drink of your Eucharist except those baptized into the name of the Lord, εἰς ὄνομα Κυρίου,” the very phrase we meet with in the New Testament. This seems to indicate that being baptized "in the name of the Lord" was only another way, a briefer form of expressing the same idea, that the two, in thought, were synonymous, and not at all that there were two distinct forms, one in the name of the Trinity and the other in the name of Christ only. The Didache knows nothing of two such forms. The question then naturally arises, Does not this throw suggestive, explanatory light on what was commonly understood by such phrases as occur in Acts ii, 38; x, 48; viii, 16; xix, 5? And is not the passage in Hermas (Vis., iii, c. 7), "baptized in the name of the Lord," and similar passages in all the Fathers and in the Apostolic Constitutions and in Barnabas also to be understood in the same sense as in the Didache? If so, then it is probable, to say the least, that the formula given by our Lord in Matt. xxviii, 19, was not only used, but was the only one in universal use in the apostolic and subapostolic periods. Clement frequently uses the Trinitarian collocation (chaps. xli, xlii, xlvi); Ignatius also (Ep. Ephes., 9; Ep. Magnes, 13); Martyrdom of Polycarp, chap. xiv, 22. Compare Athenagoras (Plea, c. x). Justin Martyr, early in the second century describing Christian baptism, says, "Then they are brought to where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they there receive the washing with water." The old Roman symbol is based on the formula in Matthew, but the probable date of that symbol is about A. D. 150. Here, then, in different and widely remote parts of the world, and near the same period, we find the Matthew formula in use. But we must go further, for if the inference is correct that the formula was long in use before any mention was made of it, we are carried back to the days of the apostles. Dr. McGiffert concedes that the formula was in common use before the end of the second century, but

contends that as late as the middle of the third century there were Christians who refused to use it and insisted on being baptized in the name of Christ. There is no certain evidence for this, but he cites Cyprian's Letter to Jubianus, pseudoCyprian De Rebaptismate, the Apostolic canons, and Ambrose's defense of the validity of the short form. But these references do not prove the correctness of his statement. The same method of reasoning would put every heresy of the apostolic age on equal footing with the truth held by the Church. We have not space to set this forth as it should be. We can only say Cyprian does not object to receiving the followers of Marcion because they were baptized in the name of Christ only, but for the significant reason that, like their leader, they did not believe in the faith of the Church, in the Trinity. In a word, they are not Christians at all.

*

Finally, the theory that the formula grew up in the Gentile Church, which seems to be necessary in order to strengthen the position that it was not in use in the earliest Christian-Jewish Church and was therefore unknown to the apostles, wholly breaks down when we consider that we do not first find, as we should, this formula in Luke's gospel, primarily intended for the Gentiles, but in Matthew's gospel, which was for the Jews. Nor do we first find it, as according to the theory we should find it, in the fathers of the WorldChurch, the Gentile Church, but in a Palestinian document based on an Alexandrian original, the date of which was probably A. D. 75, and whose author was a Christian Jew.

ART. IV.-BRUNO-MONK, PHILOSOPHER, SEER,

MARTYR.

On the seventeenth of February next the anniversary of the death of Fra Bruno will be celebrated in the Campo di Fiori (Field of Flowers), on the identical spot in the city of Rome where he was burned at the stake for his heresies. The site is marked by a beautiful monument with a colossal figure in bronze of the intrepid monk in full habit, looking down upon the scene. Two years ago the three hundredth anniversary was held, and the Italian government, as guardian of the freedom of the people (sic), fearing an uprising, prohibited any public celebration of the event. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the students from the high schools and university with hundreds of others passed round the monument and threw flowers at its foot. For several days after crowds of people assembled and paid their tribute to the man who in the beginning of the seventeenth century, despite the anathemas of the Church, advocated freedom of thought, and then died for the cause he loved better than life. When I visited the scene an old man, bent with years, stood and gazed earnestly on the figure, oblivious to his surroundings, and then hearing my voice in English behind him, turned abruptly around and exclaimed in broken English, "That is the man who shed his blood for the liberties we now enjoy: I take off my hat to him." With that he suited the action to the word, and I, thrilled with his enthusiasm, replied, "And so do I." Overcome with emotion, he bade me "good-bye," and passed on. That tottering old man voiced the sentiments of thousands in the Eternal City.

To understand the influence of Bruno, consider briefly the four characteristic periods of his life.

I. Bruno the Monk. Born about the year 1548 in Nola, Italy, we know very little of his early history. Even the date of his birth is doubtful. That which is known is interesting enough to make us long for details. He was a boy of

strong mental acumen but severely religious. At the age of fifteen he had entered the order of the Dominicans at Naples, submitting to a harsh régime, with an evident intention of conscientiously taming his fervid spirit. He is even said. to have composed a treatise on the ark of Noah-an uninteresting subject surely for such a passionate soul. The forced discipline was unavailing. He chafed under the restrictions, and cherishing the spirit, unfortunately, of an Esau, he believed every man's hand to be against him, and became a wanderer over the face of the earth. Some of the mysterious rites of the holy Roman Church he totally repudiated, and this the strict brotherhood of St. Dominick, always the defenders of the faith, could not brook. He was accordingly charged with impiety, and after enduring much persecution at the hands of his brother friars, he, at the age of twentyeight, fled from Rome. The great Reformation had already matured. Luther had been dead thirty years, but the spirit of the Reformation was fully alive, and Bruno, two years later, found himself in Geneva, the home of Calvin. That astute and stern philosopher had been at rest thirteen years. Only twenty-four years before Servetus had been burned at the stake in that city, with the connivance of Calvin, for denying the doctrine of the Trinity, and, of course, this was not congenial soil for a spirit like Bruno's. Yet, while he did not actually identify himself with the new Reformers (though some have supposed that he embraced the Protestant faith), he was influenced greatly by their spirit. He became drunk with the wine of freedom. With a rich spiritual life, he might have become a Thomas à Kempis, but lacking it, he found refuge in a cold and barren philosophy.

II. Bruno the Philosopher. Here we see the man of strong mental grasp, with positive convictions, refusing to be trammeled with conventionalities. He was a bitter opponent of the Aristotelian system of philosophy, and a hearty supporter of the Copernican system of Astronomy, the author of which had died ten years before Bruno's birth. Like Bacon and Telesius, he preferred the ancient Greek philoso

phers "who had looked at nature for themselves, and whose speculations had more of reality in them." As Professor Adamson says:

He had read widely and deeply, and in his own writings we come across many expressions familiar to us in earlier systems. Yet his philosophy is no eclecticism. He owed something to Lucretius, something to the Stoic nature-pantheism, something to Anaxagoras, to Heraclitus, to the Pythagoreans, and to the Neoplatonists, who were partially known to him; above all, he had studied deeply and profoundly the great German thinker, Nicolas of Cusa, who was indeed a speculative Copernicus. But his own system has a distinct unity and originality; it breathes throughout the fiery spirit of Bruno himself.

In his peregrinations on the Continent he arrived at Toulouse, then as now, an important intellectual center, where he lectured on astronomy. He was offered a chair of philosophy there, provided he would receive the mass. This he positively refused to do, but was permitted to deliver lectures. In 1583 under the protection of the French ambassador, Michel de Castelnau, Bruno went to England, where he resided for nearly two years. The pedantry and superstitions of the Oxford empirics greatly disgusted him, but he found a congenial soul in Sir Philip Sidney, the courtly gentleman. His best works were written in England, because of the greater freedom he enjoyed there under Protestant influences. His two great metaphysical works, Della Causa, Principio, ed Uno and De l'Infinito Universo, e Mondi, caused a great sensation in the philosophical world. We cannot follow his philosophical conclusions, but his radical views were the reactionary effect of medieval puerility upon a righteous soul struggling to conquer his environment. Radicalism always goes from one extreme to the other. While he is classed by some among freethinkers, he was not an atheist. He believed in God and the immortality of the soul, and judging by the medallions round the pedestal of the monument at Rome, among which are such names as Wyclif, Huss, Paliario, Servetus, and Vanini, his present-day admirers recognize him as a religious reformer. Had he lived in this