p289 * * * In reference to the subject about which you inquired of me, I have first to ask a question. I know that there are in Strasbourg Baptists who belong to a system well known in Switzerland, which, however, is so bad - so morally bad - that I should not think of considering this secondary subject with you, concerning which, I am, with my whole heart, ready to leave every conscience free. Now, it is very possible that these Mulhausen Baptists belong to the same system as the Strasbourgers: with people who hold such doctrines I should never speak about baptism. A brother, however, just now tells me that the Mulhausen Baptists do not belong to the Strasbourgers.

I confess I would rather treat on any other subject than this of baptism. The great evil of their system is, that they occupy themselves with ordinances instead of with the Lord, and one is obliged to do the same when speaking of it. The subject has been discussed in all its bearings amongst the brethren assembled here, among whom there were brethren who had allowed themselves to be baptised, and who had left the Baptists; and no doubt the falsity of their system has been made very evident, even for those who, in my opinion, do not see clearly. I can only touch on the main points. The first is, that the Baptists' system places Christendom outside the responsibility of Christianity as not forming part thereof: they consider them only as Gentiles who have not been received through baptism, though those who form Christendom are according to them, not a part of the christian system, of which the true Christians form a part. This is of great importance, because thereby the position of Christendom, and the house, involving responsibility, are destroyed. In a great house there are vessels to honour and dishonour: they are both in the same great house. To this it will be replied, Am I then not called upon to leave it? It is impossible, for one has been received into it by baptism, and through the christian belief. I am not called to leave it, but to separate from the vessels of dishonour. From this point of view, Baptists entirely falsify the position of the Christians in the latter days; moreover, their principle makes baptism the bond of the unity of the body, and through this they are Baptists - that makes them Baptists - but this very principle is quite false, and contrary to scripture. The act of baptism is not the reception into the body of Christ; one may have been baptised a thousand times, and yet not be of this body. It (baptism) is not even the symbol of it. That which makes us members of the body of Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost: we are, through one Spirit, all baptised into one body. Of the body, the Lord's supper is the symbol, and the participation of it the outward confession of unity: for as it is one bread, so we, being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf). Baptism is the sign of death and resurrection (or, rather, in the participation of it); he, therefore, who rests the oneness of the body on baptism, or intends through baptism to lead into the body of Christ, is quite wrong, and this is an important point.

Then, again, they take obedience as a basis, and subject us to an ordinance as duty of obedience. The principle of being required to obey an ordinance Christianity rejects, because it makes an act of the outer man a condition for entering into the enjoyment of the privileges of grace. … Baptism is a privilege granted, which admits into the number of the faithful and into the great house. According to the Baptists' principle the apostles ought not to have partaken of the Lord's supper, for they had not been baptised; nor could they have been, for there was no one to baptise them. That would evidently be an absurdity, but according to the Baptists' system, such an inference would be necessary. Again, they pretend the sacraments to be signs and seals of things received - a principle which is false. I do not partake of the Lord's supper as a sign that I have eaten Christ, but I eat Him there - I drink there His blood in the sign. Moreover, the word is very precise - one is buried into death through baptism; so that their doctrine in reference to these precepts is quite false.

Lastly - and this is the worst - there is the way in which they occupy souls with a legal prescription of obedience, and engage their attention with an ordinance, instead of occupying them with Christ, which gives the soul a false direction as regards its whole state. It then (without knowing it) accepts a principle which breaks down Christianity in its foundation, like him who keeps days, but in a more serious case, because they make the oneness of the body to depend on it. St. Paul was not sent to baptise. I, for my part, feel convinced that the commission to the twelve was "to make disciples of all nations," not a body of elect converts. Now, since this has been done (be it right or wrong), and they have been baptised, they (the Baptists) will not acknowledge it, and commence to re-baptise, or, rather, encourage Christians to do so, because they despise what was done. The difficulty now lies in this, that the Baptists who are sunk into subjection to ordinances necessarily conceal from themselves the ways of God - often, no doubt, dear children of God, to whom I, with my whole heart, allow liberty of conscience, as to him who only wants to eat herbs; but really to make ignorance and conformity to law the condition of the oneness of the body is a little too strong!

In the condition in which the church is, I easily yield to it, and one can only hope to protect souls through the details and precise statements of the word of God, leaving the conscience perfectly free; but a religious union in the so-called body of Christ (of the Baptists) which would exclude the apostles is a little too absurd!

[52183E]