Third section the judgment upon the church itself second picture of judgment

All power is given unto Me.—Expression of His glorification and victory. “It is an unwarranted rationalizing explanation, when this expression is made to mean simply, either potestas animis hominum per doctrinam imperandi (Kuinoel), or full power to make all the preparations necessary for the Messianic theocracy (Paulus). It is the munus regium Christi, without limitation.” Meyer. According to the doubts of the later Ebionites, Christ must share the power given Him by God, in heaven with the angels, on earth with Moses. [With the resurrection and ascension Christ took full possession, as the Godman, of that δόξα which, as λόγος ἄσαρκος, or according to His eternal Divine nature, He had before the foundation of the world, John 17:5; Luke 24:26; Philippians 2:9-11; Ephesians 1:20-23.—P. S.]

Matthew 28:19. Go ye (therefore).—Οὖν is a gloss, but a correct one; for the majesty of Christ is the ground both for His sending, and for their allowing themselves to be sent. [Alford, a dignitary of the Church of England, says of these words of the great commission, that they were “not spoken to the apostles only, but to all the brethren.” He also remarks on the connection between ἐξουσία and μαθητεύσατε: “All power is given Me—go therefore and—subdue? Not so: the purpose of the Lord is to bring men to the knowledge of the truth—to work on and in their hearts, and lift them up to be partakers of the Divine nature! And therefore it is not ‘ subdue,’ but ‘make disciples of.’ ”—P. S.]

Make disciples of, μαθητεύσατε—Luther’s translation: lehret, is incorrect.^[FN48] So also is the Baptist exegesis: In every case, first complete religious instruction, then baptism. To make disciples of, involves in general, it is true, the preaching of the Gospel; but it marks pre-eminently the moment when the non-Christian is brought to a full willingness to become a Christian, that Isaiah, has become, through repentance and faith, a catechumen. This willingness, in the case of the children of Christian parents, is presupposed and implied in the willingness of the parents; for it is unnatural and unspiritual to treat children as if they were adults, and Christianity as if it were a mere school question, when the parents do not decide unhesitatingly in favor of Christianity as the religion of their children, and do not determine to educate them accordingly. Hence the children of Christian parents are born catechumens, or subjects of Christian instruction. The Holy Scriptures everywhere place the spiritual unity of the household in the believing father or believing mother, representing this as the normal relation.

All nations.—Removal of the limitations laid down in Matthew 10:5, according to the statements contained in Matthew 25:32; Matthew 24:14. By this, the universality of the apostolic commission is established. The question, how the Gentiles are to be received into the Church, is not yet answered, though the unconditioned reception of believers is found in the appointment, that nations, as nations, are to be christianized, without being first made Jews; that they are to be marked out as Christians by baptism, without any reference to circumcision. The development of this germ is left by the Lord to the work of the Spirit. The revelation recorded Acts 10, is the Spirit’s exegesis of the already perfect commission, and not a continuation or expansion of that commission, which was completed with the work of Christ. We cannot, therefore, assume that the Apostles, up to that time, held circumcision to be a necessary condition of baptism, or reception into the Church; they were merely in the dark regarding this question, until the Holy Spirit explained the word of Christ unto them.

Baptizing them.—Or, more correctly according to the reading βαπτίσαντες: having baptized them.^[FN49] But μαθητεύειν is not completed in baptism. Rather are there two Acts, a missionary and an ecclesiastical,—the antecedent baptism, the subsequent instruction. [Meyer: “βαπτίζοντες, etc, by which the μαθητεύειν is to be brought about, not what is to take place after the μαθητεύσατε, which would require μαθητεύσαντες-βαπτίζετε.” Alford: “The μαθη τεύειν consists of two parts—the initiatory, admissory rite, and the subsequent teaching. It is much to be regretted that the rendering of μαθ., ‘ teach,’ has in our Bibles clouded the meaning of these important words. It will be observed that in our Lord’s words, as in the Church, the process of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to instruction—i. e., is admission in infancy to the covenant, and growing up into τηρεῖν πάντα, κ. τ. λ.” But this applies only to Christian churches already established. As the Jewish religion commenced with the promise of God, and the faith and circumcision of adult Abraham, who received circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant already established ( Romans 4:11) for himself and for his seed, so the Christian Church was founded in the beginning, and is now propagated in all heathen countries by the preaching of the Gospel to, and by the baptism of, adults. Infant baptism always presupposes the existence of a responsible parent church and the guaranty of Christian nurture which must develop and make available the blessings of the baptismal covenant. Hence the preponderance of adult over infant baptism in the first centuries of Christianity, and in all missionary stations to this day. But even in the case of adult converts, a full instruction in the Christian religion and development of Christian life, does not, as a rule, precede, but succeed baptism, which is an initiatory, not a consummatory rite, the sacramental sign and seal of regeneration, i. e., of the beginning of the new life, not of sanctification or growth and perfection in holiness.—P. S.]

In [or rather with reference to, or into] the name of.^[FN50]—That Isaiah, in the might of, and for, the name, as the badge and the symbol of the new Church. Εἰς τό. “Note,” says Meyer, “that the liturgical formula, In nominee, In the name, rests entirely upon the incorrect translation of the Vulgate.” Yet, not so entirely, because the expression ἐν τψ͂ ὀνόματι is found in Acts 10:48 (compare Matthew 3:11). De Wette and Meyer explain εἰςτό, with reference to the name. But εἰς τό, in other passages, means either the element into which one is baptized ( Mark 1:9, εἰς τὸν ’Ιορδάνην; Romans 6:3, εἰς τὸν θάνατον); or the object, εἰς μετάνοιαν, Matthew 3:11; Acts 2:38, εἰς ἄφεσιν; or the authority of the community, under which and for which one is baptized (εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν, 1 Corinthians 10:2). The last meaning is probably the prominent one in this passage: a baptism under the authority of, and unto the authority of the triune God, as opposed to the baptism in and for the authority of Moses. But, as the context shows, we have expressed likewise the idea of being plunged into the name of the Three-one God, as the element, and the dedication of the baptized unto this name.^[FN51] The expression, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, Acts 2:38, brings out most fully the idea of the authority, in virtue of which, or the foundation upon which, baptism is administered. In so far, now, as baptism has the Triune name as ground, means, and object, the combined signification of εἰς may be partially explained by with, reference to; more distinctly, however, in the name of: that Isaiah, upon the ground of this name, in the might of this name, as dedicated unto this name, or for this name. Meyer: “The name of the Father, etc, is to be the object of faith, and the subject of confession.” This expresses only the third conception, and that but half. Upon the import of the name, see Commentary on Matthew 4:9 [p125]. ^[FN52] The name refers to each of the Persons of the Godhead. The plural form, τὰ ὀνόματα, would have pointed to Tritheism; while the singular, in its distributive application to Father, Song of Solomon, and Spirit, brings out in the one name the equality as well as the personality, of the three Divine Names in one name.^[FN53] In an emphatic sense, may it also be said, that τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον is a “distinctively Christian characteristicum of the Spirit” ( John 7:39).

We must dissent from Meyer, when he maintains that the passage is “improperly termed the baptismal formula,” assigning as reason that “Jesus does not, assuredly, dictate the words which are to be employed in the administration of baptism. (No trace is to be found of the employment of these words by the Apostolic Church: compare rather the simple form εἰς Χριστόν, Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27; βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα X, Acts 8:16; and ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι X, Acts 2:38.) It is the telic import [or intention] of the baptismal act that is given in this expression. Consult Reiche, De Baptism, orig., etc, Göttingen, 1816, p141. It was only at a later period that the baptismal formula was drawn up according to these words (see Justin. Apol. i61), just as was the baptismal confession of the three articles.” But it is exactly this gradual development of the apostolical confession of faith which conducts us back to the germ, which we find here deposited in the New Testament. A baptism in the name of Christ is conceivable only when that confession was accompanied by the acknowledgment of the Father and the Holy Spirit; and this Song of Solomon -called “telic import” points us back to the homogeneous foundation upon which that import rests. It is true, indeed, that the apostolic age was not bound to formulas, as stiff and dead formulas. Otherwise, Meyer is right in defending, against the objections of de Wette, Strauss, and others, the historical truth of this direction of Christ. This is not the only instance in which we have presented a mere specially defined statement of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and of the essential points of the Christian confession (see 2 Corinthians 13:13; 1 Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:11; Titus 2:13, etc.). [Comp, the Doctrinal Thoughts, below, sub No6.]

Matthew 28:20. Teaching them.—These words mark on the one hand, the continuation of the apostolic activity, after that μαθητεύειν and βαπτίζειν had preceded; upon the other, the course of the Christian, which should run on parallel to this activity. The statement concerning the new ἐντολή, John 13:34, which refers undoubtedly to the institution of the Holy Supper, shows us, that all things commanded by Christ concentrate in the truth, and the spiritual observance of that Supper as necessarily following baptism and the establishment of the visible church. See the author’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1330.

[We should not overlook that there is no καί before διδάσκοντες, so that baptizing and teaching are not strictly coördinate, as two successive acts and means of Christianizing the nations; but the teaching is a continuous process, which partly precedes baptism, as a general exhibition of the gospel with the view to bring the adults to the critical turning point of decision for Christ, and submission to His authority, and partly follows baptism, both in the case of adults and infants, as a thorough indoctrination in the Christian truth, and the building up of the whole man unto the full manhood of Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Since the eleven apostles and other personal disciples of our Lord could neither baptize nor teach all nations, it is evident that He instituted here the office of a continuous and unbroken preacherhood (not priesthood in the Jewish or Romish sense) and teacherhood, with all its duties and functions, its privileges and responsibilities; and to this office He pledged His perpetual presence to the end of time, without the intermission of a single day or hour.—P. S.]

[All things, whatsoever I have commanded you.—The doctrines and precepts of Christ, nothing ness and nothing more, are the proper subjects of Christian faith and practice, and constitute the genuine Christian tradition to be handed down from age to age, as distinct from those pseudo-Christian traditions of men which were added to the gospel, as the pseudo-Jewish traditions of the Pharisees and elders were added to the Old Testament, and “made the word of God of none effect,” Matthew 15:6.—P. S.]

And, lo.—Excitation and encouragement to fulfil the apostolic commission, and the duties of the Christian life, which are here enjoined.^[FN54]

I am with you.—Not merely through the agency of the power which has been given Me, but still more in the other person of the Holy Spirit, or the Paracletos ( John 14:16; John 14:26, etc.), and in My own personal agency, through My word ( John 14:23) and sacrament ( Matthew 26:28). There is reference also to their vital union to, and communion with, Him, in the might of His Spirit ( John 14:20; John 16:22), and of His life ( John 15:5). [Alford: “ ‘I,’ in the fullest sense: not the Divine Presence as distinguished from the Humanity of Christ. His Humanity is with us likewise. The vine lives in the branches.…The presence of Christ is part of the ἐδόθη above—the effect of the well-pleasing of the Father. So that the mystery of His name, ἐμμανουήλ, is fulfilled—God with us.”—P. S.]

[With you.—Wordsworth, like the Romish interpreters, erroneously confines μεθ̓ ὑμῶν to the apostles and their successors in office. Let us quote Alford, also a dignitary of the Episcopal Church, against him: “To understand μεθ̓ὑμῶν only of the apostles and their (?) successors, is to destroy the whole force of these most weighty words. Descending even into literal exactness, we may see that διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὐμῖν, makes αὐτούς into ὑμεῖς, as soon as they are μεμαθητευμένοι. The command is to the Universal Church—to be performed, in the nature of things, by her ministers and teachers, the manner of appointing which is not here prescribed, but to be learnt in the unfoldings of Providence recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, who by His special ordinance were the founders and first builders of that Church—but whose office, on that very account, precluded the idea of succession or renewal.” In a general sense, however, the apostolic office—the only one which Christ founded, but which was the fruitful germ of all other ministerial offices (the presbyterate and deaconate)—is truly and really continued, with all its necessary functions for the preservation and propagation of the church, in the ministerial or pastoral office. In this passage the apostles and other disciples (there were, probably, more than five hundred in all, comp. 1 Corinthians 15:6) appear as the representatives of the whole ministry of the gospel, and in a wider sense of the whole church over against the unchristian world, which is to be christianized by them. As the Saviour prayed not for the apostles alone, “but for them also that shall believe on Him through their word, that they all may be one” ( John 17:20-21), so the promise of His abiding presence is to all ministers of the gospel and to the whole Church they represent. Christ has abundantly proved, and daily proves, His blessed presence in non-episcopal, as well as episcopal churches, even where only two or three humble disciples are assembled in His name ( Matthew 18:20), and it is our duty and privilege, in the spirit of true evangelical catholicity, to acknowledge and revere the footprints of our Saviour in all ages and sections of Christendom, whether Greek, or Latin, or Anglican, or Protestant.—P. S.]

Alway.^[FN55]—The words: πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, every day, mark not only every year which will elapse till the world’s end, as years of redemption, but also every day, even the darkest, as days of redemption. [Alford: “All the appointed days—for they are numbered by the Father, though by none but Him.” Wordsworth: “I shall never be absent from you a single day; I shall never be absent in any of the days of the greatest trial and affliction of the Church; but I shall remain with her till the last day, when you will see Me again in bodily presence.”—P. S.]

Unto the end of the world.—That Isaiah, until the completion or consummation of the secular æon, or the period of time which comes to an end with the parousia, and involves the end of the present world itself. Hence this fact is also included, that Christ accompanies His own, when they go to the most remote boundaries of the world to preach the Gospel. [The word unto (ἕως) does not set a term to Christ’s presence, but to His invisible and temporal presence, which will be exchanged for His visible and eternal presence at His last coming. Now Christ is with us, then when He shall appear in glory, we shall be with Him where He is ( John 17:24), and shall see Him as He is ( 1 John 3:2). Comp. Bengel, who remarks to ἕως: “Tum enim nos erimus cum Domino.”—P. S.]

On account of this all-encompassing, this heaven-and-earth-including presence of Christ, the fact of the personal ascension is omitted by our Evangelist, which is done also by John, as a point which is self-evidently comprehended in this omnipresence. [The fact itself of the ascension is clearly implied, not only in this verse, but also in other passages of this Gospel, as Matthew 22:44; Matthew 24:30; Matthew 25:14; Matthew 25:31; Matthew 26:64.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The mountain in Galilee.—The appearance of the risen Lord upon this mountain recalls in its every part the transfiguration upon the mountain in Peræa, and also Peter’s confession, which preceded that transfiguration. Hence it Isaiah, it seems to us, that tradition has connected the second event with the first, in regard to the locality, and has named Mount Tabor as the scene of the transfiguration. Upon this occasion we have a repetition of both the solemn confession and the transfiguration. The two scenes agree in kind, but this present one surpasses in degree. There, Peter confessed: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;” here, a disciple-band of more than five hundred believers fall in adoration at the feet of the risen Lord. There, Christ confirmed Peter’s confession, as a revelation from the Father; here, He declares: “All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth.” There, He proclaimed the institution of His Church (ἐκκλησία) upon the foundation of this confession; here, He appoints His disciples apostles unto all nations, while these nations were to take the place of the disciples (μαθητεύσατε), He institutes holy baptism, and recalls the more special institution of the ministerial (teaching) office ( John 20:21), and of the Holy Supper (see above, Exeg. Notes).—And as He made manifest, upon the Mount of Transfiguration, His connection with the heavenly world of spirits, and with the entire past of God’s kingdom (Moses and Elijah), so He certifies here His connection with the entire future of God’s kingdom, His eternal presence in the Church in this world, by means of these words: “Lo, I am with you every day till the completion of the æon, of the world’s course and time.”

2. When Matthew mentions in this passage only the Eleven, he will merely mark them out as the leaders öf the Galilean disciple-procession, but in no sense as those to whom the institutions of the glorified Lord were exclusively entrusted. Gerlach is of the opinion, that the principal, the predominating thought with Matthew, was the office of public teacher; “and hence it is that all the appearances of our Lord, which were enjoyed by different parties, are omitted.” But Matthew reports even an appearance of Jesus unto the women. If Matthew here records (as Gerlach himself admits) the same meeting of Jesus with the disciples which is mentioned by Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:6, it follows that the Lord himself here committed His formal institutions and commissions to the whole assembled Church, with the Apostles at her head, just as He at a later date poured out His Spirit upon the whole assembled Church. And from this, then, we argue, that, according to the law of Christ, the apostolic office and the Church are not two divided sections. In the commission to teach and to baptize, the apostolical community is one, a united apostolate, involving the Church, or, a united Church, including the Apostles. In this unity we may unquestionably mark the distinction between the leader and the led, which comes out in a more positive way in the entrustment to the Apostles of the official keys ( Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; John 20:21). But that is an organic contrast, arising from, and conditioned by, the unity of the apostolic communion ( 1 Corinthians 5:4).

3. The declaration of Christ: “All power,” etc, and His command to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Song of Solomon, etc, as also the fact that He received the adoring homage of His disciples, show clearly that He presented Himself, not only in the majesty of His exalted humanity, but also in the brightness of His divinity. In the words: “is given unto Me,” there Isaiah, undoubtedly, emphasis laid upon His mediatorial relationship, which is frequently illustrated by the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 15:28; Ephesians 1:20; Philippians 2:9 ff.); but, at the same time, with equal distinctness is the homoousia (or co-equality) of Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit expressed in the second name of the baptismal formula. Under the old economy, the predominant reference in all the divine government was to the glorification of the Father; under the new economy, to that of the Son; while, in the final completion, the Father shall be glorified with the Son in the glorification of the Holy Spirit.

4. It is manifest that the kingdom which Christ here describes is not only a regnum gratiœ;, but also a kingdom of power, and a kingdom of glory; but it does not manifest itself as three distinct kingdoms, but the power which He manifests is subservient to the interests of the kingdom of grace, and the kingdom of grace finds its end and completion in the Kingdom of glory (see the author’s Positive Dogmatik).

5. That the Anabaptists appeal for their views without sufficient reason to Matthew 28:19, has been often enough pointed out (see the Exeg. Notes). But, upon the other hand, it is clearly presupposed in μαθηεύσατε, that persons are to be induced to be baptized by the use of gospel means, not by forcible conversion,—are not to be made catechumens by compulsion; and also, that baptism can be administered to children really only upon the ground of a truly Christian family, or at least of a god-parentship (sponsorship) which represents spiritually such a family. On the baptism of children, consult W. Hoffmann: Gespräche über Taufe und Wiedcrtaufe; Culmann Welche Bewandtniss hat es mit der Taufe? Stressburg, 1847; the writings of Martensen, Rudelbach, etc. [Comp. also, on the pœdo-Baptist side of the question: P. Schaff: History of the Apostolic Church, New York ed, 1853, § 142, 143, pp569–581; P. Schaff: History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, New York, 1859, p 122 ff.; W. Wall (Episcopalian): The History of Infant Baptism, 2d ed, Oxford, 1844, 4vols.; Samuel Miller (Presbyterian): Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable, etc, Philad, 1840; W. Nast (Methodist): A Dissertation on Christian Baptism, Cincinnati, 1864 (at the close of his Com. on Matthew, p641–652). On the Baptist side of the question, both in regard to infant baptism and immersion, compare the learned and able works of Alexander Carson: Baptism in its Mode and Subjects, 5th Am. ed, 1850, and, as regards the mode of baptism, Dr. T. J. Conant: The Meaning and Use of Baptizein Philologically and Historically Investigated, being an Appendix to his revised Version of the-Gospel of Matthew, New York, 1860, and also separately printed by the Am. Bible Union New York, 1861.—P. S.]

6. In (into) the name.—As we saw before, the name is not the essence itself, but the expression, the manifestation of the essence, among those of God’s intelligent creatures who name the name. So then, In (into) the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Triune, signifies: 1. The ground; (a) objectively: according to His Revelation, under His authority, by reason of His command, and agreeably to His institution; (b) subjectively: upon the confession of this name2. The means; (a) objectively: into the revelation of His name as the spiritual element; (b) subjectively: for the revelation of His name in the actual confession3. The object; (a) objectively: for the glorification of the Triune name in the subject baptized; (b) subjectively: for the happiness^[FN56] of the baptized in the Triune name. All the significations are combined in, and expressed by εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. Gerlach says: “To do something in the name of God, means, not only: upon His commission, but to do it in such a manner that the power and being of God Himself shall appear as working in the transaction. Thus: to bless in the name of the Lord ( 2 Samuel 6:18; Psalm 129:8); to adjure one in the name of the Lord ( 1 Kings 22:16); to curse one ( 2 Kings 2:24); above all, to pray in Jesus’ name ( John 16:23).” The person baptized Isaiah, accordingly, “fully committed unto the Father, the Song of Solomon, and the Holy Spirit—consecrated, made over to experience the blessing, the redeeming and sanctifying influences, of each of the three Persons; hence, also, he is even named by the name of the Lord ( Isaiah 43:7; Isaiah 63:19; Jeremiah 15:16).”

Baptism Isaiah, after the analogy of the circumcision, a covenant transaction, more particularly the dedicatory covenant transaction, the sacrament of regeneration, to which the Lord’s Supper corresponds, as the completed covenant Acts, as the sacrament of sanctification. Baptism represents the birth, the Supper the festive manifestation of Christianity. Considered in this light, however, we must bring out prominently these three points: (1) God in this covenant is its author, who invites, reconciles, lays down conditions, and that all the vows and performances of men are to rest upon God’s promises. (2) The promises of God are promises and assurances of the Father, the Song of Solomon, and the Holy Spirit, in which the personal Father, the Song of Solomon, and the Holy Spirit, specializing and individualizing the Gospel, makes Himself over, with all His own peculiar gifts, to each individual subject of baptism; the Father, with the blessing of creation and regeneration; the Song of Solomon, with the blessing of history, i. e., of salvation; the Holy Spirit, with the blessing of His life and of the (entire) Church. This promise contains the assurance of the paternal guardianship and blessing of God, of the grace and merit of Christ, of the consolation, illumination, and direction of the Holy Spirit. But all this under the condition of the subject’s own personal appropriation and application. (3) And in accordance with this, we must direct attention to the vows presented to the Father, the Song of Solomon, and the Spirit. In the case of children, these vows are made by parents or god-parents (sponsors); and where these guarantees are entirely wanting, there is the limit of Christian infant baptism.

7. In the name of the Father, and of the Song of Solomon, and of the Holy Spirit.—“This passage is the chief proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. (1) These three must be subjects distinct from one another, and true persons, especially because τὸ ὄνομα is never in the entire Bible used of abstractis, of qualities, but only of true persons. (2) They must be equal, consequently divine persons, because they are placed upon an equality, and because like reverence is claimed for each. Even Julian the Apostate acknowledged the force of this passage, and accused the Christians of being polytheists.” So Heubner. This taunt is to be avoided by our showing no favor to the vulgar conception of three distinct Divine beings and individuals, and by holding fast to three personal distinctions in the one divine being. For more exact details, see the works upon systematic theology. We would only add, that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be regarded as the fundamental, theological doctrine of Christianity, to which the soteriological doctrines of election, of the atonement, and the Church correspond.

[It should be added, that the doctrine of the Trinity does not rest, by any means, merely on the few dicta probantia which teach it directly and expressly, as the baptismal formula, the apostolic benediction, 2 Corinthians 13:13, and the doubtful passage on the three witnesses in heaven, 1 John 5:7 (comp. besides Matthew 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:2; Revelation 1:4-5), but still more on facts, on the whole Scripture revelation of God as Father, Song of Solomon, and Holy Spirit in the three great works of creation, redemption, and sanctification. From this Trinity of revelation (œconomical Trinity) we justly infer the Trinity of essence (ontological Trinity), since God reveals Himself as He actually Isaiah, and since there can be no contradiction between His character and His works. Moreover, every one of the many passages which separately teach either the divinity of our Saviour, or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, viewed in connection with the fundamental Scripture doctrine of the unity of the Godhead, proves, indirectly, also the doctrine of the holy Trinity. Hence you cannot deny this fundamental doctrine without either running into Tritheism, or into Deism, without destroying either the divine unity, or the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and thereby undermining the whole work of redemption and sanctification.—P. S.]

8. Institution of the Church.—With this apostolic commission, and with the institution of baptism, which had been preceded by that of the Supper and of the ministerial office, and by the presentation of the “keys,” the institution of the Church is finished, as regards her elements. This can be doubted only, when we ignore that the essence of the Christian Church consists in the communion of the word and the sacraments of Christ, that the word calls the Church into being, that baptism is the foundation, and the communion in a more special sense is the manifestation, of the Church. The doubt whether Christ Himself founded the Church, originated with those who sought the nature of the Church in her policy, or external social organization and constitution; as, e. g., J. H. Böhmer, G. J. Plank (Geschichte der christlichen Gesellschaftsverfassung, i. p17. We may notice in passing, that the germs of Baur’s “Ebinioten Hypothese” are to be found p9. in this book). The evangelical history teaches us that the institution of the Church arose first gradually, that the institution was announced and prepared for in the word ἐκκλησἰα, Matthew 16:18; was decided by the fact of Christ’s death and resurrection; and completed, when the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. Then it was that the organism of the Church, which the Lord had gradually formed, received the quickening Spirit.

9. The resurrection as the Lord’s exaltation.—Because Matthew and John do not record the ascension, some have drawn conclusions from this silence adverse to the reality of the ascension. These deductions rest upon two essential errors. The first error concerns the character of the evangelical writings: the Evangelists are held to have been chroniclers, who relate all they know of Jesus. But we have already shown how far they surpassed these demands; that each Evangelist viewed his materials, and arranged them, influenced by a conception of the Lord’s glory peculiar to himself, and according to one plastic, fundamental thought. But far below a proper appreciation of the Gospels as this error lies, equally far below a proper appreciation of the resurrection of Christ, in its full, eternal significance, does the second error lie. Some, in accordance with the low belief of the Middle Ages, have conceived the resurrection to have been a kind of awaking, on the Lord’s part, unto a life in this world similar to that of Lazarus, so that possibly He might have died again. Then the ascension came in, as the second, entirely new, and in fact much greater miracle, and decided the matter then, and only then. This may be the view of monks of the Middle Ages, but it is not the view of the Apostolic Church. According to the true conception, the ascension is essentially implied in the resurrection. Both events are combined in the one fact of Christ’s exaltation. The resurrection is the root and the beginning of the ascension; the ascension is the blossom and crown of the resurrection. Hence the Apostolic writings take the ascension always for granted ( Acts 2:31; Acts 2:33; Acts 5:31; Acts 7:55; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:6; Ephesians 4:8; Philippians 2:6-10; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:32). The ascension is as really presupposed by John ( John 6:62; John 20:17) and by ( Matthew 26:64)^[FN57] as it is distinctly related by Mark and Luke. The Lord did not return again after His resurrection into this present life; and yet quite as little did Hebrews, as a simple, spiritual existence, enter into the unseen world. He has become through the resurrection, which was at the same time transformation, the first-fruits of the new spiritual human life of glorified humanity; hence is He the Prince of the visible and the invisible worlds, which find here the point of union ( Ephesians 1:21). But this life, as regards its essence, is the heavenly life; and, as regards its character, the entrance into that estate was accordingly the beginning of the ascension. We cannot indeed say (with Kinkel), that the early Church identified the resurrection and the ascension; or, that the latter occurred upon the first day of the resurrection; or, that there was a succession of ascensions. The resurrection marks the entrance into the heavenly slate; the ascension, into the heavenly sphere. With the first, the manner of His former intercourse with the disciples ceased, and was replaced by His miraculous appearances; with the last, His visible intercourse with the disciples generally ceased, to give place to the sending of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit. This is the reason why the ascension presents a sad side as well as a joyful, being the departure of Jesus from the earth. It is both Good Friday and Easter. By it the Church of Christ is marked out as both a Church of the cross and a Church of the crown, and enters upon a course of conflict which lasts from Pentecost to the second Advent. Christ’s ascension is accordingly His proper glorification, as the resurrection His transformation. Nevertheless, the unity of the exaltation of Christ predominates to such a degree in the apostolic view, that the final ascension is taken for granted by the Apostles. John sees the image of the ascension in this, that Christ will continue to live in the Petrine and Johannean type of the Church; Matthew in this, that He will be with His own till the completion of the world, hence omnipresent with His people in His majesty, as regards both time and space. Such a spiritual dynamic omnipresence of Christ is conceivable only upon the precondition of the ascension. That “the feast of the Ascension did not make its appearance until a late period “(Gerlach), is to be explained by the fact, that originally the forty days of the glorification of Christ made up one continuous festival. Then the ascension rose just in proportion as the festival of the Forty Days sank. Upon the corporeality of the risen Saviour, see Lange’s Leben Jesu, ii3, p1750. In that work, we have considered connectedly the conceptions of transformation and glorification, as is usually done; and this is so far justifiable, as transformation is the basis of glorification. But the latter, which is the fully developed bloom of transformation, does not fully manifest itself till Christ’s appearance upon the mountain in Galilee, and till the ascension.

10. Matthew’s three sacred mountains: (1) The Mount of the Seven Beatitudes; (2) the Mount of Transfiguration; (3) the Mount of the great Resurrection-festival. (De Wette: The self-inauguration of Jesus,—Transfiguration,—Farewell.)