"The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again".
Publisher's Note
In view of the helpful character of the following letters, it has been thought desirable to reprint them, and we trust that the ministry of our late beloved brother will still be used of the Lord to the enlightenment and blessing of his people. It is considered desirable to emphasise the fact pointed out by the author, that the letters are copies of actual correspondence between himself and a brother who was seeking fuller light.
Prefatory Note
Seeing that many of the Lord's people are desirous of knowing what is the teaching of Scripture with regard to baptism, and that many erroneous charges have been made against those who hold household baptism, it was thought well, instead of taking up the subject by way of treatise, to publish these letters as they were received from an inquirer, together with the replies as they were sent (substantially the same), hoping that in this way they might be used of the Lord to answer the queries of others who are passing through similar exercises. The compiler is answerable for the views expressed in the replies, and he desires to submit them to the test of Scripture, and to the prayerful consideration of his fellow-believers.
Scripture quotations which differ from the Authorized Version are from the New Translation by J. N. Darby.
Second reprint 1999
My dear Brother,
In reply to your inquiry -- viz.: "Is it correct to say that the subject of baptism has been brushed on one side by common consent by those with whom you are associated as gathered to the name of the Lord?" I have to say that it is not in any sense correct to say so.
On the other hand, I might say that the Scriptures present baptism as the act of the individual, and not as the act of the church, and by that I mean that the responsibility to baptise is that of the individual, and not of the church. This I know is not how you view it, but it may help to explain to you why we do not quarrel over it, nor yet brush it aside as unimportant. Speaking for myself, I attach much more importance to the Name in which it is done than to the manner of doing it, or the amount of water, or the person who does it, though I have no doubt about either the manner, or the person, or the subjects of it.
Scripture is clear that by it a person enters the profession of the faith, and that it is in view of salvation, and I am not aware that it is anywhere in the Scriptures connected with the assembly and the breaking of bread.
Hoping this may satisfy your inquiry and perhaps set you thinking.
I am, dear brother, yours in Christ, C.W.W.
Dear Brother,
Thanks for your note of the 28th ult. re 'Baptism'. I observe that the subject still holds a place in your teaching, and that it is incorrect to think otherwise. At the same time I must confess that the way you hold it, and the way I have apprehended the teaching of Scripture relating to the same, is very different.
I admit individual responsibility (of course, a babe has none), that is, as the subject of it. (See Acts 8:36 - 40, omitting verse 37, which has no authority). I further agree in saying it is not the act of the assembly, although I think the assembly is in view, see Acts 2:41: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added ... about three thousand souls". Certainly the Person to whom I am baptised is of vastly more importance than the way in which it is done, but Scripture leaves no uncertainty as to either. I think Romans 6 is very definite: "Buried with him by baptism unto death".
You say, 'A person enters the profession of the faith', but of what good is that unless he possesses it? Then you add, 'It is in view of salvation', but you do not tell me where to find this aspect of baptism. Of course, I know what you mean. It is bringing babies into the 'sphere of blessing', as your company term it. I may tell you candidly, I have looked through the Scriptures in vain for this peculiar circle. I cannot find the slightest trace of an infant being baptised. Households there are, but the attendant circumstances in every instance leave no room for speculating about their individual members. You are conversant with the cases in point, hence I do not quote the various passages. You cannot, however, say that Cornelius and his household were baptised 'in view of salvation', for they had received the Holy Spirit prior to that act.
I may add I have read some articles by your very best writers on the subject, but while the reasoning is good, and written with
marked intelligence in divine things, yet it fails to carry conviction with it because it lacks a "Thus saith the Lord".
Could I see it from 'the Book' I would bow to it immediately, but mere deductions and inferences are too sandy to build upon. My own opinion is, that had Mr. Darby held believers' baptism as presented in the Scriptures, it -- that is, baby baptism -- would never have found a footing amongst you. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump".
To me it has always been perplexing, how men otherwise deeply taught in the mind of God could accept such a flimsy theory. If you can show me where I am wrong, I am quite prepared to give it up (that is, "believers' baptism"), but it must be from the Scriptures.
Yours in Christ, ___________
Dear Brother,
In view of your letter just received, it would be futile for me to attempt to show you the truth. You are perfectly satisfied that you have it.
If I cannot show you the truth, I can at least point out where you and others with you are in collision with the Scripture. I think your letter fairly represents the views of those who hold what you term "believers' baptism", that 'a person believes, is saved, and ought to be baptised'; also that 'he believes, has put on Christ by faith, and ought to show it by being baptised'; also that 'he believes, his sins are gone, and is baptised because of it', also that 'he believes, gets life and confesses it in baptism'. Some of your writers also teach that it signifies union with Christ. If this is a fair epitome of your views, I call your attention to Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". Here salvation follows baptism, and does not precede it, as you teach. This
scripture proves too much for those who hold "believers' baptism", for if the salvation of the soul is in question, no one can have his soul saved except he is baptised, for the order is, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved", and it conclusively proves that there is a salvation and a sphere of salvation other than that of the soul, though it does not necessarily exclude soul salvation. It does not say he that believes and is saved should be baptised, as you hold, and I submit that it answers your query as to where you will find that aspect of baptism where 'it is in view of salvation'; and more, I ask you and those who think with you to reconcile your views of baptism with this and other scriptures. Galatians 3:27 says, "As many as have been baptised unto Christ have put on Christ". Your thought is, 'As many as have put on Christ by faith ought to be baptised'. In Acts 2:38, Peter says, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"; not because their sins were already remitted, as you teach. In Acts 22:16 it is written: "And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord"; he had believed, but his sins still attached to him in some way, and they are to be washed away by baptism. Clearly this is something different to the forgiveness of sins spoken of in Acts 13:38: "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things", etc. In 1 Peter 3:21 baptism saves. How does it save? Certainly it cannot save the soul, yet it saves! To sum up: In Mark, the salvation comes after the baptism, not before it; in Galatians, Christ is put on in baptism; in Acts 2 they are to be baptised for the remission of sins; in Acts 22 sins are washed away in baptism, and in 1 Peter baptism saves. All these scriptures clearly demonstrate the aspect of baptism where it is in view of salvation, and not because the subjects of it were in salvation, as you contend. In Romans 6:3, 4, it is "baptised unto his death" -- "buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead .. we also should walk in newness of life"; that is, "buried ... unto death" -- in view of walking here
"in newness of life", (You surely do not bury believers, that is living persons, do you?). They are not buried because they are already walking in newness of life, but in view of doing so here in this world. I am afraid I have to say you bury persons alive; that is, you bury them because they are believers. Scripture buries the same persons, not because they are believers (though they may be such), but because they have found out that they are sinners under the sentence of death. They have discovered that which has been always true of them. "If one died for all, then were all dead". You bury living persons, Scripture never. You connect baptism with soul salvation and life eternal; Scripture connects it with provisional or administrative forgiveness, which relates to my path on earth, and it has nothing to do with soul salvation and fitness for heaven. You say a person believes, is saved and ought to be baptised. Scripture says, "He that believes and is baptised shall be saved". Which is right?
Seeing that you have reversed Scripture order as to adults, it is useless to talk to you about children, but since you admit that Scripture recognises household baptism, you give yourself away without knowing it. You ask, 'What good is it for a person to enter the profession of the faith unless he possesses faith?' I ask, How do you know who possesses faith? You necessarily have to take every person upon his profession, and not upon his possession. Perhaps you will say that Philip was wrong when he baptised Simon. From your point of view I should say that was a case of "believers' baptism", for "Simon himself believed also" and "he was baptised".
As I have said before, there is no such thing in Scripture as "believers' baptism". Of necessity every adult responsible person must receive God's testimony, or if you like, he 'must believe' before he can be baptised, but Scripture invariably connects it with the judgment of God due to the sinner as such, and not with his state as a believer. As in the reality, so in the figure, one must have part in Christ's death in order to have part in His life; I do not live to die, but die in order (or with a view) to live. "In
that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin [baptised unto His death], but alive unto God through [in] Jesus Christ". That is -- I the sinner accept the judgment of death, that came upon the Lord Jesus, as my judgment. He went into death for me; I am baptised unto His death; in baptism I the sinner pass into death in figure, in order that I may reach Him who is on the other side of death and live here for Him.
They were "sinners" who came to John's baptism; sinners who "justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him"; again "baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins". They were sinners who were called upon in Acts 2 to repent and be baptised. Saul in Acts 22 was the man who had persecuted the saints of God and though he had doubtless submitted himself to the Lord and received His forgiveness, he is told to be baptised and wash away his sins; that is, to disassociate himself from all that with which he had been connected as a persecuting Jew.
You have invented a term that has no foundation in Scripture, viz.: "Believers' baptism", and having done so, pervert plain scriptures to support it. Mark 16:16, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22, and Romans 6 being witness, as well as other scriptures.
I am, yours in Him who died and rose again, C.W.W.
Dear Brother,
Many thanks for your kind, interesting letter on baptism. I quite appreciate the open and candid way you state your mind. In the main I agree with what you say, so far as it relates to adults.
Doubtless you have given a fair representation of the way we hold "believers' baptism". Although I must here admit, for some
time I have seen a little further. I can see clearly now that it is not in the capacity of believers that they are baptised, but as sinners. At the same time, notwithstanding the difficulty in Mark 16:16 (which I am unable to explain so far), I think it essential that a person should profess faith in Christ before baptism. I have observed that when Peter presents baptism he connects it with repentance "for the remission of sins", Acts 2. This, I apprehend, was the administration of forgiveness by the assembly in a public way, such power having been conferred in John 20; that is, in a regular way; of course saints are not infallible, and might make a mistake in receiving one not really saved; but does not absolute forgiveness precede this? Were not Paul's sins gone when he owned Jesus Lord on the Damascus road? Of course publicly when baptised and put in his place amongst the saints.
I do not deny household baptism, but I find in every instance the attendant circumstances would forbid the idea that children were amongst the number. For instance, the Philippian jailor's household "rejoiced, believing in God", so that no matter how young they were or how old, they certainly had faith in Christ. In the case of Lydia you have to suppose that she was a married woman with children. This is hardly probable since she is so far from home and on business. Then Paul enters her house and comforts the brethren (not babes), Acts 16:40. In chapter 18: 8, Crispus "believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptised". There again faith precedes baptism in the household of Crispus. Lastly the household of Stephanas; we see from 1 Corinthians 16:15 that they addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. This, of course, could not be done by children. I have already referred to the household of Cornelius: baptism followed faith in this case, did it not?
I will, however, be glad to hear what you have to say in defence of children being baptised.
Will you please state fully the bearing of Mark 16:16?
I do not claim to know who has faith, or who does not have it, but if life and conduct did not in measure answer to it, surely you would refuse to acknowledge such an one.
It is not what you hold in connection with adult baptism that I refuse, but the way you connect it with children. In what way is it in view of salvation? You say it has nothing to do with salvation in your last letter. Awaiting your reply to these inquiries. I am,
Yours in the Lord, _________
Dear Brother,
I find that it is with you as it was with myself; that is, that there is much to unlearn before one is in a position to apprehend the truth. For instance, you speak of baptising children. This is misleading. The Scripture does not so speak, neither do we. 'Children' is a general term, and includes all children, and the inference is in many minds that all children are referred to. This is not so. Again you speak of John 20 as conferring power to administer forgiveness of sins by the assembly in a public way. I do not think this is correct. Administrative forgiveness by the assembly refers, I think, to the sins of saints and not to the sins of sinners. The church neither teaches, nor preaches, nor does it baptise; neither do I assent to your thought that baptism puts the person in his place amongst the saints, if by this you mean the assembly. In Acts 2 (the scripture you refer to) the assembly as such is not in view; that is, the truth of it had not been made known. The only mention of it is in the last verse, where the Lord added to the church such as should be saved. Verse 41 says, "They that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added (unto them) about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers". There was a real and blessed work of the Spirit of God, and no doubt all was in beautiful order, but the truth of the assembly had not been made known, though the thing itself was there. In Acts 3 Peter promises the return of the Lord if the nation would repent. In chapter 7 Stephen's testimony to an exalted Christ is rejected, and thus the message is sent after Him, "We will not have this man to reign over us". Up to this point we have what is mainly connected with the kingdom, rather than the church, and the state of things was transitional. I think you will find that it is the kingdom that is mainly preached all through the Acts, and in the last chapter, verses 22 and 23, it is the kingdom and the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.
In baptism a person is brought under the rule or authority of the Lord; but this is quite distinct from being brought into the assembly. Peter's testimony was that God had made Jesus, Lord and Christ; and the Lord Himself says, "All power has been given me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you". Again God has decreed that every knee shall bow to Him, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The testimony of God is that salvation is in Christ Jesus. I want you to see that all this is distinct from the truth of the church as the body of Christ, though not separated from it. In the case of the Jews in the Acts, the testimony of God was that the nation had forfeited all title to blessing, the Messiah had been rejected, and judgment was coming; they had by wicked hands crucified Him (whom God had raised and exalted). Pricked in their heart, they say, "What shall we do?" The answer is, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children". "Save yourselves from this untoward generation" -- i.e., the
unbelieving nation. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptised". In a word they accepted the judgment of God -- death -- and in figure died and were buried, were baptised unto Christ's death, and owned the authority -- came under the rule of Him the exalted Man, made Lord and Christ. Of course, in accepting Christ, they got all that was in Christ, but they needed instruction as to what they had got. By baptism they were brought under the lordship of Christ, quite distinct from being brought into the assembly, which is connected with one body and one Spirit, whereas baptism connects itself with the one Lord, and the one faith. Now I ask in passing, 'Who ought to be under the rule or authority of the one Lord in a Christian household?' And I ask another question: 'How did you come outwardly under that rule? Was it not in being baptised unto Christ that you put on Christ?' But to return to your letter, I am glad that you admit I have given a fair representation of the way you hold "believers' baptism"; also that you see clearly that it is not in the capacity of believers that persons are baptised; also that you do not deny household baptism. May I ask you to define a household -- of what does it consist?
I agree with you that it is essential that an adult person should profess faith in Christ before baptism; that is, he discovers himself to be a sinner; but the testimony of God is presented to men and women (responsible persons), not to young children who are unable to receive anything; at the same time what is true of a man when he received the testimony of God was always true of him so far as baptism typified; he has found out that death as the judgment of God lay upon him, but it was none the less on him before he found it out.
I admit that no mention of children is made in any of the cases you cite, but I do not admit that the attendant circumstances forbid the idea that children may have been amongst them, neither do I build much upon the point whether there were or were not children there. There are other scriptures that lead me to think that it is the Lord's mind that the children of saints
should be baptised, as well as the scriptures you quote. The one thing that is clear, you admit, viz., 'household baptism'; but you are not consistent, for you immediately limit the expression and make it to mean certain persons only in the household, so that it is no longer household, but only part of the household, and if such are believers.
Now, as to Mark 16:16, I do not see why it should be a difficulty to you; it does not say, he that professes to believe, but he that believeth, and the one who believes, also professes or confesses what he believes in baptism, i.e., he owns himself a sinner and Christ his Saviour as well as his Lord. Scripture assumes that his confession is real and the baptiser receives him on the ground of his confession.
In Acts 8, Philip did not question the reality of the eunuch, no doubt there was genuine faith. Philip quoted, "His life is taken from the earth", and preached unto him Jesus. He answered, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptised?" Jesus had died out of the world and had been buried, and he accepts death and burial in figure in order to reach Him on the other side of death. He had doubtless morally accepted his own condemnation; and in figure he passes off the scene as the sinner, and as the saint he goes on his way rejoicing.
In Scripture every believer is also a professor. Profession is a good thing, not a bad one, but Scripture always assumes reality until proved otherwise.
In combating what you call infant baptism, you seem to overlook the fact that the gospel was, and is, preached to responsible men and women, not to infants. The Scripture accounts could not be written otherwise than they are; that is, that in all cases there must necessarily be the acceptance of the testimony, or, if you like, faith in the testimony; but you go beyond the Scripture when you say that none but those who can profess faith should be baptised. By the very same reasoning you must say that none but those who have faith can get the benefit of the death of Christ, and go to heaven. It is one thing
to say that a person should profess faith before he is baptised, but an entirely different thing to say that baptism should be administered only to those who can profess faith.
The baptism of children rests upon other grounds than the profession of faith by the child, but I would like to remove some of your misconceptions before going into that question.
You ask, 'In what way is it in view of salvation?' and add that I say in my last letter 'that it has nothing to do with salvation'. I said it had nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. By that I meant that it had nothing to do with the soul's eternal relation to God, as for instance "receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls", as in 1 Peter 1:9.
I take it that a person is baptised in view of living upon earth, a sphere which is, as apart from Christ, under death and exposed to judgment; and not in view of going to heaven; it is the initiatory act that introduces into the Christian sphere, out of Judaism, or out of heathenism. As circumcision was in Judaism, no uncircumcised persons could partake of the privileges of the house of God; to attempt to do so was profanity. In like manner, no unbaptised person has any footing in Christianity. He may have faith in Christ, know forgiveness of sins, and be fit for heaven, but he is not a Christian outwardly until baptised. He puts on Christ outwardly in baptism, and not by faith. Every person born into the world, is born into the world (and he remains in the world), outwardly exposed to its condemnation until he in figure dies out of it. He may be a believer and entitled to eternal forgiveness, or even have it in the faith of his soul, but his position is anomalous; he is outwardly in association with a system that is under judgment.
If you say, 'Why?' my answer is, 'Because God has been pleased to connect these things together, and what He has joined man should not put asunder'.
I think Paul got the benefit, on God's side, of all that is in Christ, on the Damascus road, but I think he did not get the sense of it in his own soul until the scales fell from his eyes,
when he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptised. He was in darkness three days literally, and I judge spiritually so, and learning in three days what we sometimes take three or thirty years to learn. Clearly he gets detached from his sinful course as the persecuting Jew, when his sins were washed away in baptism. In other words, he came into salvation as to his position here. He believed, was baptised, and was saved, a typical illustration of Mark 16:16. What was immediately in view was salvation for earth, not heaven, though it would go on to that. You would not, I presume, baptise a person going to heaven immediately, as the thief on the cross, but if such an one is to live on earth he must in figure die in order to be here for God. One can only be in association with Christ in resurrection by passing through death: "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal", John 6. What is true in fact and really, is true figuratively. One does not live first and then in figure die; the truth is death upon all; one who believes comes consciously into the truth of it, he accepts it in fact and in figure. As I have pointed out, those who hold what is termed "believers' baptism" reverse God's order, and until such are prepared to subordinate their theory to the Scriptures, they will never learn the truth.
I do not wish to pose as one who thinks he knows everything, and am content to hold my faith toward God, but as you have asked me I give you what I think I have learned from Scripture. If you still wish to go further into the matter, and are sincere in your desire as to children, I shall be pleased to give you my thoughts as to that part of it. If you have children it especially concerns you, if not, it concerns those who have, but the truth underlying it concerns all.
Dear Brother,
Many, many thanks for your kind letter of the 25th inst. As regards baptism I hardly know what to say. I feel like a child awakening from a long sleep rubbing its eyes to have a look round. I am afraid I have accepted the current thought amongst us in regard to baptism without verifying its foundation. Certainly, what you have presented agrees with the Scriptures, in the main, as far as it concerns adults. There are, however, one or two points not quite clear to me.
I can see the difference between children (as such) and households being baptised. A household, of course, must include all. You ask when I came under the rule of Christ outwardly. By baptism I should say. Then I judge all in the household of a saint, you will say, should come under His authority in that way. Would you say that is the kingdom or the house? You might kindly define these.
Does a child put on Christ in baptism? Does baptism signify dissociation in their case? Again, what is buried in baptism? Not the old man, is it? How would you apply the thought of provisional or administrative forgiveness in the case of one who has years between baptism and conversion?
I like the idea of baptism being in view of living upon earth. There would be no need of baptism in the case of one about to go to heaven!
You say a man has no footing in Christianity unless baptised. I am not just clear as to that. For instance, I was brought to the Lord over 12 years ago. I was baptised and took my place at the Lord's supper about three months later. I was only 15 then. Supposing, however, that all this was true of me except baptism, would you say I had no footing in Christianity? Am I to understand from this that you limit fellowship to those baptised? Do all hold baptism as you present it in the company you are with?
Who administers forgiveness to sinners in baptism? I do not think I have ever heard of such a thing amongst our company. Does baptism express death and resurrection? I am sending you one of our magazines on this point. I do not agree with all it says, for I think the tract it condemns is far more scriptural than J.R.C. For instance, he speaks of being united with Christ in baptism. I understand there can be no union with Christ until you are on resurrection ground.
As regards Colossians 2:12, Newberry's translation gives "in whom", J.N.D. "in which" and 'in whom' in footnote. He does not seem very definite as to the correctness of it in his Synopsis.
Does a man not walk in newness of life before he is baptised? or does this apply to the outward aspect?
I will be glad to hear what you have to say as touching the baptism of households. I am sure if it is in the Word I am only too anxious to bow to it, although I myself am unmarried, yet the truth of it, as you say, concerns all. It is my desire in this scene of moral confusion to know the Lord's mind, so as to act in some measure of suitability to Him. I feel grateful for the help given; even should I not agree with what is to come, it will put me in a better position to know what you do hold, which I can see is not so dreadful as I was led to believe.
I am, yours sincerely in Christ, __________
P.S. J.B.S. in Letters of Interest says 'every baptised person is in the house'. Mutual Comfort for March says, 'It is the Spirit brings you into the house, baptism only brings you into the precincts of the house'.
Dear Brother,
I think the kingdom connects itself with the rule or authority of the Lord; the house with the dwelling place of God by the Spirit. One must first be brought under the sway of the Lord in grace, and for this new birth is necessary: "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God". Then Christ is presented to him as the One who died and rose again, and whom God has exalted; that is, in resurrection He is made Lord and Christ (declared as such). That place He reached through death. The testimony of God is that He died for all, and that He died for me. In baptism I accept that testimony, but it is none the less true that He died for all, and as the Scriptures say, if that be so, "then were all dead". Did Jesus die for my child? He died for me, and in baptism I accept death. Can it be that if He has died for me and for my child, that I only accept His death and come under Him and leave my child behind under sin? "Go now ye that are men and serve the Lord", said Pharaoh; Moses said, "We will go with our young and our old, with our sons and our daughters". I repeat again that one does not come outwardly under Christ by faith; with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (that is, Godward), with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (that is, manward); he comes into the good of salvation by confession, and not by faith. This, of course, is that which is real and vital; but the same order is preserved and the same truth taught in the figure. The publicans justified God (that is, they condemned themselves), and were accounted righteous, and they accepted death in baptism.
But to return to my child. Is there any scripture to warrant me in bringing up my child in the faith of Christ? Note the words, that does not mean bringing him up as one who is outside the faith of Christ until he believes, which is what your teaching necessitates. I need hardly quote you the many scriptures in this connection for they will readily occur to your mind; Ephesians 6:1 - 4;
Colossians 3:20. If this is so, and baptism is the door of entrance into the Christian faith, household baptism follows as a natural and necessary sequence, hence, "thou ... and thy house", in Acts 16:31.
The principle runs through the Scriptures. See Genesis 7:1; 17: 23; 18: 19; Exodus 10:7 - 11; 12: 3, 4, 7; 1 Samuel 3:13.
In answer to your question, 'Does a child put on Christ in baptism?' I would remind you that Galatians 3:27 is specially addressed to adult believers, as other scriptures of like import, but what is actually true of such is true in principle of children; with the Galatians it was a question of law or the faith of Christ, not faith in Christ, but the faith of Christ, into the profession of which they had come, not by believing (that is faith in Christ), but by baptism.
There is only one way into the profession, and if I am told to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (that is, in the profession of the faith), then my children should come in by the proper door.
You ask, 'Does baptism signify dissociation in their case?' I believe you will find it is invariably so in the Scripture, with a view to being associated with someone, or something else. This is very clear in John's baptism. They confessed the sins of the nation to "believe on him which should come after him", Acts 19:4. The same in Acts 2, they left one system to come into another.
In your own case, presuming that you had never been baptised, I should judge the order was scriptural, but supposing baptism omitted, as you suggest, I should say the position was anomalous. You had got into the profession, but not by the proper door. The inconsistency is shewn in the case of one who has been brought up in the profession, for years a true believer, then he desires fellowship in the Lord's supper. He has now to take his place among the sinners who confess their sins, in figure accept the death of Christ, and come again into the place which he has occupied for years. He is, as it were, put out of the window in order that he may come in by the door.
You ask if we 'limit fellowship to those baptised?' If you mean fellowship in the breaking of bread, we should not receive any person who refused to be baptised; many with us do not see the full force of baptism, but that does not hinder fellowship in the Supper. You, on the other hand, require a person to accept adult baptism, and I am told it is a condition of fellowship. In this you are more sectarian than the Baptists, for they do not impose it for fellowship, but for membership.
In reply to another question, I judge that the Lord is the Administrator of the forgiveness of sins, but baptism is done in His name (that is, by His authority), as well as to the name of Father, Son and Spirit. He authorises one to do it. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15, 16.
Baptism is unto death with a view to life; while it signifies death only, it is with a view to resurrection. He died that He might rise again, not to remain in death. Romans 6:4, says: "Buried with him by baptism unto death, that ... we also should walk in newness of life", so in verse 6, "that henceforth we should not serve sin". The children of Israel went into the Red Sea, not to remain there, but to come out on the other side. They were baptised unto Moses in the sea, not in coming out, though they did come out.
As to Colossians 2:12, the scripture becomes plain if you remember that the apostle is writing to persons of whom the thing stated is actually true, as distinguished from that which is true in principle only. An instance of this may be seen in 1 Corinthians 10, there it is the bread which we break, in chapter 11 it is the bread which we eat, we are always those who are breaking bread, but we eat only when we come together. That is, in principle we are those who break bread, in practice we break bread once a week. So far as the teaching concerning baptism goes, what is true, or should be true, in fact of the adult, is true in principle of the child.
There is, of course, no thought in Scripture of indiscriminate baptism of children as such. It is always in connection with the
faith of the parent, and I judge that the reason there is no 'Thus saith the Lord' is to preserve the element of faith; and though there is no strict "letter" (which is foreign to Christianity) there is abundant spirit to gather that such is the mind of the Lord.
The children brought to Jesus in the gospels is a beautiful illustration of this. The mothers had confidence in the Person of the Blessed One then present, and they brought their children to Him. The disciples rebuked those that brought them, but Jesus was much displeased. He had come to die for such, and He knew it. He had not then died, but He has died since, and He died for all, for my child as well as for me. Faith in me gladly recognises the provision He has made, and accepts on the one hand the judgment due to sin, and on the other the provision grace has made. Then He, as it were, says, 'Bring them up for me; they are Mine, I died for them'. And He adds, "Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me".
I think it is helpful to see that a person first comes under the rule of Christ as Lord, then he learns that He is the Head of the body (that is, chief or pre-eminent), also Son over God's house. Then that He is the Son of the Father. In connection with each of these names or titles, we have our privileges and responsibilities, but I think the above is the order in which they are set forth and are properly learned.
To speak of being united to Christ in baptism is to me nonsense. It is by the Spirit we are united to Him. "He that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit" and "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body". Collectively we are united to one another, individually we are, by the Spirit, united to Christ. One is unity, the other is union. You can bring this to the test of Scripture, and if it does not stand that, then do not have it.
Yours affectionately in Christ, C.W.W.
Dear Brother,
I must attempt a reply to your kind letter of the 6th inst., for which please accept my hearty thanks. I also acknowledge receipt of the booklet which I had previously read, but this time with a new interest. It made a few points clearer to me, but in the main your letters have covered the entire ground. I am not yet prepared to state my mind with regard to the 'household' part of the subject, but will do so later on.
You say, 'The kingdom is connected with the authority of Christ'. John 3 shows the necessity of 'new birth' in order to see or enter the kingdom. Then the house being the Spirit's dwelling place, I would suppose that the Spirit alone can put one there. Of course I know the "great house" includes those who may not be saved. Some of your writers say baptism brings one into the house. I admit I am not very clear as to the house. There seems a bit of mysticism about it. I mean in the various ways it is referred to by writers. I must confess amongst us the kingdom and the house are little more than terms. We do not seem to touch that line of truth, hence my dullness. It is quite true in many of our meetings baptism (adult) is necessary for fellowship, but it is not universally so. I am sorry I have made so much of the mode and so little of its meaning.
Yours affectionately in Christ, ___________
Dear Brother,
In reference to your remarks re John 3, it is distinctly stated that 'new birth' is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God, yet I think it must be read with the context. The Lord is there dealing with a pretentious man, who prided himself upon
being of the seed of Abraham; and he is told that henceforth his natural birth would avail nothing. It is of course true that new birth is necessary for all, but I suggest for your inquiry, whether it is not put in contrast to natural birth as seed of Abraham. Peter speaks of being born again, but it is also to Jews of the dispersion. John in his epistle uses the words "born of God", and I think we can only take account of those who are "born of God".
I agree with you that the kingdom of God is moral, not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; and it cannot be said that baptism gives entrance to it.
There is, however, another aspect of the kingdom which is presented in Matthew 13; this is dispensational or positional. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way". In the explanation it is said, "He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one". In chapter 16 the keys of this kingdom are given to Peter. Chapter 18 provides a place for the children in the kingdom of heaven: "Jesus called a little child ... and set him in the midst of them, and said ... Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me". In Acts 2 the King is in heaven, and Peter, the man with the keys of the kingdom, uses one of them and opens the door to let in repentant Jews and their children. He says, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children", referring to Joel 2:28. Clearly the door is opened for the children as well as for the parents; and if he is authorised to open the door, who is going to shut it? and if it is opened, why may they not enter? The wicked fathers
had said, "His blood be on us, and on our children". The Spirit's answer to the repentant fathers is, "The promise is unto you, and to your children". Peter had heard the Lord say, "Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me". To what were they to be received? How do you receive a little child in His name? How do they who hold "believers' baptism" receive a little child, and to what do they receive him? The words have no meaning for such, and they do not comply with them; they do receive convicted sinners into the kingdom, or into the house, or amongst Christians, call it what you will -- kingdom, house or circle -- but they refuse to receive a little child into the kingdom of heaven, one of whom He said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". If then there is an outward sphere, called the kingdom of heaven, and the children are to be received into it; and if the fathers get into this outward sphere by baptism, does it not follow that the children must come in by the same door?
Thus far as to the kingdom, which is Peter's line. With this 1 Corinthians 7 is in accord, when the house as the place of privilege is more in view; "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy". The point of this scripture is the relative position of the husband and wife towards each other, which determines the relative position of the children towards the sanctuary. "Else were your children unclean" refers to Deuteronomy 23, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord". "Now are they holy" refers to their legitimate birth, and is in contrast to Ezra 9:2 and 10: 2, where they were required to put away their strange wives, and such as were born of them. They were illegitimate (unclean), and as such excluded from the congregation of the Lord. Under law, the Jew had to put away his strange wife; she was not "sanctified", and the children were illegitimate (unclean). Under grace "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This is, the marriage is valid, and the children are legitimate or "holy", and as such entitled to
come into the congregation of the Lord (the outer court). See also Deuteronomy 7:3; Ezra 10:10 - 12, 19 - 44; Nehemiah 13:23 - 25.
As to the house of God, you have, I think, to take each scripture with its context, and what is said of it in one scripture does not necessarily apply to it in another. For example, it is said the Lord went up into the temple, also Peter and John went up into the temple to pray. Then in Luke 1:9, Zacharias went into the temple. Now it is plain that only the priests could go into the temple proper, though others are said to go into the temple. From this you may see that the whole was called the temple, or, as the Lord says, "My Father's house"; yet there were distinct parts, the most holy, the holy, and the outer courts; yet all called the house. In like manner there are in Christianity distinct spheres of blessing. See Ephesians 4:4 - 6. I think this will explain the difficulty in understanding various writers on the same subject; one has before him one aspect of the house, and another a different aspect. Ephesians 2:21, refers, I should say, to the temple proper, the dwelling place of God, surrounded by what is suited to it. It grows in view of future display. Verse 22 gives its present aspect, Jew and Gentile builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. Now, if you turn to Hebrews 3 you will get the same house looked at from the outside, so to speak. Hebrews treats of the profession of the faith, "Whose house are we, if we hold fast", verse 6. Again, "If we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end", verse 14. If they did not hold fast it would prove they were not really of the house of God, though in the meantime associated with it.
I copy from Mutual Comfort for March, page 73: 'Peter was privileged first of all to give the testimony to the nation, and now in Acts 10 to the Gentiles he proclaims the glad tidings in connection with the kingdom. Cornelius then receives the Spirit and is baptised. Baptism connects with the name of the Lord. You must have the name of the Lord in connection with the kingdom, but it is important not to connect baptism with entrance into the kingdom (of God). This latter depends upon a distinct
work of God in the soul, so that individuals are brought under the sway of the Lord. Baptism brings into the precincts of the house, not into the house itself. It is by the Spirit we are brought into the house. Baptism is dissociation, but is in view of what is positive. In Exodus, the cloud (in which Israel was baptised unto Moses) made a positive barrier between the children of Israel and the Egyptians. It was the symbol of God's presence, but in Christianity we have the reality, the full revelation of God. Therefore the important thing is baptism to a Person'.
In John 2:14 - 16, you will see that the outer court is included in the general thought of the temple, and the Lord speaks of that as being "my Father's house". Then in verse 19 He changes the word and says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up ... But he spake of the temple of his body"; the place of the true Shekinah.
Yours affectionately in Christ, C.W.W.
Dear Brother,
With regard to the house of God I can quite see your thought in the way you distinguish between the temple proper and the precincts. These are always distinct in the Greek, but both included in the term "house of God". I never thought of bringing this distinction into the assembly when viewed as such, but this is clearly implied.
I agree with you then that baptism brings into the house as the profession of the faith according to Hebrews 3, but only "living stones" compose the temple of Ephesians 2:21, though other than living stones may find their way into the house viewed as the profession.
Now for the last point, baptism. I think I have already put my seal to what you have given me as regards adults; that they are
not baptised in the capacity of believers, but that of sinners; that it signifies dissociation and is connected with provisional or administrative forgiveness, but I am not just as clear on this point as I should like. Some of the brethren say that this was only for Jews, even essential for their souls' salvation; others say they could not receive the Spirit without it. I could not accept this, as it would be a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ. From Acts 2:38, it would appear that baptism was in view of receiving the Spirit. Could it be proved that Paul did not receive the Spirit until after he was baptised? Acts 9:17 would, I think, show that he received the Spirit when his eyes were opened, and of course baptism followed.
I can see that a man is not viewed as a Christian outwardly until baptised -- that in it he puts on Christ; Galatians 3:27, or as in Romans 6, buried with Him by baptism unto death, in order to walk in newness of life; that it does not apply to the soul and going to heaven, but in view of living upon earth; that it saves (only in figure, I presume) according to 1 Peter 3:21. I notice, too, that in John's gospel, where the great theme is eternal life and the Spirit, there is no mention of baptism; nor yet in the commission (Luke 24:47), there I apprehend it is the soul that is in question. This alone would refute the idea of baptism being essential for the soul salvation of a Jew, since this is the very message that has to be preached, beginning at Jerusalem.
I think I have said enough to show that in the main I agree with your remarks on adult baptism.
As to 'household' I cannot see sufficient warrant for baptising households where the testimony of God has not first been received. For a household would embrace not only the children, but all under the authority of that person, so as to be called his house. This would mean servants, regardless of age or belief. Thus you would be baptising adults where there was no faith in the testimony, whereas you maintain in your letter of May 25th that 'it is essential that a person should profess faith in Christ before baptism', meaning, of course, adults.
I am not quite sure if Ephesians 6:1 could apply to unsaved children, since it adds in the Lord. Could an unsaved child do so? As to little children (of course the death of Christ has made full provision for such as far as heaven is concerned), I do not think what is said regarding them in the gospels would warrant their baptism. I lay emphasis on Matthew 18:6, "These little ones which believe in me". This supposes they were sufficiently advanced to have faith in Christ. The way you present the subject seems very feasible, but there is no direct scripture, and I could not, as I see things at present, accept your idea. I am glad, however, to have had your views stated, and I admit it is not the 'horrible doctrine' I had supposed. Where there is faith in it and the individual is true to that which he holds, I do not see it as a very grave error. Where the danger comes in is in pressing it for the acceptance of others in order to have it as a fixed principle. What is more serious to me is acknowledging a person as baptised who has only been sprinkled. How can such an one be said to be buried? The very word 'baptism' means immersed.
Accept my hearty thanks, and with kindest wishes and love in the Lord.
Yours affectionately, __________
July 15th, 1910
Dear Brother,
In reply to your difficulty as to household baptism, no one has said that all in a believer's house must be baptised, neither do I think so for a moment, and I adhere to the statement of May 25th, that it is essential for an adult to accept the testimony before baptism, but that does not touch the question at all; in the case recorded it says, "Was baptised he and all his", not all in his house, and if there were adults, slaves or otherwise, subjection to Christ is implied. You must also remember that there is a difference between the rejection of the testimony by persons
responsible as adults and children who have not attained to responsibility. You suppose a case that Scripture does not present. I contend only that the cases recorded do not exclude children and may include slaves; if you cannot receive that, I do not wish to press it upon you.
As to Ephesians 6:1, "in the Lord" does not connect itself so much with the child as with the obedience -- the obedience is in the Lord. The children of Christian parents are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and the obedience is in the Lord; the normal condition of things is contemplated; if things do not fit it is proof that something is out of gear, and we should conform to the Scripture instead of trying to make it conform to our condition. And why should you speak of an 'unsaved' child; "The promise is unto you, and to your children", Acts 2:39. To faith my children are not unsaved. I may have but little evidence of their conversion, but faith does not reckon them unsaved; neither do you, for you admit that the work of the Lord avails for children. Can you tell me when it ceases to avail? You accept the death of Christ for them 'as far as heaven is concerned', and then you refuse to them that which is only a figure of that death. Where have you a "Thus saith the Lord" for this? You accept the reality without a text, but you demand a 'text' for the figure of the reality. It is by inference alone that you can say that children go to heaven in virtue of His death, yet you deny to them the figure of His death. Again, you accept 'the death of Christ for children as far as heaven is concerned'. Why should you refuse that same death as far as earth is concerned? Surely if your faith can appropriate heaven for them, and that without a 'text', it is a small thing to appropriate Him for them and them for Him while here on earth. Your reasoning is not sound; you give them a place permanently in heaven and refuse them a place provisionally on earth. I judge the reason is that you still unconsciously make baptism subjective instead of objective.
You say, 'Where the danger comes in is in pressing it for the acceptance of others'. Let me remind you that this is what you
do and what we do not do. You press "believers' baptism" upon all who desire fellowship, and in the majority of cases make it a condition of fellowship, and thus practically become a Baptist community with open ministry. It should be easy to see that the other, being a matter of faith and not of text, pressing it is out of the question. With regard to 'sprinkling', let me first say that immersion is without question the scriptural mode; but seeing that Scripture recognises the profession of those who have been only sprinkled, it is not for us to refuse them. Is it not on this principle that God will judge? The vast profession is only sprinkled; it is professedly Christian thereby.
More than that, water signifies death; much or little is not the point. What is done in the Lord's name cannot be set aside though it be done informally. Though only sprinkled, the water signifies death, the quantity is of secondary importance. In the present confused state of things, while seeking to follow the right oneself, we have often to accept that which is deficient in others. Again, what is done cannot be undone, neither can it be done again. In baptism one enters the profession of the faith, whether as an infant or adult; being in it you cannot put him out of it, neither can you bring him in a second time. It is useless to say he came in informally, and you cannot say he is not in. The reason why you press baptism is that you connect it with the Lord's supper and make it refer to the subjective state of the person baptised, instead of connecting it with the profession of the faith and the Lord's death. It is "unto", not "into" death. The subjective state is the same in every one, "There is no difference, for all have sinned".
The test for the Jews in Acts 2 was the confession of the Christ; and baptism in their case was the witness to the reality of the confession; they were pricked in their heart, accepted death, and the Spirit followed the remission of sins. In Acts 10 the Spirit comes first because of the prejudice of the Jew. Ordinarily the order is "after that ye believed, ye were sealed", but that has nothing to do with baptism.
April 13th, 1913
My dear Brother,
After careful consideration and deep exercise regarding what you have brought before me in your letters concerning baptism, I am now free to state my mind as to same.
I think it is clear that baptism in no way connects itself with the subjective state of the believer, as contended for by those who hold what is known as "believers' baptism", but has to do with my outward position on earth. I can see that those who accepted the testimony of God were not baptised because they were believers and had life, but because they were sinners and were under the judgment of God, baptism dissociating them from their sinful course and outwardly terminating that course, putting them in a new one where they are to walk in newness of life.
But if an adult in figure gets clear of Egypt (the world) by waters of the Red Sea (baptism) it can be the only way through which his child can get free from it. "All were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea", 1 Corinthians 10. Thus the children in the faith of the parent were carried through death and brought in figure to the place where God is known and owned. "By faith they passed through the Red Sea" could only apply to adults, as does the testimony of God today, but that testimony provides a place for the children, too, and it is this place which the parent appropriates in the faith of his soul for his child in committing it to death in baptism, which he owns as the judgment of God upon the sinful man, which he refuses to perpetuate here morally.
The child is thus brought up as within the sphere where the Lord's authority is owned, and in the light of God, not in the darkness which characterises the world. That this principle runs through Scripture cannot be denied. "Thou and thy house" is the divine order, and if in the past dispensations God has been pleased to associate the household with its head, we cannot conceive of Him separating them when we come to Christianity, "for the promise is unto you, and to your children".
That households were baptised cannot be disputed, and Scripture shows clearly that this was not on account of the faith of each individual, but on account of the faith of the head of the house. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house". The household was his, and he submits it to the Lord's authority by baptism, as he himself in like manner had outwardly come under that authority. Thus his children were positionally or outwardly brought out of Judaism or heathenism and put in touch with the Christian company where every Christian privilege was found, and all this lay open for the children, even though they might not enter or appropriate it.
The point is, the Lord's authority is owned in baptism, the judgment of God is accepted, and in this way the household is submitted to that authority.
I am, and shall ever be grateful for what you have brought before me, dear brother, and am thankful that the truth of baptism has found its right place in my mind.
Yours affectionately in the Lord, ______________
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 9
No. 10
No. 11