BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER
BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
Romans 6: 1 - 4; 1 Corinthians 10: 15 - 17
Ques It speaks here of baptism being unto death, is that the utmost limit?
FER Yes; there is no resurrection in it. I think that when we are led on to the true christian place, as dead and risen with Christ, we come back to baptism. In a certain sense, death and resurrection must go together. You are not left in death.
Children are baptised unto death, with the intent that they should walk in newness of life. They are baptised in view of that.
Ques I suppose you had in your mind the scope and bearing of baptism and the Lord’s supper?
FER I think the two things are not clear in the minds of many. They do not see the difference in import between the two. If I am baptised, I have no say in it. Saying is consenting. A man cannot baptise himself.
There is only one scripture where you get that the individual does something. “Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins”, Acts 22: 16. The individual is looked at there as the consenting party. You must put the responsibility upon the actor. It is not so much responsibility as privilege. If any one had a chance of washing away his sins he would do it. It was his privilege to identify himself with the christian company. The responsibility was with the actor. The command is to the baptiser. It is a commission to some one to baptise.
Ques Who would you baptise if you baptised adults?
FER I suppose those who accepted the testimony. I am speaking of what things were in their normal state. Those who were baptised, accepting the testimony, had their place at the Lord’s table.
[p. 572] There was nothing more expected from them. Having received the testimony, and being baptised, they were qualified for the Lord’s supper. I have felt the position of brethren here is peculiar. Properly speaking brethren have nothing to do with baptism. What I mean is, we have been called out in the midst of christendom, a baptised community. It is not an assembly matter.
Rem I see your point. It is no part of the testimony in that way; it has nothing to do with brethren.
FER Yes; all we have to do with it is to rectify omissions. Sometimes with regard to people coming into communion, the question is raised as to whether they have been baptised, because there are certain parties in christendom where people are not baptised. In that case we have to rectify the omission.
We get the negative side in baptism and the positive side in the Lord’s supper. That is, baptism is what we have done with. In the Lord’s supper it is not what we have done with, but what we enter into with regard to it.
Ques You press it on a soul as a privilege if he wants to come to the Lord’s table?
FER Yes; it has been a help to many to see that the responsibility of baptism rests on the baptiser. Many look on it as an act of obedience. It was the general idea amongst ourselves. What lay at the bottom of it was the lack of apprehension of the truth of the house, not the body. Baptism makes it individual. Baptists have the idea of the body and not the house. In the Church of England they have the idea of the house and not the body.
Some have the idea that it is a means of grace. It was that that showed me the difference between what was right and what was wrong. If my child were at the point of death, I should not have it baptised. I should only care for baptism on the supposition that my child is going to live. Then it has to [p. 573] die. Baptism is dissociating. You dissociate yourself from what you have been identified with. I not only dissociate myself but my children.
Ques What was John’s baptism?
FER It was dissociating them from an untoward generation.
Ques How old would you baptise a child on the faith of a parent?
FER As far as the child is under the control of the parents. Very few christians have the sense that they are living in a world where Christ is rejected and on which the judgment of sin has been pronounced. If they recognised that, they would be ready to dissociate their children from it. It is a question of subjection and control. If a parent has his house in such a condition as it ought to be in, he is the head of the house, and there is no difficulty at all. But if children are brought up to be consulted in a variety of ways, the probability is that there will be a tussle over it.
If it were apprehended that there were two spheres down here, one where Christ has a place, and the other where Satan has a place, there would be no difficulty about it. The difficulty in the present day is because the two spheres have become so intermingled. I question if there was much difficulty about it at the beginning. Now the world is so mixed up with the professing body, that you cannot distinguish.
Rem No; not outwardly, only morally.
FER Still, to learn anything about these things you must go back to the beginning. You must not get your idea of things from the confusion, but from the beginning.
Ques Now what about the other side — the positive? I think what you said about its being dissociation is important.
FER When we come to the Lord’s supper, it is really the entrance into proper christian place. As regards worship, and so on, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle”, Hebrews 13: 10.
Ques What is the meaning of being partakers of the altar?
FER That you are in communion with it. You are not committed to it; it is not administered to you. In the systems it is not their own act; it is not “the cup of blessing which we bless”. It is administered. They have really put the Lord’s supper on the footing of baptism, and not on the ground of communion. I admit the title of every believer to the Lord’s table (as a matter of fact they are not at the Lord’s table). The one who breaks the bread is simply the mouthpiece of the assembly; he does not administer anything; it is an act of fellowship. It is open, as the Lord may guide. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” It is corporate; it is the communion, the communion of the whole body — the church.
Ques What is the force of 1 Peter 3: 21: “the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us”? There seems to be a positive advantage to it.
FER Yes; I think so. The effect of baptism was that they came into the place where they were entitled to a good conscience, and where alone it was to be found. Children of believers are dissociated in principle outwardly from the world. It is in view of their being brought up in the nurture of the Lord. With regard to the Lord’s supper, they have not communion there because they are baptised.
Ques Is there any connection between circumcision and baptism? As circumcision was applied to all Israel, is baptism applied [p. 575] to all christians?
FER I believe with regard to proselytes, they were both circumcised and baptised.
Ques Was not baptism the mark of death on them?
FER Circumcision would not apply to the household; it was only the males who were circumcised. It meant the whole strength was separated to God. It is not exactly a figure of baptism. I think the great idea of baptism is this: it is the recognition of the claims of Christ, not simply on the person who accepts the testimony, but on all his. I not only accept the authority of Christ for myself, but for all who belong to me. I recognise the extent of His authority. I dissociate them from what Christ has died to. I use His death to that intent. If there is a positive side to it, it is that I recognise the proper domain of His authority, not only extending it to myself, but to all that He has given to me. I bring them into the house, not the body.
Rem Many have a difficulty because there is no positive scripture to show that you must baptise your children.
FER I think it is because they fail to recognise the two distinct spheres in the world, the one where Christ has His sway, and the other where Satan has sway. If they recognised these, their difficulty as to baptism would disappear.
I remember J.N.D. saying what brought the flood of baptist ideas in amongst brethren was the reception of William Street. It was a Baptist Chapel which came in as it was. It was really the same establishment under new management. Very few saw the truth of the house; they had an idea of the truth of the body.
Ques Would you say a word as to the house and the body?
FER When we come to scriptures which take up the question of the household, there are two [p. 576] characters which Christ has here: He is Head and He is Lord. If you want the idea of the body, it is connected with Him as Head; if you want the idea of the house, it is connected with Him as Lord.
There are only two epistles which take up the relative duties of fathers and children — Ephesians and Colossians. What we find is, as long as the apostle speaks of the assembly, it is Christ. The moment he comes to the relative duties, he speaks of Lord. On the ground of the house, not only children have a place, but slaves. The apostle is setting forth the whole sphere as to Christ, bearing on the Head. Then His place as Lord, that takes in children, and so on.
What comes closely home in connection with baptism, is to give authority to the name of the Lord in your own household. It is positively the case in some of the households of the saints, they do not begin the day with family prayer. They cannot expect to get on much. My conviction is that we as parents have much to do with the failures of our children. They are as keen as possible to find out what is reality with their parents.