BAPTISM

BAPTISM

— - ^{[pp. 286–288]} The first thing I must do is to set the principle of baptism on its right grounds. It is not obedience: obedience to an ordinance is unchristian ground altogether. Baptists have gone so far as to allege the Lord’s words, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” It is inconceivable that Christians should speak so fulfilling righteousness by ordinances! It is Galatian doctrine — a denial of the first principles of truth for a sinner. Further, if John’s baptism had been submitted to, it is nothing as regards Christian baptism. The twelve at Ephesus (Acts 19) were baptised as (Christians after that. But more particularly, a command there was to baptise, not to be baptised; but this was not even to baptise believers, but to disciple the nations, baptising them — a commission which supposes Jerusalem and the Jews received — a commission which St. Paul declares was not given to him, who was appointed minister of the church. Not only so, but when we read how it was administered, we find the directest evidence that it was not a matter of obedience but of according a privilege entrance into the professed external assembly of God on the earth. “What does hinder me to be baptised?” says the officer of Candace, a question which precludes the thought of obedience, and speaks of an admission which he counted a privilege: so with Cornelius — “Can any forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Hence, the first Christians gathered by the Lord during His life on earth (the disciples) who were baptised with the Holy Ghost, were never baptised: they were sent to baptise, and did. Paul was baptised, because he was received like any other. Thus the testimony is complete from holy scripture as to its character.

Next comes the question, Into what were they received? Not into the unity of the body, for then the twelve would not have been in it, nor is there ever a hint in scripture of baptism being into the unity of the body. It is a symbol of death and resurrection (for which reason John Baptist’s baptism was nothing for Christianity as such), the admission into the assembly gathered on the earth to the name of Christ; people were baptised to (never into) something as to Moses (not into Moses) it is the same word: so to Christ (not into Christ), and to His death (not into, here, either); and thus were individuals held figuratively to be on the professed ground of resurrection; but this was not the unity of the body that was a real and essential thing, and came by another kind of baptism. “For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body,” not by water. The ordinance that symbolises this is the Lord’s supper, not baptism: for we are all one body, inasmuch as “we are all partakers of that one loaf.” The baptism of the Spirit, not baptism by water, is that by which we are baptised into the unity of the body.

Further, it is alleged that these ordinances are signs of the state of him who partakes of them not of an object of his faith. This is entirely contrary to scripture. We are baptised to (Christ’s death and raised in baptism not baptised because we are dead and risen. It is objective: what is represented in baptism? I am figuratively buried into death and rise again, not as a witness that I am. The principle is false and mischievous. “Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins,” not because faith has washed away. It is the outward public sign of that whereto Christ’s death and resurrection are available, a witness of that not that the person has availed himself of them that may or may not be true. To receive of the Lord’s supper, I do not go because I have remembered Christ’s death, or have fed upon Him, but to remember Him there.

No one can read the statements of scripture and not see these statements of the Baptists are wholly contradicted by those of scripture. It remains, then, to inquire, who may be outwardly received into the public assembly of God on earth by men; God alone Himself in Christ being He who unites to the body. Now, when I turn to scripture, I find, when children were brought to Jesus (Matthew 19: 14), that His reply to His objecting disciples is, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Now, I am told that this was merely the gracious kindness of Jesus then, and does not refer to our receiving them now, or merely to personal gracious reception now. The answer is evident. The kingdom of heaven was not set up then, but only at hand. It is not, “I will build my church,” but “the kingdom of heaven,” the keys of which (not of the church) were committed to Peter — and see the consequence. In Matthew 18 (and all these chapters from 16, the Lord is shewing the principles of what was coming in after His departure) we read, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Mark that ground on which it is laid; was it only when He was on earth? Then note the parable. vers. 12, 13.) Even so it is not the will of my Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” But we may not receive them. Though the Lord does not give the sign of this privilege by the death and resurrection of Christ (though He lays that privilege on the ground of His coming to save the lost), He tells me, “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.” How can I receive a sinner and the little child is a sinner in Christ’s name, but on the ground of death and resurrection? A Baptist tells me I am to receive him to God as a heathen without the death and resurrection of Christ because they have perverted the sense of baptism. I receive him on the ground, “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” The kingdom of heaven being of such, am I not to receive him on it in Christ’s name or if in His name, not by death and resurrection into the kingdom of heaven? But more, I am positively assured they are holy when one parent is a Christian (not intrinsically, it is the outward reception on earth which is before us), and the passage applies directly to the point in question. If a Jew married a heathen he had profaned himself, the wife was profaned, and so the children and wife were to be put away that was law. Grace came one parent was counted a believer, the other not: were they to separate as the Jews ought to have done? No! The unbelieving was sanctified as the Jew was profaned not holy more than the Jew was profane and the children were holy just as the Jew’s children were profane. What was the consequence for the Jew’s child? He could not be received into the outward privileges of Judaism by circumcision he was profane; the child of the Christian could it was holy. It was thus a definite decision on the point not upsetting the very nature of Christianity by giving a commandment contained in ordinances as Baptists would and do, but giving directions as to the principles on which we are to act.

I am told that an immense system of evil is built up by it. In the first place, if the sanctity of the Lord’s supper had been maintained, which is the unity of the body, and the place of discipline, this would not have been so; but, as far as the principle goes, the great house is contemplated in scripture, and does not cease till He judges it. It is His house in which the vessels to honour are. It is not the body, but it will be judged as His house, responsible as such. I receive, then, the children of a christian parent, all, if born bona fide and brought into the house where the Holy Spirit dwells, to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I receive them because Christ received them, and said that the kingdom of heaven, to be set up after His death, was of such, because they are holy. The precept, “Obey your parents in the Lord,” could not be given them without. If it receive them within, baptism is appointed by the Lord for it: it is not the Lord’s body; but they cannot be received but on the ground of Christ’s death and resurrection. The Father, I know, does receive as such.

— - ^[p. 289] In reference to the subject about which you inquired of me, I have first to ask a question. I know that there are in Strasbourg Baptists who belong to a system well known in Switzerland, which, however, is so bad — so morally bad — that I should not think of considering this secondary subject with you, concerning which, I am, with my whole heart, ready to leave every conscience free. Now, it is very possible that these Mulhausen Baptists belong to the same system as the Strasbourgers: with people who hold such doctrines I should never speak about baptism. A brother, however, just now tells me that the Mulhausen Baptists do not belong to the Strasbourgers.

I confess I would rather treat on any other subject than this of baptism. The great evil of their system is, that they occupy themselves with ordinances instead of with the Lord, and one is obliged to do the same when speaking of it. The subject has been discussed in all its bearings amongst the brethren assembled here, among whom there were brethren who had allowed themselves to be baptised, and who had left the Baptists; and no doubt the falsity of their system has been made very evident, even for those who, in my opinion, do not see clearly. I can only touch on the main points. The first is, that the Baptists’ system places Christendom outside the responsibility of Christianity as not forming part thereof: they consider them only as Gentiles who have not been received through baptism, though those who form Christendom are according to them, not a part of the christian system, of which the true Christians form a part. This is of great importance, because thereby the position of Christendom, and the house, involving responsibility, are destroyed. In a great house there are vessels to honour and dishonour: they are both in the same great house. To this it will be replied, Am I then not called upon to leave it? It is impossible, for one has been received into it by baptism, and through the christian belief. I am not called to leave it, but to separate from the vessels of dishonour. From this point of view, Baptists entirely falsify the position of the Christians in the latter days; moreover, their principle makes baptism the bond of the unity of the body, and through this they are Baptists — that makes them Baptists — but this very principle is quite false, and contrary to scripture. The act of baptism is not the reception into the body of Christ; one may have been baptised a thousand times, and yet not be of this body. It (baptism) is not even the symbol of it. That which makes us members of the body of Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost: we are, through one Spirit, all baptised into one body. Of the body, the Lord’s supper is the symbol, and the participation of it the outward confession of unity: for as it is one bread, so we, being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf). Baptism is the sign of death and resurrection (or, rather, in the participation of it); he, therefore, who rests the oneness of the body on baptism, or intends through baptism to lead into the body of Christ, is quite wrong, and this is an important point.

Then, again, they take obedience as a basis, and subject us to an ordinance as duty of obedience. The principle of being required to obey an ordinance Christianity rejects, because it makes an act of the outer man a condition for entering into the enjoyment of the privileges of grace ... . Baptism is a privilege granted, which admits into the number of the faithful and into the great house. According to the Baptists’ principle the apostles ought not to have partaken of the Lord’s supper, for they had not been baptised; nor could they have been, for there was no one to baptise them. That would evidently be an absurdity, but according to the Baptists’ system, such an inference would be necessary. Again, they pretend the sacraments to be signs and seals of things received — a principle which is false. I do not partake of the Lord’s supper as a sign that I have eaten Christ, but I eat Him there — I drink there His blood in the sign. Moreover, the word is very precise — one is buried into death through baptism; so that their doctrine in reference to these precepts is quite false.

Lastly — and this is the worst — there is the way in which they occupy souls with a legal prescription of obedience, and engage their attention with an ordinance, instead of occupying them with Christ, which gives the soul a false direction as regards its whole state. It then (without knowing it) accepts a principle which breaks down Christianity in its foundation, like him who keeps days, but in a more serious case, because they make the oneness of the body to depend on it. St. Paul was not sent to baptise. I, for my part, feel convinced that the commission to the twelve was “to make disciples of all nations,” not a body of elect converts. Now, since this has been done (be it right or wrong), and they have been baptised, they (the Baptists) will not acknowledge it, and commence to re baptise, or, rather, encourage Christians to do so, because they despise what was done. The difficulty now lies in this, that the Baptists who are sunk into subjection to ordinances necessarily conceal from themselves the ways of God often, no doubt, dear children of God, to whom I, with my whole heart, allow liberty of conscience, as to him who only wants to eat herbs; but really to make ignorance and conformity to law the condition of the oneness of the body is a little too strong!

In the condition in which the church is, I easily yield to it, and one can only hope to protect souls through the details and precise statements of the word of God, leaving the conscience perfectly free; but a religious union in the so called body of Christ (of the Baptists) which would exclude the apostles is a little too absurd!