p280 * * * The subject you refer to is one on which I so far unwillingly engage, that it is one which I feel is to be left entirely to individual consciences. If a person has never been baptised, clearly he ought to be; if he has, he cannot be again. The mere testimony - save as any honest sacrifice of self, in which sense it may be accompanied with felt blessing - is to me null, because, were I to be baptised tomorrow, no one would say I had become a Christian; they would merely say I was become a Baptist, or, at least, as it is expressed, that I saw baptism. At the first, it was a further testimony that one put on Christ, and bowed to the grace of the gospel.

In the first place, I am quite clear that the whole system of Baptists is wrong in principle from beginning to end, and in their idea of the import of the act. They speak of obedience; now, obedience to ordinances is setting aside the whole spirit and character of the gospel and of Christianity itself. In all cases it is unscriptural. Baptism, moreover, is the act of him that baptises, not of him that is baptised. He is received by it; he bows to it as the appointed way of his reception by the church; and this is what is suited to Christianity, which is grace that seeks and admits into the place of blessing - not the voluntary act of the person coming, though he is made willing: a voluntary act of obedience being the introduction of a sinner into grace, is contrary to the whole nature and spirit of Christianity, and christian thoughts in their fundamental character. Hence there is no command to be baptised, but to go and baptise; and this marked in a very signal manner, as the twelve apostles never were baptised with christian baptism (with John's only, which has nothing to do with the matter), because, being an act of admission, they were sent to admit. Had it been one of obedience to a command, surely they would have been the first to do it; and who was, then, to baptise them? This shews its real character most clearly.

The whole adult baptism view falls before my mind, as utterly unscriptural and ill-founded - scripture, moreover, in practice, never speaking of a testimony, but of a benefit conferred: "What doth hinder me to be baptised?" (the following verse, I apprehend, is not authentic scripture, though I doubt not in such a case very right, but not the then way of dealing, however), and "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Hence the question as to children is entirely changed. It is a simple question of who is to be received. All the arguments from the mere incapacity of the infant, have no weight. It is a question of grace, and whether the infant is to be brought into the place where the Holy Ghost dwells, or left in the world where Satan governs.

But before I turn to this - the one point with me - I would notice another principle of Baptists which is wholly false - that baptism is the expression of the state in which the individual already is. This, I apprehend, is wholly unscriptural. It is an external reception, it is true; but in its meaning, it is the reception or entrance, not the expression of a previous one. The believer is dead and risen with Christ; the reality of this is, of course, by living faith; but as to the further act, "as many of you as have been baptised unto Christ have put on Christ" - not witnessed our having previously put Him on: we have been baptised (it is really unto, and so always) into His death not because we were there before: we are "buried with him by baptism into death" "wherein, also, we are risen with him." Baptism signifies, undoubtedly, death and resurrection, but it is then and there, as to the meaning of the form, we die and rise again. We enter into the church by dying and rising again. We enter into the outward visible body by that ordinance, which signifies our dying and rising again.

Now, as to the reception of children, Matthew 18 seems to me to have great force. The question is, Are children to be received by Christ? Is the kingdom of such? I am aware that He is giving them as the pattern of our spirit, but there was an actual infant there of whom He was speaking; and if it were a saintly person, who was as humble as a child, there would be no sense in saying, "it was not the will of your Father that one of these little ones should perish, for their angels," etc. That is, it is the infant. This being, I think, clear, the passage becomes remarkable "Of such is the kingdom." They are spoken of as in the way of perishing, but that they are not to be rejected, because, as the shepherd saves a lost sheep, Christ is come to save that which was lost. (Matt. 18:11, 14.) I refer to this, as defining the character of the persons admissible into the kingdom. As to the manner of admission, all are agreed.

But there is something much more positive than this. If a Jew married a Gentile, the wife was to be sent away and the children were to be rejected as "unclean," and not admitted into the house of God by circumcision. This question arose when one parent was converted, and instead of the Jew being relatively profaned, though still a Jew, so that his child was unclean, the heathen or Jew was relatively sanctified, so that the child was holy - not intrinsically, of course, but relatively, so that he would be received among the people - "else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." People have talked of their being legitimate, but this has nothing to do with it: the Jewish principle brought out in Nehemiah is perfectly clear. It is said, Why then not give them the Lord's supper? The Lord's supper is symbolic of the unity of the body, and it is by one Spirit we are baptised into one body; hence, I apprehend, it is he who is made really partaker of the Holy Ghost who can be properly partaker of the Lord's supper. Now, I admit that there is no command for infants to be baptised: it would suppose a moral effect. But there is none for adults - there is to the apostles, to go and baptise the nations they had brought into discipleship: and households are spoken of in scripture. We know it was the habit and thought of those sent. I am told that Christianity is the opposite of this in its nature. This is true as regards individual salvation. But I do not think introduction into "the house" the same thing as that. If one parent be converted, they are, it seems to me, entitled to that, and unjustly deprived of it, if it is refused to them. This thought was soon lost, and individual salvation connected with it and the new birth.

As regards Acts 2, I think the passage is of moment as confirming the habits of Jewish thinking for the Gentiles were in as those "afar off," by sovereign grace, as far as God called them. But it did inspire the hopes of the Jews, that their children would partake of the benefit, and such was their thought. It is true, they rejected, as a nation, this testimony of the Holy Ghost, but I do not think that the remnant who did receive it would have let go the privilege as regards admission to the house in which the Holy Ghost dwelt; the result would shew itself independent of ordinances, where the operation of the Holy Ghost was manifest, and the liberty and understanding He gives to members of the body there; then they would enjoy the privileges belonging to members and to the unity of the body, according to the intelligence of faith, brought up, meanwhile, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and the precepts of the house addressed to them in their place. When the call of the Gentiles came in a new shape with Paul, and the unity of the body was made the basis of his ministry, nothing was professedly changed, and he preached still the kingdom, and said to the Jews still, "unto you first"; but while having people and households baptised, he speaks less of it and attaches less importance to it: the making it a matter of obedience never crosses his thoughts. Such I believe to be the true scriptural history of this subject.

But if any one thinks that he ought to be baptised, or that he has not been, surely he ought, or he will have his conscience ill at ease about it, and that is evil, no matter what the subject is, only he would do well to search the mind of God first. Obedience to an ordinance is, I am satisfied, wrong; and there is no command for it in scripture. It is not the act of the baptised nor a public testimony. All this I believe to be most unscriptural, and in its principles unchristian, though often most honestly done.