MAY 12TH, 1899
MAY 12TH, 1899
DEAR Miss —, — I am always interested to hear of your affairs spiritually, and I thank you for your letter of the 5th inst.
It is indeed very sad that Christians are so divided, and especially so that those who profess to be gathered in the Lord’s Name should thus practically discredit in the eyes of the world all that they profess. For it is certain that if we were all under the control of the Lord — holding fast His word and not denying His Name — there would be no divisions amongst us. But sad as this is it is only what Scripture would lead us to expect, and there is an aspect of it which must not be forgotten, and of which the Holy Spirit reminds us when He says, “There must be also heresies (sects or divisions) among you, that they which are approved among you may be made manifest”, 1 Corinthians 11: 19.
The serious point about a division amongst brethren is the absolute certainty that at least one of the parties has entirely missed the Lord’s mind as to the matter on which they have divided. That is, instead of having the Lord’s mind and [p. 30] judgment on the matter they have acted on their own mind and judgment. And if, in consequence of this mistaken act, they take up a position of permanent separation from those who had the Lord’s mind on the matter they must suffer incalculable loss. Indeed as to principle they have got back to the very thing which has caused the countless divisions of Christendom — they are simply acting on their own will. I do not say that this is the case with the many simple souls who are led by the influence of those to whom they look as leaders. The exercise of will is in the leaders but those who are led astray necessarily suffer much loss in their souls, and are deprived of much blessing which they would undoubtedly have received if they had remained in a position which was according to the mind of the Lord. It is the consideration of this which renders it impossible for any one who takes a place intelligently with brethren to ignore the divisions which have taken place or to assume that it does not matter much with whom they break bread.
Of course there are many hundreds breaking bread with the different sections of brethren who simply look upon brethren as a superior kind of sect with more scriptural light than others, and whose services are conducted more in accordance with the Word of God. Such persons would be well content anywhere where there was a breaking of bread every Lord’s day and the gospel was simply preached. But an easy-going acceptance of things as they are, in this way, will never satisfy a really exercised conscience or a heart whose supreme desire is to follow the leading of the Shepherd. Alas! there are but few who have ears for no voice but His, but richly blessed is their portion. I am thoroughly convinced that the Lord will not fail to lead all such to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment, nor will He fail to lead them into the whole counsel of God.
With reference to the subject of baptism I may at once say that I believe it is right for a Christian to have his household baptised. Household baptism is plainly taught in Scripture. But views on baptism are not the ground of fellowship, and a difference of opinion on this point is no justification for a breach of Christian fellowship.
Baptists — I mean those who press that none but believers should be baptised — generally make baptism an ordinance; that is, they press it as obedience to a command, and as something
[p. 31] to be done by the believer, whereas it is invariably presented in Scripture as admission to privilege, and it is always regarded as the act of the one who baptises — not of the one baptised. It is clearly connected in Scripture with profession, and it gives admission, not to any spiritual or heavenly blessing, but to that circle on earth where the Name of the Lord is owned, and where the outward privileges of Christianity are enjoyed. It is evident that there can be no assurance that every baptised person is really converted. But every baptised person is admitted to the circle of Christian profession. It is much more easy to see what baptism is in the case of a heathen or a Jew than in a country like this where the profession of Christianity is general. A Jew may believe what he likes so long as he is not baptised. But the moment he is baptised his relatives disown him. He has now become a Christian — not necessarily a true believer, but a Christian in profession in this world; he is no longer a Jew. In the early days of the church those who received the testimony of the apostles and other evangelists were at once baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And all who were thus baptised were introduced to a circle of Christian privilege and profession on earth. It does not follow that all were converted; indeed we know that very soon men like Simon Magus came into the circle of profession. But the circle existed and every baptised person came within it and partook of its privileges. Of course if he remained unconverted this only added to his responsibility, but the privilege of being in the circle of Christian light was not less a very real one.
If once it is accepted that there is a circle of privilege on earth into which baptism introduces us, and I think this is as clear as can be, the baptism of believers’ households presents no difficulty to any mind instructed in the principles of God’s ways. If there is any principle clearly established in the Old Testament it is that a man’s household is always associated with himself in the governmental ways of God. “Come thou and all thy house into the ark”, is the earliest and one of the most striking illustrations of this principle. In Exodus it is “a lamb for a house”. And so in innumerable instances. Whenever it is a question of the government of God or of external privilege the household goes with its head.
Now it is important to observe that when a divine principle is once established in Scripture it holds good for ever. And [p. 32] this household principle is clearly stated in connection with baptism. We read that “Lydia was baptised and her household”, Acts 16; we read that the jailer “was baptised, he and all his”. Paul speaks of having baptised “the household of Stephanas”, 1 Corinthians 1:16. So there are three examples given of the baptism of households.
And the divine suitability of this will appear to every one who is able to recognise what is suitable to the ways of God. Would the Jew, who had been divinely instructed of old to associate his household with himself in every external privilege, have understood that this was to be so no longer in Christianity, without some very plain declaration to that effect? And where can such a declaration be found in the New Testament? Indeed, the only intimation which seems to be given as to the relative position of the children in Judaism and in Christianity tells forcibly in the very opposite direction. In Old Testament times the children of a mixed marriage were not admitted to the external privileges of which we are speaking (see Ezra 10: 3), but in the New Testament it is expressly said that “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy”, 1 Corinthians 7: 14. That is, Christianity is more gracious as to the children than the dispensation which preceded.
The believing Jew who owned the Name of the Lord in baptism, and who thus put himself under the lordship of Christ as to his position in this world, could never have been content to leave his household on any other ground. If Jesus was Lord to him, Jesus must be Lord to all his household. And his faith would put them all on that ground in baptism; not looking on it as a fleshly ordinance which could confer some grace or blessing on the flesh, but doing it in faith that recognised the true meaning of baptism — a figure of the total setting aside of man in the flesh, and a practical expression of the fact that his faith looked for their blessing only on the ground of the death of Christ. His children would thus, equally with himself, be introduced to the outward circle of profession and privilege of Christianity. They would be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They would be taught the Scriptures. They would partake in all the outward privilege of the Christian circle. The exhortations in the epistles to Christian parents and children are evidently [p. 33] based upon the fact that the children of believers are regarded as being within the house of God in this way.
Of course, all this has got perverted and corrupted in Christendom, and the profession of Christianity has become the great mustard tree, but divine principles still hold good wherever there is faith to take them up.
Personally I do not believe that a person can be re-baptised. If one has been baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit I would not counsel him to be re-baptised whether it had been done by sprinkling or immersion or whether as an infant or an adult. I believe it is the scriptural mode to immerse, and I would use this mode myself. And I would not baptise any beyond the households of believers, but, seeing that it is a matter which has to do with the external circle of profession only, I do not feel free to ignore the baptism of the whole of professing and responsible christendom. Still, if anyone is exercised, and gets a conscience about the matter, I would say to such a one, “You must keep a good conscience, and if you feel that you ought to be baptised as a believer, be baptised”. I believe such a one is mistaken in his idea of baptism, but I respect his conscience.
The really important moment as to baptism for us as believers is when we realise what is involved in it and accept in our souls that to which we were committed in baptism. It is easy to be occupied with the externals of the institution and totally miss its kernel and spirit. We are baptised not because we are saved, as Baptists teach, but because we are lost. All that we are must go in death. Baptism is, in figure, the complete setting aside of man in the flesh. It is not an ordinance to add some grace to the flesh. It is the solemn figure of the fact — fully proved by the death of Christ — that the end of all flesh has come before God. Every baptised person in the world is on that ground as to his profession; he is committed in baptism to the fact that it is all over with him, and that blessing can only reach him on the ground of the death of Christ. This is a most powerful ground of appeal to merely nominal professors in the Church of England. Such are often soothed into spiritual indifference by the thought that their baptism has secured something for them in the way of spiritual blessing. In reality it is the solemn witness and figure of their wholly lost condition as children of Adam. Nothing will do before God but “newness of life” — life [p. 34] received through the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in Him — life which is found in Him.
I have written thus at some length, and if any points do not seem clear to you I shall be glad to write further if you will let me know what your difficulty is. May God guide and bless you in the full knowledge of His will!
With Christian greetings to your mother and yourself, Yours sincerely in the Lord,
May 12th, 1899.