mercy, be raised up "to burst these bonds asunder, and to cast away

these cords" from the human mind.*

The

66

two new cords" with which the men of Judah bound Samson, signify, we apprehend, the conjoining mediums + by which the church thus corrupted keeps its hold on the Word, as the means of its authority and power over men's minds. These cords, or conjoining mediums, by which the Word is connected with a false church, are merely external considerations and restraints, arising from fears of various kinds, such as the fear of losing reputation and authority, or of losing office, emoluments, and dignities. These cords or restraints, when the Word puts itself forth at the period of Judgment, are dispersed as "flax touched by the fire," or as a "rope of sand."

66

They therefore would not kill Samson," because this would have represented the utter rejection of the Word. For howsoever the Word is perverted and falsified, yet it is still acknowledged by the fallen church, since all the power of the church is professedly based upon the authority of the Word. For if the Romish or any branch of the Protestant church were to deny and reject the Word, they would sink into paganism or atheism, and lose all power over the people. It is therefore said that Herod would have put John to death, but he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet," therefore "Herod only bound John, and put him into prison," (Matt. xiv. 3, 5.) and he did not kill him until the cupidities and carnal pleasures signified by the feasting of Herod and his friends, and the dancing of the daughter of Herodias, triumphed over every external consideration and respect in which the Word, as signified by John, could possibly be held.

In our next paper we shall consider the subsequent particulars of this chapter, and explain, we hope, the meaning of Samson's slaughter of the Philistines by the jaw-bone of the ass.

* See especially the statement here made demonstrated by the Rev. Mr. Clissold in his learned work on the "Spiritual Exposition of the Apocalypse," vol. iii., pp. 175 to 196, in which he shews that the second witness is the second table of the law, and that this second witness has been killed by regarding the works commanded in the second table of the Decalogue as impossible, pernicious, or unnecessary to salvation. These positions are proved by quotations from various authors.

+ See A. C. 9854, 9777, as to the meaning of cords and ropes.

(To be continued.)

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE APOSTLES HAVING BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,-In a communication in your last number, (p. 568.) a correspondent, who writes under the signature of "C." referring to an observation in a previous number, to the effect "that the disciples baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus only"-says, he supposes the writer meant that the disciples did not use the form prescribed by our Lord in Matt. xxviii. 19; and adds-" Knowing that this idea has favourers amongst us, I am desirous to know what can be adduced in proof of it." Further on your correspondent argues" It does not seem at all reasonable to suppose that the apostles did not literally follow the form of words given them by their Lord and Master; but if it can be shown that they did not do so, then for the same reason that they did not use the formula, we should not, whereas we adopt it." The subject having at various times occupied the attention of the church, and your correspondent having also expressed a desire for some more light on it, moreover having given some attention to the question, I venture to trouble you with a few thoughts that have occurred to me in connection with it.

First, it is an undeniable fact that the disciples, whatever may have been implied in the terms used, are recorded, either themselves to have baptized in the name of the Lord, the Lord Jesus, or Jesus Christ,* or to have directed baptism to be so administered; a statement we are bound, unless valid grounds can be shown to the contrary, to take in its literal force. I cannot, however, agree with the dogma propounded by your correspondent, that if it can be shown that the disciples did so, and thus departed from the form of words supplied in Matthew, for the same reason we should; and I think a little reflection will convince him that such a dogma would be altogether subversive of the very fundamental principle of the New Church, which recognizes no authority for either her doctrines or practice but the Word. Our formula in baptism must, therefore, be altogether irrespective of any that may have been adopted, or supposed to have been adopted, by the apostles, whatever inferences may be deducible thence bearing on their views of the Lord's character and divinity. The only inference, indeed, which has been drawn from the circumstance, is, that the Lord's immediate disciples understood the name of Jesus to be synonymous with the name of the Father, Son, The passages in which reference to this occurs are Acts ii. 38; viii. 16; x. 48; xix. 5.

Enl. Series.-No. 49, vol. v.]

D

and Holy Spirit, and thus that their use of his name exclusively in baptism presents a strong evidence of their having regarded the Trinity as centering in him, and his name as including the names of all the three essentials of that Trinity.

But to proceed to the more immediate object of this communication. I am aware it has been contended, as affirmed by St. Augustine, that though the apostles are said to have baptized in the name of the Lord, yet it is to be understood that they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; but what grounds there are for the statement beyond assertion I have never been able to discover. As far as the authority of St. Augustine is concerned, having lived several centuries after the time of the apostles, he could have no better grounds for his assertion than if he had lived at this day, and his dictum has, therefore, no more weight than if it had only now been first propounded. I have met with some who contended that the distinction between the baptism of John and Christian baptism was, that the former was administered in the name of the Father only, and the latter in the name of the Son and Holy Spirit, as well as that of the Father. This is equally an assumption. We have no intimation of the formula employed by John, and to contend that baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus means baptizing in the name of the Son and Holy Spirit in conjunction with that of the Father, in contradistinction to baptizing in that of the Father alone, is an exceedingly far-fetched conjecture. There would be more plausibility in the argument were there any grounds for assuming the subjects of John's baptism to have been baptized in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that Christian baptism was designated baptizing in the name of Jesus, because it was contradistinguished from that of John by the use of the name of the Son; but a circumstance recorded in the Acts of the Apostles fatal to such a conjecture, is, that the converts to Christianity at Corinth, when questioned if they had received the Holy Spirit, replied that they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost, and this notwithstanding their having been baptized with John's baptism; from which it is evident that, whatever formula may have been used in John's baptism, the name of the Holy Spirit formed no part of it. It has been contended, on the other hand, that because the apostle Paul asked "unto what they were baptized," this proves the name of the Holy Spirit to have been used in the formula of Christian baptism. This, however, does not necessarily follow, since the converts were instructed in the general elementary truths of Christianity previously *See chap. xix. 2—5.

to baptism, as witness the example of Peter, on the day of Pentecost. When asked by the Jews what they were to do to be saved, he replied" 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."*

How far the historical data supplied in the Acts of the Apostles are adequate to decide the question, I will not pretend to say; I may, however, venture to affirm that the evidence appears to preponderate in favour of the strict grammatical meaning of the statement—that the Apostles did literally baptize in the name of Jesus only.

There is, however, another source of investigation, and that is analogy. It is certain the Apostles are recorded to have used the name of the Lord on two occasions in the cure of diseases; and from the sense in which they are said to have used the name of the Lord in these instances, we may infer with considerable certainty, in what sense they are said to have baptized in the name of the Lord. The first instance occurs in the 3rd chapter of the Acts, where we read that Peter and John going up into the temple together, found there a "man lame from his mother's womb," whom Peter took by the right hand, saying"In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." (See ver. 6, 7.) And again, when afterwards questioned on the subject, (see chap. iv. 5-12.) he replied-" Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we be examined, by what means [the impotent man] is made whole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. . . . doth this man stand here before you whole." The other instance occurs in the 16th chapter of the same book, (ver. 18.) where we are informed that, a damsel possessed of a spirit of divination having followed Paul many days, he at length turned and said to the spirit-" I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come out of her." It surely will not be contended that the name of Jesus in these instances implies the use of any other name; and if the act of healing in the name of Jesus will admit of no other interpretation-and it is scarcely conceivable that any one could seriously contend that the formula used by Peter in healing the impotent, man was-"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rise up and walk," or that of Paul in exorcising the spirit of divination from the damsel who followed him-"I command thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to come out of her;"then we are justified by the analogy furnished by the two cases to conclude, that when the Apostles are declared to have baptized in the

*Acts ii. 37, 38.

name of Jesus Christ, they are to be understood to have done so in the sense in which they are to be understood to have healed the sick and cast out spirits in His name.

With respect to the grounds on which the disciples departed from the verbal formula given in the Gospel of Matthew, what could be offered in explanation would probably not amount to anything beyond speculation. This we may most certainly affirm, that the name Jesus is the name of the Humanity, as the visible embodiment of all the fulness of the Godhead, and consequently of all the Trinity, and hence as synonymous, in a doctrinal point of view, with the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is also certain that Matthew's gospel was not in existence, nor indeed any gospel, that of Matthew being by common consent admitted to be the first-and this, according to some, was not written till A.D. 61; the earliest date assigned is A.D. 41; so that till then the disciples had only tradition, aided by that peculiar illumination * enjoyed by them, on special occasions, in a most remarkable degree, when they were said to be filled with the Holy Spirit to guide them.* It was on the first of these occasions, on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was first dispensed, and filled the whole assembly, that Peter enjoined the Jews to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then, it is certain the disciples were in the habit of baptizing during the Lord's sojourn in the flesh, and they would probably be guided in their understanding of the Lord's injunction and practice of the rite after his resurrection by that adopted under the Lord's sanction while in the world. This explains the seemingly vague manner in which the subject is treated by Mark, who simply records the words of the Lord as containing an allusion to baptism, as a subject with which the disciples were familiar:-" Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned." (Chap. xvi. 15, 16.)

To pursue the subject would, however, lead us into a very wide field of investigation, and open up the whole question of the variations in the literal accounts of the Evangelists, and the grounds on which they rest. I will therefore pause here, hoping that the thoughts expressed in this paper may not be devoid of interest, or without some use to your correspondent, and the readers of the Repository generally.

Stone Clough.

I am, very truly,

* See Acts iv. 8; vi. 5; vii. 35; ix. 17; xi. 24; xiii. 9.

W.