And we happen to have indirect evidence from the _Acts_, that baptism was administered in this way. For when St. Paul found some disciples, who said they knew nothing about the Holy Ghost; he at once asked, 'Into what then were ye _baptized_?'[469] Obviously, then, the baptism to which St. Paul was accustomed must have been into the name of the Holy Ghost, as well as into that of Christ; and the Father's name could scarcely have been omitted. Yet immediately afterwards we are told that they were baptized _into the Name of the Lord Jesus_. In the same way the 'Teaching of the Twelve' once speaks of baptism as _into the Name of the Lord_; and twice as _into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_.[470] The former seems to have been only a short way of describing Christian baptism, (in distinction from that of the Jews, or of St. John the Baptist), while the latter represented the actual words used.[471] [Footnote 469: Acts 19. 3.] [Footnote 470: Teaching, chaps. vii. and ix.] [Footnote 471: _Comp._ Acts 2. 38; 8. 16; 18. 25; I Cor. 10. 2.] Similarly St. Paul sometimes closes his Epistles with the shorter form of blessing. _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you_; once with an intermediate form, naming the Father and Christ; and once with the longer form, _The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all_.[472] This latter passage, the genuineness of which is undisputed, is of course extremely important, in fact like the preceding one it is practically conclusive; for again we must ask, who but God could be thus associated with God? If Christ were a mere human prophet, like Isaiah for instance; and the Holy Spirit a mere influence for good; what strange language it would be. Can we imagine anyone blessing his converts with, The grace of Isaiah, the love of God, and the fellowship of a holy influence--God, it will be noticed, being placed _between_ the other two, so there can be no ascending or descending scale, they must all be equal? [Footnote 472: 1 Cor. 16. 23; Gal. 6. 18; Eph. 6. 23; 2 Cor. 13. 14.] And as St. Paul takes for granted that his readers would understand his meaning, it implies that they had had some previous teaching on the subject, which must clearly have been given them by St. Paul himself on his first visit. And at that early date (about A.D. 50) such teaching could scarcely have originated except from what Christ Himself had taught. This passage, then, implies more than it says, and needs explanation; and as far as we know the former one alone can explain it.