p409 [F G Patterson] [To the same.] MY DEAR BROTHER, - As regards immersion, I have a little doubt from 1 Corinthians 10 whether it was strictly dipping; but I do not think it was originally sprinkling. In the English system, at first, it was only allowed on certifying weakness in the child. In the Greek it is not allowed at all. Buried and death is the idea which implies something like immersion - at least, going into the water, and then being covered with it by pouring, as was in the sea and the cloud. But I should not think of repeating a bonâ fide baptism because of the greater or smaller quantity of water, any more than I should think I had not taken the Lord's supper if the pieces had been partially cut up before celebrating the supper. But I should follow what I believed the fullest figure of the truth when I could.

As to the formulary, the variation in the terms, εἰς the name of Jesus, the Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, are a plain proof that these words are not the formulary at all, which I think our good friends have overlooked. Next, remark that they had no direction to baptise at all, save the commission in Matthew (though at the same time that was only to the Gentiles). But as none other is given, I always use that of Matthew - yet invariably, before this question arose, bringing in the special recognition of the Lord Jesus, as the One to whom the child was as baptised. But there is little scriptural light on the subject, our place being the gathering of the faithful into the consciousness of their place in the midst of a great baptised house. St. Paul was not sent to baptise, so that we have, as united in one Body, no commission. It is not abrogated, and we take it up as we find it, as Paul did. The attempt to set right this way fails. Peter and the others began, even with Cornelius - namely, a Gentile - with the names of the Lord. Yet the command as to the nations, of which this was the first specimen, is in Matthew 28. Samaritans, who were not Jews, were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, and it is hard to see how they went clean against Matthew 28, even if baptism of the Jews is said to be another, which I can not admit, because "there is … one baptism." Hence I conclude that "the Lord Jesus," "Jesus," gives merely the thought and bearing of the baptism - that it was in His name, under His authority and owning Him it was done - but "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," the full truth to which they were baptised. It is by Him we have the knowledge of the Trinity; the Father and the Holy Ghost through and with Himself. That which some took up, that the commission of Matthew dropped and Paul's began afresh for the Gentiles, has no application here, because Jesus Christ, and the Lord, are used before that was the case. Acts 2:38 shews it began thus. But the name of Jesus Christ is only as owning Him and by His authority - the confession of Jesus Christ. Here it is ἐπί, not εἰς; in other places εἰς, as chapter 8:16; ἐν, chapter 10:48, shewing, I judge, that it was more the nature and purport of the baptism than the form. Hence, my habit is to immerse unless there is special hindrance, or, at any rate, standing in the bath pour water over them, using both the name of the Lord Jesus, and the words of Matthew 28. I am not aware of any special connection of the term Lord and (the) House; Lord and servants seems to me the more scriptural correlation. The importance is that it is individual, which is not without its weight. We are a habitation of God through the Spirit. Christ is as Son over the House, but that is another idea from Lord, though of course He be Lord of all.

Of course, it should be by a Christian. I may not reject or repeat what has been done bonâ fide in christian profession nor seek individual judgment of the state of souls when it was done. But clearly it ought to be done in faith, true prayer, and on the part of the Lord in His name; and who should do that but a believer? I should most assuredly seek the baptism of my child by a believer and none else. I do not say it is not valid else when done, but it is not what I would seek, or accept when I had to seek it.

As regards Sligo, &c., I have more difficulty in answering; but my difficulty is ignorance of facts, and unwillingness to precipitate anything where God is evidently working most graciously - a great lesson to learn. I have no wish at all to enfeeble the distinct ground on which we stand - far from it. I believe God has owned it, and, while exercising our faith, is judging the course the others have pursued. I should hold steadily the ground I am upon; but I desire to have my heart as large and helpful to any of God's children as possible. These brethren in general have avowedly broken with B -, so that, as far as I know, as to most of them at any rate, I should have no ground to refuse them. But some have not got on ground on which they could be on any solid ground in the path in which we walk; but they have made and are making evident progress, and I wait to see the result, as they are very wisely doing to see their path. … If they were ignorant and had mistaken thoughts, I should not impute it, but the earnest effort of many who walk ill is to be acknowledged on neutral ground. I should not accept being drawn into that. I would not force a decision on ignorant persons who had not the principles on which to decide. But there is also an effort to keep a lawless liberty to do what people like (I do not mean there, but around), independent of the general action of the church of God, in which I never should acquiesce. I should gladly associate with these gatherings if they are right or ignorant. But I am wholly reluctant to get on ground which admits of defilement, and when I have got clear of corrupting evil, get mixed up with it again. Of course, if I had to act myself, I should inform myself sufficiently on the subject to be able to judge, and trust the Lord to guide me. I am not at all sorry not to be called upon. All this, I am quite aware, says nothing, save principles and motives, but as I stated, I am not sufficiently informed of facts to do anything else. I should desire to be in communion with them, but I should utterly deplore any feebleness or inconsistency of walk as to faithfulness to the Lord, and, as I said, get defiled over again and loose, when we had cleared ourselves to His glory and got to walk uprightly if feebly. Such I desire still to be my walk. There is a great effort to have looseness and man instead of the Lord, but it is rapidly acquiring its true character.

I feel the question as to S -, &c., a very serious one before the Lord. The last thing I should desire would be to reject them. It would be a sin not to seek otherwise. I only look for care that we do not slip into looseness as to the Lord's honour; for those who know the difference it is all as one as irrecoverable. You should look much to the Lord. Had I to take up the question, I should set about it with the desire to be in union, but carefully watching that I did not myself go out of the principles I hold to be those of Christ's truth. Further, I perhaps might not have to go, leaving the process of clearing others to God. Love to all the saints.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

Dublin, 1865.

[51253E]