XXII in 1323 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius V in 1567. More successfully than any other theologian or philosopher, Aquinas organized the knowledge of his time in the service of his faith. In his effort to reconcile faith with intellect, he created a philosophical synthesis of the works and teachings of Aristotle and other classic sages; of Augustine and other church fathers; of Averroës, Avicenna, and other Islamic scholars; of Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides and Solomon ben Yehuda ibn Gabirol; and of his predecessors in the Scholastic tradition. This synthesis he brought into line with the Bible and Roman Catholic doctrine. His two most important works are Summa Contra Gentiles (1261-64; trans. On the Truth of the Catholic Faith, 1956), a closely reasoned treatise intended to persuade intellectual Muslims of the truth of Christianity; and Summa Theologica (Summary Treatise of Theology, 1265-73), in three parts (on God, the moral life of man, and Christ), of which the last was left unfinished. Summa Theologica has been republished frequently in Latin and vernacular editions ("Aquinas, Saint Thomas," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
John of Ragusa proceeded to infer that, as the Apostles deviated from their master’s precepts in regard to baptism, so the church had a right to set them aside as regards the Eucharist, by withholding the cup from the laity. I do not know if any will pursue his hypothesis a little further and argue that the apostles, when they “set aside the “formam traditam per Dominum”, also introduced the Eusebian form of text at Mt 28, 19”.
35. A different explanation of the dissonance between Mt 28, 19 and other baptismal formulas found in the New Testament has been breached by certain scholars, whose conclusions, lest I should appear to ignore previous workers in this field, I venture in conclusion to refer to, although, being based on no textual research, they hung entirely in the air and were merely happy guesses [such of that guesses next].
Canon Armitage Robinson inclines to the view (Art. Baptism in Encyclopaedia Biblica) that Matthew “does not here report the ipsissima verba of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist’s own time and locality”.
The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text. So did Evanson, vicar of Tewkesbury in his letter to Hurd Bp of Worcester, 2nd Ed. London 1792. Harnack remarks (Dogmengeschichte I, 68): “Dass Jesus die Taufe eingesetzt habe, lässt sich nicht direct erweisen; denn Mt 28, 19 ist kein Herrnwort.”
Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes thus: “The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, betrayed itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself.”
Socinus (opera Irenopoli 1656 vol. I, 712 and II, 438) accepted the usual text as genuine, but sought to explain away its obvious meaning by means of tortuous and special pleading.
J. H. Scholten in his work: Die Taufformel (übersetzt von Max Gubalke, Gotha, 1885) wrote: “Die gegenseitige Vergleichung der Texte unserer drei ersten Evangelien und die kritische Untersuchung über ihr Alter führen somit zu dem Schlusse, dass dem Bericht über die Einsetzung der Taufe durch Jesus in dem nach Matthäus benannten kanonischen Evangelium ein relativ spates Datum zuerkannt werden muss.”
H. Holtzmann in an article on Baptism in the N. T. in the Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftliche Theol. 1879, p. 401, arrives at a similar conclusion.
36. The following questions therefore need to be discussed.
1. Is the Eusebian and Justin's
reading of Mt 28:19 the original? [my answer is yes]
2. If so, was not the textus receptus produced 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 [the Comma Johanneum, the adulteration also introduced by catholic hands in 1 John 5:7,8], in the African old Latin texts first of all, thence creep in to the Greek texts at Rome, and finally establish itself in the East during the Nicene epoch, in time to figure in all surviving Greek codices?
* Notes of the Editors: Struck that among all the abundance of writings that we still have today as attributed to Origen (works that have not yet been destroyed by catholic hands, as were all the original works of Arius and all other related colleagues, even with all the Anathemas and persecutions against the writings of Origen by many Popes, and with all the adulterations done by Rufinus and by Jerome to his writings), in only one place, and that place out of its surrounding logic context (as we have shown above), is to be found the particularly characteristic expression of “adorable Trinity” as if attributed to Origen himself (Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Book VI. 17. Of The Testimony Of John To Jesus In Matthew's Gospel: “…the wonderful works done by the Saviour in the cures He wrought… are symbolical of those who at any time are set free by the word of God... to him [who is “baptized in water”] who yields himself to the divine power of the invocation of the Adorable Trinity… the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water…”, Origen could not have been talking himself of water baptism on the name of the adorable trinity if before, he is talking of Jesus alone and if after, he is talking on how the new baptism of Christ is in holy spirit which “is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water”). How can Origen have had written himself that of the water baptism and of the “adorable Trinity”, or the trinitarian portions of De Principiis (forged initially by Rufinus and Jerome) if later on even an anathema was issued against Origen’s writings for NOT exhibiting a belief on the trinity? (Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A. D. “The Anathemas Against Origen…VI. "If anyone shall say that... the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world... let him be anathema…"; VIII. "If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, [is] of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity… let him be anathema").
We decided first to track all available writings at our hand using the very same an non common expression of “adorable Trinity”, and these are our results thus far:
1- The particular expression “adorable Trinity” was found first in two spurious documents [being rather a later and also “anonymous” hand who added it, maybe the same that added it to Origen’s work], “Early Liturgies--The Divine Liturgy Of James, The Holy Apostle And Brother Of The Lord”, where it says: “…The Priest says aloud:-- And the grace and the mercies of the holy and consubstantial, and uncreated, and adorable Trinity, shall be with us all. The People [responds]:- And with thy spirit”.
2- The second spurious document is, “The Epistle Of Ignatius To Polycarp Shorter And Longer Versions Book XI. Chap. 28. Himself is the eternal, true, and adorable Trinity…” (to see the Ignatian Epistles spuriousness, go to Appendix 1).
3- (3a and 3b, being 3b a Basil’s composite expression) – Next, the very same expression “adorable Trinity” was found in the writings of Basil of Caesarea (“Basil the Great”), and of his intimate friend, Gregory Nazianzen (“of Nazianzus”). Basil doctored Origen’s work in order to be able to quote exactly the forged part under our consideration [if it was him who really wrote it, which in this case seems highly possible, as to keep “his own interests”, it is, his position as bishop in Caesarea, as we will see later, in other evidences taken from Basil’s pen], 3a) “Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXVIII… 73… It is, if I am not mistaken [Basil says it in insincerity, as quoting it by memory], in the Sixth Book of his [Origen’s] Commentary on the Gospel of St. John that he distinctly makes the Spirit an object of worship. His [Origen’s] words are:--"The washing or water is a symbol of the cleaning of the soul which is washed clean of all filth that comes of wickedness; but none the less is it also by itself, to him who yields himself to the God-head of the adorable Trinity, through the power of the invocations, the origin and source of blessings" [a “very good memory of Basil”, as he pretends to be quoting it by memory, but history shows to us a different picture]… And again, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans…” [and that was also forged by another hand: Rufinus’], ironically Basil continues, being aware of that forgery, but trying to deceive attention on it as forgery, "The rest of the passages may peradventure be viewed with suspicion… really have been altered… [Basil knew] the fact of their having been tampered with... Those however which I [Basil] have quoted at length are out of the reach of any dishonest manipulation [at the easy reach of Basil’s “sincere” hand and memory], and can easily be verified from the actual works [he secured himself the words being present there]...", then Basil quotes, even after his own words on tampering, a spurious document as a solid and consistent “proof” for the use of the complete trinitarian formula, "…Who was the author of these words of thanksgiving at the lighting of the lamps, we are not able to say. The people, however, utter the ancient form, and no one has ever reckoned guilty of impiety those who say "We praise Father, Son, and God's Holy Spirit…" [to answer Basil, as he knew and feared it in his own time, opposing writings and persons have been systematically blotted out by the organized “church”, being Arius the best known example for Basil. Later, Servetus followed the same fate as Arius, under the "religious" and "institutional" hands of Calvin. A spurious reference very similar to that spurious allusion of Basil [who by the way is also a “doctor of the catholic church” (or we may say, a “doctorer”) and a “catholic saint”] can be seen at the end of this web page (that says “III. Prayer of Incense. We shall repeat the hymn to Thy glorious Trinity, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”), spurious document that later was “baptized” with the fictitious name of “The Liturgy Of The Blessed Apostles. Composed By [the fictitious and non-existent, as even Basil had said “who was the author… we are not able to say”, but even though, “sanctified” by the catholic church] “St. Adaeus And St. Maris,” Teachers Of The Easterns”]”, in the same work, Basil is the only one that uses the more complex expression, 3b) “adorable and blessed Trinity”, in: “…45. …One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity…” [in that same book Basil mentions the adulterated form of Mt. 28:19 as “60...Nevertheless, though the word is naturally thus auspicious, yet if any one likes, in the ascription of praise, to couple the names by the syllable "and," and to give glory, as we have taught in the Gospel, in the formula of baptism, Father and Son and Holy Ghost...”, however, Athanasius does not mentions even once as a Trinitarian proof Mt. 28:19 (as is forged now) in his “Four Discourses Against the Arians”, rather, he quotes Mt. 28:19 in the next way: Discourse I. Chapter XIII 59. (8.) “…all the earth has been filled with the knowledge of God , and the disciples have made disciples of all the nations, and now is fulfilled what is written, 'They shall be all taught of God' ”… Discourse IV. 32. “…Irrationally then do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, 'Go ye, teach all nations.' ”. If Athanasius completed the last part of that book actually in 358 A. D., and Basil wrote his own book (here quoted) in 374, there were 16 years in whose the adulteration of Mt. 28:19 was increasingly been present in more and more manuscripts. For 383 A. D., when Jerome publishes his version of the New Testament of the Vulgate, under the orders of Damasus, Mt. 28:19 is fixed in its forged form in an “official version”, as present in the Latin official catholic Bibles and continued being widespread through all Roman catholic communities. In the Council of Arminium-Seleucia (359 A.D.), Mt. 28:19 is already quoted twice in its altered form; however in the Council of Ephesus, under Celestine I (431 A.D.), Mt. 28:19 is not quoted as the maximal and final “proof” for the doctrine of the trinity, rather Celestine I, in his letter says: “For true is that which we read, since the Truth cannot lie, to wit, the promise of the Gospel; "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And since this is so, if the Holy Spirit is not absent from so small a number how much more may we believe he is present when so great a multitude of holy ones are assembled together! Every council is holy on account of a peculiar veneration which is its due; for in every such council the reverence which should be paid to that most famous council of the Apostles of which we read is to be had regard to. Never was the Master, whom they had received to preach, lacking to this, but ever was present as Lord and Master; and never were those who taught deserted by their teacher. For he that had sent them was their teacher; he who had commanded what was to be taught, was their teacher; he who affirms that he himself is heard in his Apostles, was their teacher. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common, for by right of inheritance we are bound to undertake this solicitude, whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in their stead for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations." You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he Titus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labours, since we are the successors in their honour. And we shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which, according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down…” (The Letter Of Pope Celestine To The Synod Of Ephesus). Finally, as Conybeare noticed, even for a later period: “baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid, as the canon of the Synod of Nemours (1284) expresses it: “Dicimus, infantem baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi”. In some measure this decision of the Popes explains that the text of Mt. 28:19 was not yet authoritatively fixed by the church” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 286).”]
4- Then we found “adorable Trinity” in “Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XLII The Last Farewell, In The Presence Of The One Hundred And Fifty Bishops. 7. …former things were owing to our wickedness, the present things to the adorable Trinity…”.
5- (5a and 5b, being both the same expression of “Adorable Trinity”) - The next culprit is Jerome, which, balancing his quote with those of Basil “the Great” of Caesarea and of Gregory Nazianzen, quotes the spurious expression twice, and only in his: 5a) “Letter To Pammachius, Against John Of Jerusalem (written about the year 398 or 399) 8. …the answer we get is, "We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity are of the same substance; that they are co-eternal, and of the same glory and Godhead, and we anathematize those who say that there is any greatness, smallness, inequality, or aught that is visible in the Godhead of the Trinity…”, and in his same letter, 5b) “13. …Our custom is, for the space of forty days, to deliver public lectures to those who are to be baptized on the doctrine of the Holy and Adorable Trinity…”
6- The next document quoting it is, “Cyril Of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures, Five Catechetical Lectures Of The Same Author, To The Newly Baptized. Lecture Xix. First Lecture On The Mysteries. With A Lesson From The First General Epistle Of Peter, Beginning At: Be sober, be vigilant, to the end of the Epistle… 7. …the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ…”, where the also spurious doctrine of the “transubstantiation” gets attached unto the spurious expression under our consideration.
7- Our last and eight reference (counting the two different ones found in the same letter of Jerome) that was quoting exactly “Adorable Trinity” is from “The Third Ecumenical Council. The Council Of Ephesus. A.D. 431 Emperors.--Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. Pope.--Celestine I. Extracts From The Acts. Session II (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 609.)… Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod...”, notice here that the words “adorable Trinity” here proceed from the mouth of Philip the presbyter, to see the sheer contrast with the letter sent by Celestine himself to them, go to Appendix 1.
8- (being this also as 3b, a Basil’s composite expression)- The only one place in which we were able to find other composite expression “adorable and holy Trinity”, was, yes, it was again (as in the case of the other only one use of the composite expression “adorable and blessed Trinity”) only one time in Basil bishop of Caesarea again, and this time in a letter that bears a significant title, as if the people of his see were making him accountable of forgery (we must remember that Eusebius Pamphili, who quoted Mt. 28:19 in its right way, it is in the name of Jesus and not “in the name of the trinity”, had been there as Bishop before Basil) “Basil’s Letter VIII. To the Coesareans (Caesareans). A defence of his withdrawal...12. …So much must suffice for the present on the subject of the adorable and holy Trinity. It is not now possible to extend the enquiry about it further. Do ye take seeds from a humble person like me, and cultivate the ripe ear for yourselves, for, as you know, in such cases we look for interest…”
Also, the only one place in which we found that only the two words added to the word “adorable” by Basil, which are “holy” and “blessed”, used by Basil within the expression “adorable and -_______- trinity” was in other workk associated to Basil and written by his friend Gregory of Nazianzen at Basil’s death, in it we found another abomination of the catholic church, and that is the idea that dead people still alive on heaven (Basil died on January 1, A.D. 379. A serious illness, in addition to other causes, prevented Gregory Nazianzen from being present at his funeral), instead of believing in the Bible that clearly teaches that dead people is dead (as sleeping), until the second coming of Christ Jesus, even Enoch is dead, as Hebrews 11:13 says “these all died”, after mentioning Enoch in verse 5. “Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XLIII (The Panegyric On S. Basil)…82. …And if we be translated [it is to die], do thou [Basil, as if Basil were alive “on heaven”, according to Gregory Nazianzen and to the catholic church and according to the evil seances] receive us there also in thine own tabernacle. That, as we dwell together, and gaze together more clearly and more perfectly upon the holy and blessed Trinity, of Which we have now in some degree received the image...” [This Gregory Nazianzen, even with his spiritualistic, non biblical beliefs in the dead as being alive right now and with his Trinitarian, non Biblical neither, discourse is also considered a “doctor of the catholic church” and is their “saint”]
Then we decided to track historical quotations of other particular expression “blessed trinity” and we found it not to be very frequent:
1- (1a, 1b and 1c) - Only in the headings of Tertullian’s two works [if they really did came of his pen], 1a) “Against Praxeas, Chap. IX.--The Catholic Rule Of Faith Expounded In Some Of Its Points. Especially In The Unconfused Distinction Of The Several Persons Of The Blessed Trinity”, 1b) “Against Praxeas, Chap. XXXI.--Retrograde Character Of The Heresy Of Praxeas. The Doctrine Of The Blessed Trinity Constitutes The Great Difference Between Judaism And Christianity.” Postscript. [Dr. Holmes, the translator of the Second volume of the Edinburgh series, to which our arrangement has given another position, furnished it with a Preface as follows: "THIS volume contains all Tertullian's polemical works (placed in his second volume by Oehler, whose text we have followed)... [showing] independence of [Tertullian] judgment, adorned with admirable variety and fulness of knowledge, genial humour, and cultivated imagination." Elucidations. I. (Sundry doctrinal statements of Tertullian. See p. 601 (et seqq.), supra.)… Dr. Holmes appends the following from Bishop Kaye's Account of the Writings of Tertullian: "On the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, in order to explain his meaning Tertullian borrows illustrations from natural objects…” 1c) “On The Flesh Of Christ, Chap. XVIII.--The Mystery Of The Assumption Of Our Perfect Human Nature By The Second Person Of The Blessed Trinity. He Is Here Called, As Often Elsewhere, The Spirit.”
2- (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e) - Basil’s Letters, 2a) “Letter XCI. To Valerianus, Bishop of Illyricum. …may the wicked and deceitful heresy of the Arian error be quenched; may the good teaching of the Fathers, who met at Nicaea, shine forth; so that the ascription of glory may be rendered to the blessed Trinity in the terms of the baptism of salvation”, 2b) “Letter CXL. To the Church of Antioch. …nothing in the divine and blessed Trinity is created.” 2c) “Letter CLIX. To Eupaterius and his daughter. …the divine and blessed Trinity, nor accept those who rashly reckon it as part of creation”, 2d) “Nine Homilies Of Hexaemeron, Homily II. "The earth was invisible and unfinished." …the Spirit which completes the divine and blessed Trinity.already” [in 2b, 2c and 2d, we can see other of Basil’s engineered more complex expressions, “divine and blessed Trinity”], 2e) also seen under 3b, in the category of “adorable… Trinity” above, “Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, : “…45. …One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity…”
3- (3a and 3b) - Gregory Nazianzen, 3a) “Oration II. In Defence Of His Flight To Pontus, And His Return, After His Ordination To The Priesthood, With An Exposition Of The Character Of The Priestly Office… 36. …His incarnation, sufferings and dissolution… to crown all, with what we are to think of the original and blessed Trinity…” [a composite expression of Gregory Nazianzen only once used here can be seen in his, “original and blessed Trinity”], and already seen above, 3b) “Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XLIII (The Panegyric On S. Basil)…82. …And if we be translated [it is to die], do thou [Basil, as if Basil were alive “on heaven”, according to Gregory Nazianzen and to the catholic church and according to the evil invocation of dead people, that actually is an invocation of demons, also called spiritualism with a the medium in séances] receive us there also in thine own tabernacle. That, as we dwell together, and gaze together more clearly and more perfectly upon the holy and blessed Trinity, of Which we have now in some degree received the image...” [Gregory Nazianzen, Orations XXVII and XXVIII (Theological Orations), Introduction To The " Theological" Orations…In the mind of Gregory, the Orthodox doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is the fundamental dogma of Christianity]
4- (4a and 4b) Augustin's, 4a) “On Christian Doctrine, Book I (of four). Chap. 33.--In What Way Man Should Be Enjoyed… 37... to enjoy it. And this we must never do except in the case of the Blessed Trinity, who is the Supreme and Unchangeable Good”, 4b) “A Treatise On The Soul And Its Origin, By Aurelius Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo, In Four Books, A.D. 419 (Book Ii In The Shape Of A Letter Addressed To The Presbyter Peter). Chap. 5 [III.]--In What Sense Created Beings Are Out Of God… God is its Creator, even the blessed Trinity…”
5- Athanasius’ “Four Discourses Against The Arians (Written Between 356 And 360), Discourse I Chapter VI. Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son's eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His coessentiality; as the Creator; One of the Blessed Trinity…”
6- “Letters Of The Blessed Theodoret, Bishop Of Cyrus, Letter CXXV. To Aphthonius, Theodoritus, Nonnus, Scylacius, Apthonius, Joannes, Magistrates of the Zeugmatensis.... you do not suffer the number of the blessed Trinity to be diminished or increased. For it is diminished by those who ascribe the passion of the only begotten to the Godhead…” [Theodoret writings were once also anathematized as Origen’s ones were]
7- “Leo The Great, Sermon LXXV. (On Whitsuntide, I.) III. The three Persons in the Trinity are perfectly equal in all things. …And so whatever loyal hearts can conceive of the Father's eternal and unchangeable Glory, let them at the same time understand it of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any separation or difference. For we confess this blessed Trinity to be One God for this reason, because in these three Persons there is no diversity either of substance, or of power, or of will, or of operation.”
The expression of “divine trinity” was found in:
1- An anonymous Ancient Syriac Document: Martyrdom Of The Holy Confessors Shamuna, Guria, And Habib, From Simeon Metaphrastes …they laid him [Habib] by the side of Shamuna and Guria, to the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who constitute a Divine Trinity, which cannot be divided: to whom is due honour and worship now and always, and for evermore, Amen. Such was the close of the life of the martyr Habib in the time of Licinius…”
2- (2a and 2b) - In two chapter headings of the spurious 2a) “The Epistle Of Ignatius To Polycarp Shorter And Longer Versions, Book XI. Chap. 24.--Of The Divine Trinity, And The Indications Of Its Presence scattered Everywhere Among Its Works.”, and 2b) “Chap. 28.--Whether We Ought To Love The Love Itself With Which We Love Our Existence And Our Knowledge Of It, That So We May More Nearly Resemble The Image Of The Divine Trinity” [Even knowing that the Ignatian epistles were a forgery Athanasius don’t ceases to quote from them: “47. Ignatius, for instance, who was appointed Bishop in Antioch after the Apostles, and became a martyr of Christ, writes concerning the Lord thus: 'There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, originate and unoriginate, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God…”(in: De Synodis -- Councils Of Ariminum And Seleucia (Written 359, added to after 361.))]
3- (3a and 3b) - From a fragmentary document of one “Dionysius”, 3a) “The Works Of Dionysius. Extant Fragments. Part I.--Section III.--From The Books Against Sabellius & Section IV.--Epistle To Dionysius Bishop Of Rome From The Fourth Book, About The Middle Of The Treatise. 15. If, from the fact that there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or no, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether.” 3b) “And Again: For on this account after the Unity there is also the most divine Trinity”.
[“Dionysius of Alexandria, Saint, often known as Dionysius the Great (circa 190-264), theologian. A pupil of the great churchman Origen, he was placed in charge of the catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt, in 231. Sixteen years later he was made bishop of Alexandria. Under the persecutions of Decius, emperor of Rome, beginning in 251, he sought refuge in the desert. He was banished six years later when Valerian was emperor. In 260 Dionysius returned to Alexandria. He participated in the controversies of his period, particularly in that concerning the status of those, known as lapsi (Latin, “fallen ones“), who had forsworn their faith during persecution. Dionysius advocated that the lapsi be treated with leniency (indulgently, not severely)” ("Dionysius of Alexandria, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
4- Quoting Dionysius, Basil says in his, “Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXIX. 72. Dionysius moreover in the middle of his treatise thus writes in opposition to the Sabellians, "If by the hypostases being three they say that they are divided, there are three, though they like it not. Else let them destroy the divine Trinity altogether." And again: "most divine on this account after the Unity is the Trinity." Clement, in more primitive fashion, writes, "God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost."
5- (5a and 5b) - An anonymous Athanasian document 5a) “Against The Sabellians / Confession Of Our Christian Faith, Commonly Called The Creed Of St. Athanasius..1. …it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God; and thus that the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, as if into a certain head...” 5b) “3. ...the doctrine of the divine Trinity, and the sacred announcement of the monarchy.”
6- Augustin's “Lectures Or Tractates On The Gospel According To St. John. Tractate LXXVII. Chapter XIV. 25-27. …He [Jesus] had also already said above of the Holy Spirit, "But ye shall know Him; for He shall dwell with you, and shall be in you" (ver. 17): by which we understood that the divine Trinity dwelleth together in the saints as in His own temple…”
7- Ambrose’s “Three Books On The Holy Spirit -- By St. Ambrose Bishop Of Milan To The Emperor Gratian, Book III, Chapter XII. 86. …BUT does any one deny that the Godhead of the eternal Trinity is to be worshipped? whereas the Scriptures also express the inexplicable Majesty of the Divine Trinity…” [Ambrose is considered as a “doctor of the catholic church”, however, Jerome (another “doctor of the catholic church”) defined Ambrose as a “black crow”: “25. You observe how he [Jerome] treats Ambrose. First, he [Jerome] calls him a crow and says that he is black all over…”; Rufinus' Apology, Book II 23-25. Jerome's attack upon Ambrose, etc., Jerome’s Letter XL, etc…”]
8- John Of Damascus: “An Exact Exposition Of The Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter X. Concerning the Trisagium ("the Thrice Holy"). …that the "Trisagium" refers not to the Son alone, but to the Holy Trinity, the divine and saintly Athanasius and Basil and Gregory, and all the band of the divinely-inspired Fathers bear witness: because, as a matter of fact, by the threefold holiness the Holy Seraphim suggest to us the three subsistences of the superessential Godhead. But by the one Lordship they denote the one essence and dominion of the supremely-divine Trinity. Gregory the Theologian of a truth says, "Thus, then, the Holy of Holies, which is completely veiled by the Seraphim, and is glorified with three consecrations, meet together in one lordship and one divinity." This was the most beautiful and sublime philosophy of still another of our predecessors.”
9- (9a, 9b and 9c) - Leo The Great, 9a) “Letter XV. To Turribius, Bishop Of Asturia, Upon The Errors Of The Priscillianists. II. The Priscillianists' denial of the Trinity refuted. And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity…”; 9b) “Letter XXXVII. TO Theodoslus AUGUSTUS. Leo to Theodosius Augustus. Unity of Faith is essential but the point at issue hardly required a general council, it is so clear. On receiving your clemency's letter, I perceived that the universal Church has much cause for joy, that you will have the Christian Faith, whereby the Divine Trinity is honoured and worshipped…”; 9c) “Leo The Great, Sermon LXXV. (On Whitsuntide, I.) III. The three Persons in the Trinity are perfectly equal in all things. …in the Divine Trinity nothing is unlike or unequal, and all that can be thought concerning Its substance admits of no diversity either in power or glory or eternity…”
10- The “Seventh” Ecumenical Council--The Second Council Of Nice, Excursus On The Council Of Frankfort, A. D, 794. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. vii, col. 1057): "II. The question was brought forward concerning the recent synod which the Greeks had held at Constantinople concerning the adoration of images, that all should be judged as worthy of anathema who did not pay to the images of the Saints service and adoration as to the Divine Trinity. Our most holy fathers rejected with scorn and in every way such adoration and service, and unanimously condemned it."
Other binary expressions found in less than ten documents, that clearly show the presence of the “philosophies of men”, of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, can be seen in the spurious “doctrine of the trinity”, in all the next statements never to be found in the Bible but only in the early church writers (to see the most common expression “holy trinity”, go to the end of Appendix 3):
A. The expression “incomprehensible trinity”? :
A1 - "...the uncreate and incomprehensible Trinity, Which is of One Eternity and Glory, admits neither difference of time nor degree of precedence..." (Ambrose's Exposition Of The Christian Faith, Book IV. Chapter XI. 147. [this is the only place that uses the expression of “uncreate and incomprehensible Trinity”]; other quotation of the same book: “92. The Substance of the Trinity is, so to say, a common Essence in that which is distinct, an incomprehensible, ineffable Substance…” (Chapter VIII))
[“Ambrose (340-97), “doctor of the church”, was educated in Rome. His father was prefect of Gaul. Ambrose studied law, entered the civil service, and about 370 was appointed a consular magistrate in Upper Italy, with his headquarters at Milan. In this office, the people called him to be bishop of Milan in 374. As bishop, he defended the churches of Milan against the introduction of Arian doctrines. Ambrose is best known as the sympathizing friend of Monica, mother of St. Augustine, and as the one who received Augustine into the church” ("Ambrose, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
A2 - "...this may be perceived throughout the whole of creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the reverse..." (John Of Damascus (John Damascene): An Exact Exposition Of The Orthodox Faith, Book I. Chapter VIII. Concerning the Holy Trinity. Marg. MS. Concerning the distinction of the three subsistences: and concerning the thing itself and our reason and thought in relation to it [only place that uses the far fetched “holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity”, or the “superessential and incomprehensible Trinity” expression contained within]; other places in the same book: “…the Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible…” (Chapter I. That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with tire things which have not been delivered to us…), “We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple [???], uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence; and that He is known, and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit…”(Chapter II. Concerning things utterable and things unutterable, and things knowable and thinks unknowable), “It is plain, then, that there is a God. But what He is in His essence and nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable... God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility…” (Chapter IV. Concerning the nature of Deity: that it is incomprehensible), “We have, then, adequately demonstrated that there is a God, and that His essence is incomprehensible…” (Chapter V. Proof that God is one and not many), “God, Who is without time and beginning, passionless, not liable to flux, incorporeal, alone and without end, generation is without time and beginning, passionless and not liable to flux, nor dependent on the union of two: nor has His own incomprehensible generation beginning or end...The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone...For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son...it is quite impossible to find in creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in all details the nature of the Holy Trinity... (Chapter VIII. Concerning the Holy Trinity)” [and that is “why” Augustin and others contradict John of Damascus by profusely using natural illustrations to “explain” the trinity], “The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things...it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowledge of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable…” (“Further and more accurately concerning divine names”), “the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and containing all things, and in no wise apprehended. For He alone is incomprehensible and unbounded, within no one's knowledge and contemplated by Himself alone…” (“Marg. MS. Concerning the place of angel and spirit, and concerning the uncircumscribed”), and finally, in “Rufinus' Apology, Book I”: “4… These men [Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius, one of whom was then a presbyter of the church under Valerian of blessed memory, the second was archdeacon, the third Deacon] so taught me [Rufinus], and so I believe, namely, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one Godhead, of one Substance: a Trinity coeternal, inseparable, incorporeal, invisible, incomprehensible, known to itself alone...")
[A “philosophical doctrine of men” inherited from Philo of Alexandria and from Gnostic Jewish and catholic writers is the “incomprehensible Trinity”, but even if being totally “incomprehensible” to themselves, they wrote so many treatises with so many complex and composite trinitarian words, as to confound believers and to locate the pernicious doctrine of the trinity as a “cornerstone for catholics and for other of its followers”. Other places, with the “first use” to be found in a spurious document: “On commemorations and Fridays. Thy name, great and holy, illustrious and blessed, the blessed and incomprehensible name of Thy glorious Trinity, and Thy kindness to our race, we ought at all times to bless, adore, and glorify, O Lord of all” (The Spurious Liturgy Of The Blessed Apostles. Composed By St. Adaeus And St. Maris, Teachers Of The Easterns); and “no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person… The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity; he, wholly and alone, is to be worshipped and revered with adoration…” (The Definition Of The Holy, Great, And Ecumenical Seventh Synod) [“non-circumscribed Trinity” is only used here]. You can see the origins of the trinity in the “imaginations of men” (that we are tracking back to its earliest sources here to OPEN the eyes of the true believers on the pure and non-adulterated Word of God), and firstly is even absurd that you found the doctrines of the trinity “fully developed” in spurious, dubious and fraudulent documents, and from there, they tampered with the Bible itself, in Mt. 28:19, in 1 Jn. 5:7-8, in 1 Tim. 3:16, etc…]
[“John Damascene (675-749, “doctor of the church”) opposed and fought the edicts of the Byzantine emperor Leo III against the veneration of statues and images; he was able to do so with impunity because he was not Leo's subject. He spent the rest of his life in religious study, except for a period shortly before his death, when he journeyed throughout Syria preaching against the iconoclasts [the people fighting against the introduction of idolatry into the catholic church, but John Damascene was pro-idolatry]. John was considered one of the ablest philosophers of his day and was known as Chrysorrhoas (Greek, “Golden Stream”) because of his oratorical ability. He was the author of the standard textbook of dogmatic theology in the early Greek church. His textbook, called “Source of Knowledge”, is divided into three parts: Heads of Philosophy, Compendium of Heresies, and An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith. The third and most important section contains a complete theological system based on the teachings of the early Greek church fathers and church synods from the 4th to the 7th century. John of Damascus is considered a saint by both the Roman Catholic church and the Greek church” ("John of Damascus, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
[The word “incomprehensible” means: not understandable, mysterious, baffling, inconceivable, not conceivable, unintelligible, unfathomable, recondite, inscrutable]
B. “Unchangeable trinity” plus Simple trinity:
B1 - (with the sub-theme of the Simple trinity) - “Heading of Chap. 10.--Of The Simple And Unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, One God, In Whom Substance And Quality Are Identical” “…is alone simple... that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself...He is equally with them the simple Good...this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity...we say it is simple, because it is what it has...It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple... the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God...those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical... Chap. 23... accept with a good and simple faith this so good and simple a reason…” (Spurious document: The Epistle Of Ignatius To Polycarp Shorter And Longer Versions. Book XI [the only place in which we read of the spurious and opposite expression “Simple And Unchangeable Trinity”, this is one of the ten times that here, the word “simple” is associated with the doctrine of the trinity, in opposition to A1 and A2, where on using complex subtleties, Ambrose and John of Damascus stated categorically that the trinitarian doctrine is actually the one of the “incomprehensible Trinity”, but here the adulterer is making Ignatius say that this trinitarian doctrine is actually the one of the “Simple… Trinity”; similar statement of the trinity being “simple”, in opposition of “the doctors” Ambrose and John of Damascus [even this author contradicts himself in the expression that we saw before (in A2): “We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible…”], are present in the monk “Ursinus”: “…the simple confession of the Holy Trinity…” [is simple to confess something incomprehensible?, or for a believer, to confess something “non Biblical”?], Chapter XXVII of Gennadius' Illustrious Men; the hands of Cyprian and Augustine can be seen on the tampering of the “sarcastic, aggressive and specious works of Tertullian”, as Augustin does not even quote Tertullian (~160-220 A.D.) “the first important ecclesiastical writer in Latin”, when Augustin himself presents his “own and original interpretation” of Gen. 1:26 (Augustine Confessions (401 A.D.), Book XIII. Chapter XXII), we found that the same and wrong statement is present in Tertullian: “Chap. XII. If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness" (Gen. 1:26)…” [the light of the Word of God shines different on it, as stated in Appendix 3]; Hilary of Poitiers also adds his own imaginations on his “bulky” XIII Volumes “On The Trinity”: “Book I: 22. After this short and simple discourse concerning the Trinity, the third book makes further progress, sure though slow... 34. First came simple instruction for the untaught believer in the birth, the name, the Divinity, the true Divinity of Christ... 36... and the mystery, pure and undefiled, of the Trinity... has been fixed…”; then, here are “the subtle opinions” of Gregory Nazianzen: “X. …the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten... XXI... we at any rate will hold fast to the Trinity, and by the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and without offence... (Oration XXIX, The Third Theological Oration, On the Son)”, “II. …we find here clearly both the Created and the Begetteth… the argument is simple... XX. In my opinion He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence... such is the nature of simple Existences [of God, the Father and of Jesus, his son], that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should rather be called Identical than Like…”; and finally, there is Tyrannius Rufinus, in his “Rufinus' Apology, Book II” “9 (2). He [Jerome] condemns as heathenish unobjectionable views which he himself holds. ...in accordance with the character of the Trinity, which is good and simple and unchangeable...”, Rufinus contradicted himself in his Book I, as we saw in A, when he says “I believe,… that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one Godhead, of one Substance: a Trinity coeternal, inseparable, incorporeal, invisible, incomprehensible, known to itself alone..."”other Rufinus’ quotations can be seen in Appendix 1)
[The word “Simple” can mean: single, not compound or complex, mere, unqualified, unassuming, common, ordinary, plain, unadorned, sincere, straightforward, unpretentious, humble, of low rank, unlearned, unsophisticated, foolish, lacking sense, unimportant, insignificant, innocent, guileless, uninvolved, intelligible]
B2 - "...we shall see this not only incorporeal but also absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far more clearly..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book XV. Chap. 23. 44. [Only place of the tumultuous expression “absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity”, and its cognates “indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity”, and “truly unchangeable Trinity”])
B3 - "...to say nothing of the Divinity of the Almighty, and the Unity of the Unchangeable Trinity, who can easily perceive by knowledge what the soul is..." (Augustin’s Sermons On Selected Lessons Of The New Testament. Sermon XXI. On The Words Of The Gospel, Matt. XII. 32,31. [only place of the expression “Unity of the Unchangeable Trinity”])
B4 - "...For in this frame of mind he extricates himself from every form of fatal joy in transitory things, and turning away from these, fixes his affection on things eternal, to wit, the unchangeable Trinity in unity..." (Augustin's On Christian Doctrine: Book II. Chap. 7.--10. [only place of the expression “unchangeable Trinity in unity”, other way to say the same thing as in D3])
B5 - "...For your realm is then in its best state when men serve the eternal and unchangeable Trinity by the confession of one Godhead..." (Leo The Great. Letter XXIV. To Theodosius Augustus II. Leo the bishop, to Theodosius Augustus. I. He praises the Emperor's piety and mentions Eutyches' appeal [only place of the expression of (if really written by Leo) “eternal and unchangeable Trinity”])
B6 - "...The impassible Son of God, therefore, whose perpetually it is with the Father and with the Holy Spirit to be what He is in the one essence of the Unchangeable Trinity..." (Leo “The Great”. Letter LIX. To The Clergy And People Of The City Of Constantinople. Leo the bishop to the clergy, dignitaries, and people, residing at Constantinople. III. Perfect God and perfect Man were united in Christ [only place of the expression “essence of the Unchangeable Trinity” and its longer cognates (in purple color)])
C. “Innefable trinity”:
C1. “Sabellius... impiously confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity…” (The Seven Books Of John Cassian On The Incarnation Of The Lord -- Against Nestorius, Book I. Chapter II. Description of the different heretical monsters which spring from one another [only use of “holy and ineffable Trinity”]).
C2. “…the Creator, that is, of the supreme and ineffable Trinity, we either simply, without any doubt, believe, or, in addition to this, with some degree of intellectual apprehension, understand…” (Letter CLXIX. (A.D. 415.) Bishop Augustin To Bishop Evodius. Chap. III. 11 [only use of “supreme and ineffable Trinity”])
[The word “ineffable” means: unspeakable, inexpressible, too sacred for utterance]
D. “Consubstantial trinity”:
D1 - “Perhaps these three persons of our ancestors, being in an image the consubstantial representatives of humanity, are, as also Methodius thinks, types of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, the innocent and unbegotten Adam being the type and resemblance of God the Father Almighty, who is uncaused, and the cause of all; his begotten son shadowing forth the image of the begotten Son and Word of God; whilst Eve, that proceedeth forth from Adam, signifies the person and procession of the Holy Spirit. (Two Fragments, Uncertain. II. Spurious attributed to Methodius. Three Fragments From The Homily On The Cross And Passion Of Christ And Other Fragments)”
[“Cyril (827-869) and Methodius (826?-884), brothers, born in Thessaloníka, Greece, known as the “apostles of the Slavs.” In 860 they were part of a mission sent by the Byzantine emperor Michael III, called The Drunkard, to the Khazars, a Tatar people who tolerated all faiths and whose ruler practiced Judaism. In 862-863, preparatory to undertaking a mission to Greater Moravia (now Slovakia and the eastern region of the Czech Republic) in answer to a request from the Moravian ruler to Emperor Michael, Cyril created a Slavonic alphabet. It was the alphabet, of very restricted present-day use, known now as Glagolitic, and not, as was formerly supposed, the Cyrillic alphabet. Over the next several years, in Moravia, the brothers translated books of the New Testament into the vernacular, using these translations to develop a Slavonic liturgy. They were called to Rome by Pope Nicholas I to account for their use of the vernacular in church services. Pope Nicholas I died before they reached Rome and Adrian II, his successor, approved the Slavonic liturgy. Cyril died in Rome. Methodius returned to Moravia, extending his missionary work, and was appointed archbishop in 869” ("Cyril (827-869) and Methodius (826?-884), Saints," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
D2 - (D2a and D2b) - D2a "...effected in thy womb the generation of the mighty King. Through thee, O thou that art highly favoured, is the holy and consubstantial Trinity known in the world. Together with thyself..." (Four Homilies. The First Homily. On The Annunciation To The Holy Virgin Mary); D2b "...to bestow the baptism of the consubstantial Trinity upon all men..." (The Fourth Homily. On The Holy Theophany, Or On Christ's Baptism) [Spurious writings attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus]
D3 - “[In] Alexandria... [Athanasius]... asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity...” (The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus, Book III. Chapter VII.)
D4 - (D4a and D2b) - D4a "I implore your blessedness, therefore... by the consubstantial trinity, to authorize me by letter either to use or to refuse this formula of three hypostases... the Campenses... with their allies the heretics of Tarsus only desire... their traditional doctrine..." (Jerome's Letter XV. To Pope Damasus. 5.) [This letter, written in 376 or 377 A.D., illustrates Jerome's attitude towards the see of Rome at this time held by Damasus... Referring lo Rome as the scene of his own [Jerome's] baptism... Jerome asks… two questions, viz.: who is the true bishop of the three claimants of the see of Antioch, and which is the correct terminology, to speak of three "hypostases" in the Godhead, or of one? On the latter question he [Jerome] expresses fully his own opinion (together with other writings of Jerome, we can perceive Jerome’s hand under Damasus authorization, in the adulteration, by insertion, of the trinitarian formula in Mt. 28:19; as we can see the hand of Erasmus of Rotherdam, under “ecclesiastical catholic authorization”, to adulterate 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the XVI Century”)]; D4b “"I [Jerome] am called a heretic, although I preach the consubstantial trinity... The Arians do right to accuse me... They may, if they like, condemn me as a heretic; but if they do they must also condemn Egypt and the West, Damasus and Peter. Why do they fasten the guilt on one and leave his companions uncensured? If there is but little water in the stream, it is the fault, not of the channel, but of the source..." (The Letters Of St. Jerome, Letter XVII. To The Presbyter Marcus. 2. Written in A.D. 378 or 379)”
[“Damasus I, (circa 304-84), pope (366-84), during whose pontificate Latin became the principal liturgical language in Rome, replacing Greek. Damasus, a Spaniard, vigorously defended the ecclesiastical primacy of Rome, asserting its precedence over Constantinople. Indeed, he was the first pope to apply the term Apostolic See to Rome. Pope during a troubled period in the history of the church, Damasus was active in suppressing a number of heresies, particularly Arianism. He took a special interest in providing adequate housing for the papal archives and in restoring the catacombs. He also commissioned St. Jerome, his secretary and adviser, to revise the existing Latin text of the Bible; that revision became known as the Vulgate” ("Damasus I, Saint," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)]
D5 - (D5a and D5b) – D5a "If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema..." (The Capitula Of The Council. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.) I.), D5b "If anyone shall say that... the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world... let him be anathema" (The Anathemas Against Origen. VI.) [The “Fifth” Ecumenical Council. The Second Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 553. Emperor.--Justinian I. Pope.--Vigilius. (This other anathema against Origen also supports the observation that he could not have been the original writer of the adulterous full passage that Basil attributes to Origen himself, see above, this rather seems to be Basil’s own tampering hand or a later one)]
D6 - “Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity, God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, in the last days of the world for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God…” (The “Sixth” Ecumenical Council. The Third Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 680-681. Emperor.--Constantine Pogonatus. Pope.--Agatho I. [The Letter Of Agatho And Of The Roman Synod Of 125 Bishops Which Was To Serve As An Instruction To The Legates Sent To Attend The Sixth Synod. (Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 677 et seqq., and in Migne, Pat. Lat. Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1215 et seqq. This last text, which is Mansi's, I have followed. Agatho's Letter opens with a number of compliments to the Emperor, much in style and matter like the introduction of the preceding letter. I have not thought it worth while to translate this, but have begun at the doctrinal part, which is given to the reader in full. (Labbe and Cossart, col. 682.) In this “Sixth” Council (as in the next) we found the antichristian abomination to call Mary “the Mother of God”, with the “pope and the ecclesiastical approval”]
D7 - "...we confess that one of the same holy and consubstantial Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ the true God, in these last days was incarnate..." (Extracts From The Acts. Session IV), "We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined…", "Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema" (The Decree Of The Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, The Second Of Nice; quotations from “The “Seventh’ Ecumenical Council. The Second Council Of Nice. A.D. 787. Emperors -- Constantine VI. And Irene. Pope. – Hadrian”) [At the close of the Session, after a number of anathematisms had been pronounced, the following was read, to which all the bishops subscribed (col. 317). Among numerous passages of the Fathers one was read from a sermon by St. Gregory Nyssen (of Nyssa) in which he describes a painting representing the sacrifice of Isaac and tells how he could not pass it "without tears" (In this council idolatry was canonized by the catholic church)]
[We can see in the previous quotations the close association of the doctrine of the trinity with the abominations on calling Mary the “mother of God” and the abomination of the canonization of such idolatries by the catholic councils; in four of them is the complex expression “Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” marked the words “holy and…” in purple, and the related expression “holy consubstantial Trinity”, one time, marked with brown color]
E. Augustin is the only one using the expression “almighty trinity”:
E1 - “How like or how unlike these things are to the Almighty Trinity is no concern of mine at present; but in the very creatures of the lowest order, and subject to change, we do find three things which may be separately exhibited, whose operation is yet inseparable” (Augustin’s Sermons On Selected Lessons Of The New Testament. Sermon Ii [Lii. Ben.]. Of The Words Of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. III. 13, "Then Jesus Cometh From Galilee To The Jordan Unto John, To Be Baptized Of Him." Concerning The Trinity. 19.)
E2 - “Which of us understandeth the Almighty Trinity? And yet which speaketh not of It, if indeed it be It? Rare is that soul which, 'while it speaketh of It, knows what it speaketh of. And they contend and strive, but no one without peace seeth that vision. I could wish that men would consider these three things that are in themselves. These three are far other than the Trinity; but I speak of things in which' they may exercise and prove themselves, and feel how far other they be." But the three things I speak of are, To Be, to Know, and to Will” (The Thirteen Books Of The Confessions Of St. Augustin (401 A.D.), Bishop Of Hippo. Book XIII. Of The Goodness Of God Explained In The Creation Of Things, And Of The Trinity As Found In The First Words Of Genesis… Chap. XI. --That The Symbols Of The Trinity In Man, To Be, To Know, And To Will, Are Never Thoroughly Examined. 12.)
F. Augustin also is the only user of the expression “omnipotent trinity”:
F1 - "...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one and the same substance, God the Creator, the Omnipotent Trinity, work indivisibly..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book IV. Chap. 21. [30, which starts in Chap. 20])
G. Augustin (Augustine) is also the main user of the expression “supreme trinity”, so we can see exactly the same Augustin’s “supreme” thoughts in the forgery of spurious “earlier” or “older” document, forgery “necessary for catholic leadership”, on Athanasius and on his fellows pressure and prompting, to support the Nicence Creed of the fourth century:
G1 - “And we indeed recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God, or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,--being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,--is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer resemblance…” (The Spurious Epistle Of Ignatius To Polycarp Shorter And Longer Versions. Book XI. Chap. 26.--Of The Image Of The Supreme Trinity, Which We Find In Solve Sort In Human Nature Even In Its Present State.)
G2 (G2a and G2b) - G2a "We ought not therefore so to understand that man is made in the image of the supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of God, as that the same image should be understood to be in three human beings...” G2b “…each person also is God in the supreme Trinity itself..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book XII Chap. 7. 9.)
G3 - “For the Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father; but the Father is neither born of, nor proceedeth from, another. And yet surely there should not on that account occur to human thought any idea of disparity in the supreme Trinity; for both the Son is equal to Him of whom He is born, and the Holy Spirit to Him from whom He proceedeth” (Augustin’s Lectures Or Tractates On The Gospel According To St. John. Tractate XCIX. Chapter XVI. 13. 4.)
G4 - "And thus we are made to understand that the intelligent creation, which constitutes the free Jerusalem,(9) ought to be subordinate in the order of speech to the Creator, the Supreme Trinity..."; "The temple of God, then, that is, of the Supreme Trinity as a whole, is the Holy Church, embracing in its full extent both heaven and earth" (St. Augustin: The Enchiridion (On Faith, Hope, And Love) -Chap. 56.)
G5 - "Book I. In Which The Unity And Equality Of The Supreme Trinity Is Established From The Sacred Scriptures, And Some Texts Alleged Against The Equality Of The Son Are Explained" (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity. [in the Head-Title of Book I, only place of the expression “Unity And Equality Of The Supreme Trinity”])
G6 - “…we do not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God” (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book V. Chap. 8. 9. [this is the only place in which we have the expression “very Supreme Trinity”, similar to the expression found in Cyril of Jerusalem “Very God Before All Ages”, also used in the first version of the Nicene creed])
G7 - "...there is a further question also respecting the supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God the Creator, after whose image man is made, which troubles men..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book IX. Chap. 12. 17.)
G8 - "Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days' sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed. Or, if any one should perhaps think that this is done out of veneration for the supreme Trinity, neither so is there any objection to immersing the person to be baptized in the water once, since, there being one substance in three subsistence" (Register Of The Epistles Of Saint Gregory The Great, Book I. Epistle XLIII. To Leander Bishop Of Hispalis (Seville). Gregory to Leander, &c. [with his confusing wordings and doctrines, and this Gregory “the Great” is also defined as “doctor of the catholic church”])
[The expression “supreme Trinity itself” appears only in Augustin writings three times (emphasized in purple color in the previous quotations, as if Augustin not knowing how to express better the deceiving doctrine of the trinity, either as “himself”, “herself”, or maybe as “themselves”; but rather, he decided to describe it by using the word “itself”)]
H. And “sacred trinity”:
H1 - "...also in this place they are not only said to hymn with their praises the divine substance of the divine unity, but also the glory to be adored by all of that one of the sacred Trinity, which now, by the appearance of God in the flesh, hath even lighted upon earth..." (The Spurious Oration attributed to Methodius, Concerning Simeon And Anna On The Day That They Met In The Temple. II.)
H2 - "...Every proposition has either a "genus" which is predicted, or a "species," or a "differentia," or a "proprium," or an "accidens," or that which is compounded of these: but none of these can be supposed to exist in the sacred Trinity..." (The Ecclesiastical History--By Socrates Scholasticus, Book III. Chapter VII.)
I. The expression “perfect trinity” and its spurious documents:
I1 - "Peace to you, and to all who believe in one God, perfect Trinity, true Father unbegotten, true Son only-begotten, true Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son, in order that there may be shown one Holy Spirit subsisting in the Father and Son in precious Godhead" (Spurious Acts And Martyrdom Of The Holy Apostle Andrew)
I2 - "There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged" (Part I. --- Acknowledged Writings (Spurious writing Attributed To Gregory Thaumaturgus). A Declaration Of Faith [Elucidation... God the Son, who is through all. A perfect Trinity, which neither in glory, eternity, or dominion is divided, or departed from itself])
I3 - "...we must apprehend the perfect Trinity in its natural and genuine glory, or we shall be under the necessity of speaking no more of a Trinity, but only of a Unity..." (Part II.--Dubious Or Spurious Writings, Also Attributed Once To Gregory Thaumaturgus. A Sectional Confession Of Faith. V.)
I4 - "...the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours..." (The Treatises Of Cyprian: Treatise IV.--On The Lord's Prayer. 34.)
I5 - "...Therefore, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be known only in a perfect Trinity..." (Gregory of Nyssa, On The Holy Spirit Against The Followers Of Macedonius)
I6 - "...mayest thou cast upon us from above [again the heresy on thinking that dead people stills alive and not "sleeping" until the coming of Christ, as the Bible teaches] a propitious glance, and conduct this people in its perfect worship of the perfect Trinity, which, as Father, Son, Holy Ghost, we contemplate and adore..." (Gregory Nazianzen, Oration Xxi On The Great Athanasius, Pope Of Alexandria. 37 [only place of the expression “worship of the perfect Trinity” and its pleonasm found in its longer cognate, in purple])
I7 - "...but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ His Only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Ghost; one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity, baptized into which, and in it united to the Deity..." (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica (Written About 369 -- To The Bishops Of Africa, Letter Of Ninety Bishops Of Egypt And Libya Including Athanasius). 11. Godhead of the Spirit also involved in the Nicene Creed [only place of the expression “holy and perfect Trinity”])
I8 - "We confess Father, Son, and Spirit, understanding in a perfect Trinity both fulness of Divinity and unity of power" (Ambrose's Exposition Of The Christian Faith, Book I. Chapter I. 10. [Ambrose was described as a "black crow" by Jerome, but is considered a "saint" and a “doctor” for the catholic church])
J. The expression “eternal trinity”, a doctrine that thanks God, one good day in the future will cease, being no more forever:
J1 - "...And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honour...." (On The Trinity. Fragment From The Discourse. Spurious Attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus)
J2 - "But does any one deny that the Godhead of the eternal Trinity is to be worshipped?..." (Three Books On The Holy Spirit -- By Ambrose Bishop Of Milan To The Emperor Gratian, Book III. Chapter XII. 86 [only place of the expression “the Godhead of the eternal Trinity is to be worshipped”, and its shorter cognates, in purple])
J3 - "...For the Son is always with the Father, and in the Father--with the Father, by virtue of the distinction, without division, proper to the Eternal Trinity; in the Father, by reason of the essential unity of the Divine Nature..." (Ambrose's Exposition Of The Christian Faith, Book IV Chapter VIII. 89.)
J4 - "...the blasphemy of the Eunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi… divides the substance, the nature, and the godhead, and super-induces on the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity a nature posterior, created and of a different substance..." (The “Second” Ecumenical Council. The First Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 381. Emperor.--Theodosius. Pope.--Damasus. Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 382 (That's The Other Date That Appears There) The Synodical Letter [original site of the expression “uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity” and its shorter cognates, also quoted by Theodoret])
J5 - (being this a quotation of J4) - "...the blasphemy of the Eunomians, of the Arians, and of the Pneumatomachi is nullified, which divides the substance, the nature and the godhead and superinduces on the uncreated consubstantial and co-eternal trinity a nature posterior, created and of a different substance..." (The Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret, Book V. Chapter IX. Synodical letter from the council at Constantinople)
J6 - "I know the strength and stability of your faith, and have been filled with the greatest possible delight, for, since we worshippers of the eternal Trinity constitute one body..." (Letters Of The Blessed Theodoret, Bishop Of Cyrus CXXV. To Aphthonius, Theodoritus, Nonnus, Scylacius, Apthonius, Joannes, Magistrates of the Zeugmatensis) [only place of the expression “worshippers of the eternal Trinity”]
J7 - “…the nature of the Only-begotten is the nature of the Father, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and that the undivided unity and consubstantial equality of the eternal Trinity is at once impassible and unchangeable…” (Leo The Great, Letter CXXIV. To The Monks Of Palestine. Leo, the bishop, to the whole body of monks settled throughout Palestine. II. Eutyches, who confounds the persons, is as much to be rejected as Nestorius, who separates them) [only place of the expression “the undivided unity and consubstantial equality of the eternal Trinity” and its shorter cognates, in purple]”
K. And “high Trinity”?
K1 - "...besides this one consubstantial, eternal, and unchangeable Godhead of the most high Trinity there is nothing in all creation which, in its origin, is not created out of nothing..." (Leo “The Great”, Letter XV. To Turribius, Bishop Of Asturia, Upon The Errors Of The Priscillianists. Leo, bishop, to Turribius, bishop, greeting. VI.) [only place of the expression “most high Trinity”]
L. The word “victorious trinity” was also found only once:
L1 - "...the holy, victorious Trinity, the creator of all things..." (The “Seventh” Ecumenical Council. The Second Council Of Nice. A.D. 787. Emperors -- Constantine VI. And Irene. Pope. -- Hadrian. Chapter XVII. Examination Of The Caroline Books. III. Contents of the Caroline Books [this council is the one in which idolatry was accepted and canonized by the catholic church, chapter XVII talks of all contradictions and mistakes within it (only place of the expression “holy, victorious Trinity”, or its cognates)])
M. “Indivisible trinity”:
M1 - "...Arius the heresiarch, the divider of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity..." (The " “Genuine” Acts Of Peter, Archbishop Of Alexandria" [only place of the complex expression “consubstantial and indivisible Trinity”])
M2 (M2a and M2b) - M2a "...For we know well that you and all your family are, and have been, worshippers of the indivisible Trinity.” M2b “But human error insinuates itself in other forms than in erroneous opinions concerning the indivisible Trinity..." (Letters Of St. Augustin. Letter CLXXXVIII. (A.D. 416.). To The Lady Juliana...Chap. III. 10 [only place of the expression “worshippers of the indivisible Trinity”])
M3 - "But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book XV. Chap. 27. 48. [only place in which the expression “unchangeable and indivisible Trinity” and its longer cognates (marked in purple color) appears])
M4 - "...seeing the faith of princes opposed to him and the indivisible Trinity of the one Godhead as devoutly worshipped in palaces as in churches..." (Leo The Great, Sermon XXXVI. On The Feast Of The Epiphany, VI. III.)
N. We only found also the expression “glorious trinity” SIX TIMES (showing even there its antichristian number) in a spurious source, indeed every document that speaks of a trinity or that mentions its formula is spurious according to the standards of the Bible, no matter if it is called “orthodox”:
N - (N1 to N6 in same document) - “On common days. Adored, glorified, lauded, celebrated, exalted, and blessed in heaven and on earth, be the adorable and glorious name of Thine ever-glorious Trinity, O Lord of all. On commemorations and Fridays. Thy name, great and holy, illustrious and blessed, the blessed and incomprehensible name of Thy glorious Trinity, and Thy kindness to our race, we ought at all times to bless, adore, and glorify, O Lord of all. III. Prayer of Incense. We shall repeat the hymn to Thy glorious Trinity, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the Priest begins the responsory of the mysteries, and the Sacristan and Deacon place the disk and the chalice upon the altar. The Priest crosses his hands, and says:-- We offer praise to Thy glorious Trinity at all times and for ever. And he unites the two parts, the one with the other, saying:-- Divided, sanctified, completed, perfected, united, and commingled have been these renowned, holy, life-giving, and divine mysteries, the one with the other, in the adorable and glorious name of Thy glorious Trinity, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...On ordinary days. Praise, O Lord, honour, blessing, and thanksgiving we ought to ascribe to Thy glorious Trinity for the gift of Thy holy mysteries...”; other pieces of that spurious work “"The Priest says this prayer in secret: O Lord, mighty God, help my weakness through Thy clemency and the aid of Thy grace; and make me worthy of offering before Thee this oblation, as for the common aid of all, and to the praise of Thy Trinity, O Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"; "And standing, he says in secret: Worthy of glory from every mouth, and of thanksgiving from all tongues, and of adoration and exaltation from all creatures, is the adorable and glorious name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"; "Then he draws nigh to the fraction of the host, which he accomplishes with both his hands, saying: We draw nigh, O Lord, with true faith, and break with thanksgiving and sign through Thy mercy the body and blood of our Life-giver, Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" ” (The Spurious Liturgy Of The Blessed Apostles. Composed By St. Adaeus And St. Maris, Teachers Of The Easterns. See note on this document in Appendix 3) [Wrong practices directed towards wrong doctrines and wrong doctrines towards the adulteration of the Bible itself. This particular spurious doctrine of the “glorious Trinity” only present six times in this early spurious document, associated to the “divine mysteries” and to the “secrets” of the pagans (gnostics and philosophers), doesn’t have nothing of “glorious”, as it is one more of the doctrines of men associated with the “trinity”, and ”it is only awaiting for theologians of the “caliber” of Basil, Augustin, Athanasius, Cyprian, Jerome, Rufinus, Calvin, Gill, Robertson, etc., to became even more dense doctrines of men “fully evolved and developed”, to still deceive, even to some of the most intelligent Bible scholars, and that in blatant opposition to the pure and simple, and non adulterated Word of God…]
O. “Invisible trinity” only in Augustin:
"...the invisible Trinity wrought the visible person of the Son alone..." (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book II. Chap. 10--Whether God The Trinity... 18)
P. “Inseparable trinity”:
P1. "…This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered…" (The Fifteen Books Of Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop Of Hippo, On The Trinity: Book XV. Chap. 17. 29)
P2. "...even thus might be prefigured the future revelation of the Father and Son, whose spirit is the Holy Spirit of the inseparable Trinity? So it is written: " In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established"..." (Augustin's Reply To Faustus The Manichaean. [Contra Faustum Manichaeum, A.D. 400) Book XVI, 13)
P3. "...though they are an inseparable Trinity, yet they are a Trinity..." (Letter CLXIX. [A.D. 415] Bishop Augustin To Bishop Evodius. Chap. II. 5)
P4 – (P4a and P4b) - P4a - "...The Son came separately in the MMan; The Holy Spirit descended separately from heaven in the form of a Dove; The Voice of the Father sounded separately out of heaven, "This is My Son" Where then is this inseparable Trinity?...", P4b - "…therefore I abstract my mind from the multiplicity of things, and gather it up into the One God, the inseparable Trinity, that so I may see something which I may say of it..." (Augustin's Sermons On Selected Lessons Of The New Testament. Sermon II. Of The Words Of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chap. III. 13, "Then Jesus Cometh From Galilee To The Jordan Unto John, To Be Baptized Of Him." Concerning The Trinity. [Sermon II. LII. Ben.] 3)
P5. "...Where is that inseparable Trinity? ..." (Augustin's Lectures Or Tractates On The Gospel According To St. John. Tractate XXI. Chapter V. 20-23. 2.)
P6. "I swear by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the inseparable Trinity of Divine Power, and by this body of the blessed martyr Apollinaris..." (Register Of The Epistles Of Gregory “The Great”, Book VI. Epistle LXI. To Castorius, Notary)
P7. "...The Son, therefore, was not separated from the Father, nor the Father from the Son; and the unchangeable Godhead and the inseparable Trinity did not admit of any division..." (Leo The Great, Sermon LXVIII [On The Passion, XVII.: delivered on the Wednesday] I. Christ's Godhead never forsook Him in His Passion [this contradicts the erroneous rendering of “…Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?…” (Mt 27:46, Mk 15:34), who must be translated as: “…Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, my God, for this I was spared!… (“This was my destiny!”)”, according to Lamsa’s “Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, the Peshitta, of the Church of the East”])
P8 – (P8a and P8b) – P8a - "...we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and substance or essence, so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory...the will is natural, where the one nature of the holy and inseparable Trinity is spoken of, it must be consistently understood that there is one natural will, and cue natural operation..." (The Letter Of Pope Agatho [Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1161; L. and C., Tom. VI., col. 630]); P8b - "...not a subsistency of three names, but one substance of three subsistences; and of these persons one is the essence, or substance or nature, that is to say one is the godhead, one the eternity, one the power, one the kingdom, one the glory, one the adoration, one the essential will and operation of the same Holy and inseparable Trinity, which hath created all things, hath made disposition of them, and still contains them. Moreover we confess that one of the same holy consubstantial Trinity, God the Word… was incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, that is to say according to the flesh which was born of her; and was truly made man, the same being very God and very man. God of God his Father..." (The Letter Of Agatho And Of The Roman Synod Of 125 Bishops Which Was To Serve As An Instruction To The Legates Sent To Attend The Sixth Synod. (Found in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 677 et seqq., and in Migne, Pat. Lat. Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1215 et seqq. [This last text, which is Mansi's, I have followed]), both in: The “Sixth” Ecumenical Council. The Third Council Of Constantinople. A.D. 680-681 Emperor.--Constantine Pogonatus. Pope.--Agatho I)
ETC… (Enough! here with this Note on the multiple imaginations of those earlier "dogmatic wolves")
Tasters of the Word (YouTube), videos recientes: "Astronomía y Nacimiento de Jesucristo: Once de Septiembre Año Tres A.C.", "Estudio sobre Sanidades" (en 20 episodios), "Jesus Christ, Son or God?" and "We've the Power to Heal":
Tasters of the Word (the blog, with: "Astronomy and the Birth of Jesus Christ"):