Treatise on Rebaptism

[Steven Avery]

This is an incredible writing that flies under the radar.

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

This is likely Ante-Nicene, 3rd century, when these topics were a hot-button involving correspondence between Cyprian and the Bishop of Rome Stephen, and some of the writing comes from the Council of Carthage of 251 AD. Here is some background.

Cyprian vs. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 257-258 AD
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpres...19/03/12/7297/
The emphasis here is on the (non) authority of the Bishop of Rome, however there is good stuff.

And I have placed extracts here of the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, although I do recommend a full read:

Pure Bible Forum
A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index...495/#post-6038

And I also plan to discuss some writings and threads here that do touch on this Treatise.

Notice that the Treatise affirms Matthew 28:19 as scripture. That whole thing trying to deny the verse as scripture is on many threads here and is a non-issue. And not the purpose of studying the Treatise.

[Steven Avery]

Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (2011)
The Efficacy of Baptism in Augustine’s Theology
James Patout Burns (b. 1939)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ry...1KkC&pg=PA1287

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

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

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

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

[Steven Avery]

Why is the Treatise on Rebaptism special?

It strongly affirms baptism in Jesus name, with the name of Jesus invoked, over 25 times.

All throughout the paper. The treatise makes one proper and perfunctory reference to the titles, and basically to say that you should not consider this invocation of the name of Jesus as a contradiction to the verse spoken by the Lord Jesus! (Should sound familiar to your own discussions!)

All of this is generally passed over in the references to the work. What is surprising is also the lack of emphasis in apostolic Ante-Nicene references. With perhaps one exception that I have seen:

Jesus Name Baptism in History.
http://www.articleseen.com/Article_j...ory_87677.aspx
http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content.../new-ch10.html

Was this originally part of a chapter from David Bernard?

Striking verification comes from A Treatise on Re-Baptism by An Anonymous Writer. Some scholars believe the author was a fourth century monk named Ursinus, but most believe he was a bishop in the third century who opposed Cyprian. The treatise discusses what should be done about persons "who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" and who turn from their heresy to the Catholic Church. It concludes that rebaptism is not necessary: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

The author makes a number of interesting points in his discussion:

(1) His position had the support of "the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition" and "the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops."

(2) "The power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism… affords to him… no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation," citing Acts 4:12 and Philippians 2:9-11.

(3) The "invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised."

(4) The invocation of Jesus' name alone does not bring salvation to the heretic, but if he corrects his error, acknowledges the truth, and receives the Holy Ghost, then it becomes effective; the heretic does not "lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus."

(5) This teaching does not contradict Matthew 28:19.

(6) Not only were heretics baptized by "invoking the name of the Lord Jesus," but many people, both "Jews and Gentiles, fully believing as they ought, are in like manner baptized."

Note: there are other Ante-Nicene writings that are important, e.g. they allow both baptism forms.

This is the only Ante-Nicene writing that really comes down forcefully on one side.
And it is on the Jesus name baptism side.

[Steven Avery]

Best to read in full.

These extracts are largely on the name of Jesus and baptism.

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

A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.

————————————

Argument.—That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf...ii.iv.ii-p71.1

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

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

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

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

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

7. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”... it behoves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church

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

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

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

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

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

[Steven Avery]

CHAPTER XIX
VOICE OF HISTORY
https://mikeblume.com/drysd19a.htm#A...ON%20REBAPTISM

A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM
Further evidence comes from an anonymous document of this time period entitled, "A Treatise on Rebaptism," in which the author (believed to be a Third Century Bishop) argued in favour of the validity of Jesus Name baptism, thus hurling another challenge to Cyprian's view. Apparently the debate was quite ongoing. The author concluded his presentation with the statement: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the Name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Spirit." (see, A.N.F., V, p.665-78)

The section as a whole is interesting. The Treatise on Baptism information is correct, but does not really show the intensity of the Treatise. Unfortunately, Mike Blume puts in the Matthew 28:19 nonsense. Note: Harnack became Harnback.

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

Heretical baptism in debate (2009)
Abraham van de Beek
http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ids/v43n3/06.pdf

The anonymous writing, De rebaptismate, supports Stephen’s view that accepting heretics without baptism is an old tradition. It refers to the fact that

... according to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit (Anon. [2007]: ch. 1, cf. also ch. 15).

De rebaptismate is a very interesting book, but its status is unclear. Most scholars presently date it in the 250s, and I think this is right. I do not think its place of origin can be Africa, precisely because of its referral to custom; thus, Rome will be more probable. It makes a strong distinction between baptism and confirmation, whereby the latter is more decisive than the former (Anon. ch. 6). After a baptism by heretics, a Catholic confirmation can supply what was missing (Anon. ch. 5 ff., 10, 14).

De rebaptismate cannot be considered as an earlier stage of Augustine’s thought, who does not focus on confirmation but on personal faith. Certainly, it belongs to circles who opt for a lax praxis of admission (cf. Anon. ch. 17: “it will behove you, in whatever way you can, to aid even this man if he repent” – about a person who was initiated by a bizarre baptism ritual) such as the Marcionites had. Its stress on baptism in the name of Jesus (so not on the Trinitarian formula) might also indicate a backdrop in circles influenced by Marcionitism. Nevertheless, the writing is not in direct line with the Marcionites, because these practiced rebaptism. I would position the writing in one of those many groups that are in between Marcionitism and Catholicism in the third century, with elements from both traditions such as, for example Ad Diognetum (cf. Van de Beek, 2002).

In die Skriflig 43(3) 2009:537-561

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

While this paper on the whole can be very helpful, I am not impressed with his analysis of the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism. The confirmation reference is quite dubious. The "bizarre baptism ritual" seems to be connected to an apocryphal book. Marcionitism is not emphasized, there were many groups, often close to oneness, that were supporting baptism in Jesus name.

At least Beek does refer to the:

"stress on baptism in the name of Jesus (so not on the Trinitarian formula)"

And there is an excellent bibliography.

And there seems to be lots of excellent auxiliary material.

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

On this next one, I am including Everett Ferguson's writings, omitting the sections that are Rebaptism quotes.

Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (2009)
Everett Ferguson (b. 1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA408

He makes no distinction between the baptism of heretics and schismatics.

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

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

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

Rebaptism emphasizes the difference between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (he means by this the work of the Spirit associated with baptism, not the miraculous outpourings described in the Acts of the Apostles — see Rebaptism 2; 4). The bath is only the exterior beginning. The baptism of water “is of less account provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account" (6; also 2). Those who received baptism while holding heretical ideas of God or Christ will be condemned to eternal punishment, “because they did not believe in him although they were washed in his name" (13). Ideally the bath and the Holy Spirit were together, but not necessarily so. In defense of accepting baptism by heretics, the author makes ad hominem arguments: if a person is baptized by a bishop in the church but dies before the imposition of hands, “would you not judge him to have received salvation?" (4). And he asks, What about those baptized by bishops of bad character who may later be deprived of office or even of communion? Or by those bishops of unsound opinions or who are ignorant? Ignorantly or inadvertently asking or answering with the wrong words in the baptismal interrogations does not greatly injure the true faith (10). Then he makes the distinction between giving the water and giving the Spirit:

...

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

The real basis of human salvation according to Rebaptism is faith in the heart and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. The hearts of the household of Cornelius in Acts 10 were purified in virtue of their faith and were baptized by the Holy Spirit, receiving forgiveness of sins, and subsequently were baptized so as to receive the invocation of the name of Christ (5). Calling attention to this reversal of the usual sequence taught in the early church concerning the order of salvation was apparently prompted by the polemical situation. The author says elsewhere: “Hearts are purified by faith, but souls are washed by the Spirit; bodies are washed by water” (18) 29. The salvation of the confessor who becomes a martyr without having received baptism in water shows the effectiveness of faith and the name of Christ (n).30 Yet, it is explained that martyrdom was not a “second baptism" as if there were “two baptisms” but was “a baptism of another kind” that effected the “same salvation,” so there are “different kinds of one and the same baptism” (14). Thus “spiritual baptism” is threefold: the Spirit may be conferred by water in a proper baptism, by the blood of one’s martyrdom, or by the Spirit himself directly (15).

Some good material, various errors:

"Matthew 28:19 as what ought to be observed in the church (7)" - nope

"On this reading he was not referring to an alternative baptismal formula but by “the name of Jesus” was referring to baptism as ordained by Christ." - nope, there clearly was a point made that the alternative baptismal formula did not override the name of Jesus being invoked.

"the bath" .. twice, a totally inappropriate reference

"ad hominem" arguments - also a very dubious way to approach the discussion.

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

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is an incredible writing that flies under the radar.

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

This is likely Ante-Nicene, 3rd century, when these topics were a hot-button involving correspondence between Cyprian and the Bishop of Rome Stephen, and some of the writing comes from the Council of Carthage of 251 AD. Here is some background.

Cyprian vs. Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 257-258 AD
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpres...19/03/12/7297/
The emphasis here is on the (non) authority of the Bishop of Rome, however there is good stuff.

And I have placed extracts here of the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, although I do recommend a full read:

Pure Bible Forum
A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index...495/#post-6038

And I also plan to discuss some writings and threads here that do touch on this Treatise.

Notice that the Treatise affirms Matthew 28:19 as scripture. That whole thing trying to deny the verse as scripture is on many threads here and is a non-issue. And not the purpose of studying the Treatise.

I have posted these links too on various Facebook pages. Those who claim that there is no historical proof of baptism in the name of Jesus never comment, of course. It suprises me that Apostolic scholars don't cite these sources much.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I have posted these links too on various Facebook pages. Those who claim that there is no historical proof of baptism in the name of Jesus never comment, of course. It suprises me that Apostolic scholars don't cite these sources much.

Agreed 100%.

And I was surprised at the incredible historical documentation.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It suprises me that Apostolic scholars don't cite these sources much.

Many of these are not scholars at all.
So they lose all their scholastic capital fighting the simple truth of Matthew 28:19.

Note that the Treatise on Rebaptism affirms the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 AND strongly affirms baptism in Jesus name.

We need better apostolic scholars.

[Steven Avery]

Born of Water
What the Bible Really Says About Baptism (2007-3rd edition)
Rex Geissler
Foreward - Douglas Jacoby
https://www.douglasjacoby.com/wp-con...rInEnglish.pdf

Appendix E What the Early Christians Really Said About Baptism
p.142-181
Church of Christ writers

Clement of Rome
Didache
Justin Martyr
Theophilus
Ireanaeus of Lyons
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian of Carthage
Origen
Hippolytus
Commodianus
Cyprian
Firmilian
Various Councils - c. 256-260 A.D.
.... Seventh Council of Carthage
.... Roman Council of Stephen
.... Treatise on Re-Baptism
.... Dionysius of Alexandria
Methodius
Cyril of Jerusalem
Apostolic Constitutions
Creed of the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century

This can be helpful for quote checking. Note how they avoid the Jesus name teaching of the Treatise on Rebaptism by making it part of the quotes of Councils. Nine quotes are given, four have some emphasis on the name of Jesus, however this emphasis is easily missed.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Many of these are not scholars at all.
So they lose all their scholastic capital fighting the simple truth of Matthew 28:19.

Note that the Treatise on Rebaptism affirms the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 AND strongly affirms baptism in Jesus name.

We need better apostolic scholars.

I have come to see Matthew 28:19 in a way that is "Godhead-view" neutral. In Matthew 28:18, the Son declares that all AUTHORITY has been GIVEN unto him (by God). In verse 19 he tells the disiples to go in that AUTHORITY (the Father's authority, given to the Son, demostrated by the Holy Spirit) and teach/baptize. By the time Acts 2 rolled around, the words of Matthew 28:18 had been fullfilled. Peter knew this. He thus invoked and evoked the name of the one who had been GIVEN all authority rather than the one who GAVE the Son all authority. This makes sense even from a Trinitarian standpoint. This is why Trinitarians use the name of Jesus. But they simple cannot make the connection on verse 19 and misread it as a vocal formula.