p286 * * * 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 becomes 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 (Matt. 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 receives 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 bonâ 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.

[52182E]