p276 * * * The first principle commonly stated is that of obedience. My answer to this is an absolute denial of obedience to ordinances in Christianity. It is a mischievous anti-christian principle, called "subject to ordinances," and deteriorates the whole character of a person's Christianity. As regards baptism in particular, it is perfectly certain that according to scripture it is not a matter of obedience. The proof is this; when the eunuch of Candace comes to water he asks, "What does hinder me to be baptised?" an expression, which if it were obedience, could have no place. Further, the obedience of a heathen or a Jew to a christian precept when not yet within, not yet admitted among Christians, is an absurdity contrary to the whole nature and principle of Christianity. Another case shews evidently that the notion of obedience is foreign to baptism. Peter says, "Can any man forbid water … which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Both these cases prove that it was a privilege desired or conferred, and not an act of obedience - admission amongst Christians, the act of the baptiser on behalf of the assembly, not of the baptised. The truth is there is no command of Christ to be baptised - there was to baptise, and it could not be otherwise. Christ could not as to Christianity give a command to those without. If the man is within it is by baptism, so that there can be no command to be baptised. The importance of this is that it shews that the baptist system falsifies the whole nature of baptism. Hence the apostles were not baptised. They - the twelve, not Paul - were sent to baptise, to admit into God's house. They could not be admitted.

I am aware that Baptists plead John's baptism, but this is too gross a confession for me to dwell on it, because John's baptism had no reference to death and resurrection - nay, was the opposite to it, for it proposed to receive Christ, and, as far as it went, that He should not therefore die at all. Of course in fact this was impossible, but then those who had received this baptism were as Christians baptised over again. (Cf. Acts 19)

The next principle asserted by those who insist on re-baptising, is that baptism is the public confession that a man is already dead and risen again in Christ. This is entirely contrary also to scripture. Baptism is the doing the thing in sign, the declaration that it is not yet done, as far as man has to say it, or make confession, not that it is. "Arise," says Ananias, "and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"; not to be baptised in testimony that thy sins are washed away. Again "Buried with him in baptism." (Col. 2.) "So many of us as were baptised unto Jesus Christ were baptised unto his death." And so in every case. "As many of you as have been baptised unto Christ have put on Christ." They were not baptised because they had already done it. None but those who are in principle Roman Catholics suppose that the work is done in it, but it is the sign of dying and rising again - not of being dead and risen. No sacrament is a sign or profession of what is done, but of the doing of it.

This leads me to another point - what baptism is to the being members of Christ's body. This is another unscriptural fallacy. Baptism has, even as a sign, nothing to do with the unity of the body. "By one Spirit are we all baptised into one body" - not by water. The baptism of the Spirit is the seal of faith, as scripture repeatedly declares. "In whom after that ye believed ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." And if this was given, as in the case of Cornelius, they were baptised afterwards to be received amongst Christians. Baptism as a sign does not go beyond death and resurrection, and hence is individual. The church does not die - has nothing to do with it: it is taken out of death in Christ, and united to a Head in heaven by the Holy Ghost; but for this Christ must be ascended there. He sends down the Holy Ghost and forms the church. (See the end of Eph. 1.) Of this unity the Lord's supper is the sign, not Baptism. We are all one body, "for we are all partakers of that one loaf." But here again it is not a sign that we have eaten His flesh and drunk His blood. We do so in figure, as we are one body inasmuch as we partake.

But baptism presents the doctrine that I, a living sinner, die to sin, and arise again to be accepted in Christ's name, as alive unto God in the power of His resurrection, of that operation of God that raised Him from the dead, that this is the only way to be received before God. Hence by it we are received into the assembly on earth - the house builded on earth for a habitation of God - not into the body. In this we are looked at in scripture as seated in heavenly places in Him the Head. Hence Paul who was sent a minister of the church to complete the word of God was not sent to baptise. He accepted of course baptism as already established in the church of God, as (some Quakers excepted) I suppose every Christian does; but he had a special revelation as to the Lord's supper which is directly connected as a sign with the unity of the body. The twelve who, though the church existed, had not this mission, but had been sent forth by Christ in connection with the kingdom - though subsequently as we know empowered by the Holy Ghost after the ascension of Christ, and that the church was formed by His descent - were sent to baptise, but before the ascension though after the resurrection, and continued to receive of course into the outward public body on earth by baptism, with no examination however as to the reality of faith. But men were openly received out of heathenism or Judaism among Christians, so that it became a public profession. But this mission was not a mission for believers' baptism as it is called. They were sent to disciple all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

I am aware that it is said, But is it not said in Mark, "He that believes and is baptised"? - I know it is, and something more, "shall be saved." Now I do not in the least accuse Baptists of any want of honesty in suppressing this, which gives its whole sense and character to the phrase, but I do say that it does shew that their views of baptism obscure entirely their perception of the force of scripture. Why do they not quote it all? Do they deny that I, or other believers who are not re-baptised according to their ideas, are saved? They dare not, nor do they desire to say so, but then why do they quote the passage? They cannot use it because of their views of baptism. To say that a man's obedience is to be added to his faith for salvation, is, save for a few extreme persons, too monstrous to be received. Whereas supposing, as it has happened to me, a Jew or a heathen is really convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and feels his own sins even, but says, 'My mother is a pious Jewess; it would kill her if I were to be baptised,' I say to him, I cannot recognise you as saved. It is not a poor obedience to an ordinance when already a Christian which is in question here, but a shrinking from being one.

It is in this sense of saving that baptism is referred to in Peter, which, though the expression be obscure, is clear enough as to the point we are upon - "the like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" not the form of washing, of course: it must be real. It is a matter of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ, but baptism is the sign of this, of dying and rising again in Him, so as to be on this ground before God. Can obedience to an ordinance save us, even in figure? We are before God on the ground of death and resurrection when baptised, and received into the house to be brought up and educated in divine life. Hence Christendom, and this is to me a very serious point, is judged as Christendom, and is in point of fact, till God finally judges it, the place of the habitation of the Holy Ghost. It is said, "But if that servant say in his heart, My lord delays his coming … the lord of that servant," etc. He stands on the same ground as to his responsibility as the one made ruler of all his goods - is spoken of as the same servant. Baptism receives into the house. There was no other method of receiving into the house, and no one could be received but on the ground of Christ's death and resurrection.

We have seen the scriptures never speak of baptising believers, nor any one, because they are dead and risen again in baptism. The question then is, as it is receiving grace, not man's acts or obedience, is it the mind of scripture that children should be received or not? No flesh can be presented to God, or be received, but on the ground of death and resurrection: on that scripture is clear. This is in baptism. Is it then God's mind that they should be received into the house where the Holy Ghost is, to be brought up by Him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; or left outside in the world, where the devil is prince and god? For there is this without and within, whatever confusion exists through man. Scripture is clear - "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Men say this was being received by Christ on earth. The kingdom of heaven was only at hand, and was only set up when Christ left the earth. Further, the question arose, Is the Christian to put away his heathen wife and children as among the Jews, because that, profaning him, the children were profane? No: grace was at work, and the heathen was sanctified (not holy, no more than the Jew was profane; he was only profaned and the children profane), and the children of the heathen women among the Jews were not. They are to be received, and then as within to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, which while without they could not be. Hence they receive precepts: "Children, obey your parents, for this is well pleasing to the Lord."

Two things are added: What can the children do? and, What good does it do them? The children do nothing: grace acts towards them. No one is brought nigh by doing. Baptists may think so. Scripture speaks of grace. They are consecrated to Christ and brought to God, but as ordered with the sign of death and resurrection - the more significant because they have not yet actually sinned. The good done to them is that they are brought within, into the house where the Holy Ghost dwells, to be brought up, etc. I admit there is no commandment to baptise infants, nor is there to baptise believers, and there is no commandment to be baptised at all. But the Baptist notion of baptism, and all that he grounds on it, is unscriptural. And the scripture will have infants received. They that receive them receive Christ, and of such is the kingdom of heaven, and the child of a believing parent is holy. I do not doubt for a moment that children dying are received as saved into heaven. (See Matt. 18.) It is monstrous to think they cannot be received by the church on earth. It is said, why not give them the Lord's supper? Because that is the symbol of the unity of the body, and they are not of that till baptised by the Holy Ghost.

I can only give a sketch of the great principles which the word of God furnishes to my mind, and all on which the Baptist views are founded seem to me to be contradicted by it; and the truth of what the great house is shews the mischievous character of it, as well as the way in which individuals are directed to ordinances from Christ, and the confusion which diverts from true separation or godliness within to the reception out of Judaism or heathenism without. In this point of view it seems to me practically deplorable.

[52179E]