Miscellaneous
Writings Vol. One
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. A REVIEW OF
OBJECTIONS.
" LET the prophets speak, two or three, and let the rest
judge," contains a principle of great value for us all. Judgment must be
exercised as to whatever is put forth for truth; and for this the means of
judgment must be in our hands. Scripture, of course, is the one only standard
of appeal, the measure of all truth such as we have now before us; but we
cannot afford to be independent of one another's help in searching it, and
especially to enable us to get rid of those merely personal influences which
operate so powerfully often against the truth, even when they are engaged upon
the side of truth. Error that we have received upon the authority of those who
have rightful claim to our affection and respect finds thus, as we all know,
its strongest support; but truth also needs often to be shaken free of just
such human support, that it may stand in its own divine power. For this God
would use the differences that arise among us, and which in themselves are
evidence of insubjection to His word and Spirit, to teach us more
subjection.
Controversy is only to be dreaded just so far as the
personal element in the same sense enters into it, and perverts in the
interests of a party quarrel the witnesses in the cause of God and truth.
Seeking, then, to avoid all mere personalities, and to bring everything to the
test of the word of God alone, I shall take up briefly the arguments which have
been brought forward against a former tract of mine on the doctrine of baptism,
not unwilling to be given opportunity to explain further some things which may
be left obscure in the former one, and to show more fully what I conceive to be
the error of the views advocated on the other side. For my own, I trust I may
be permitted to refer to what I have already written, and thus to avoid what
for those who have read this would be mere tedious repetition. We must still
consider, in the first place, however, what is alleged as to THE KINGDOM OF
HEAVEN before we shall be prepared to take up the questions as to baptism and
the relation to it of the households of believers. Here, in fact, is the main
difficulty, as I believe, in regard to the reception of this, that the
confusion which exists between the church and the kingdom, and the general
ignorance as to the latter, obscure what would otherwise be simple. "Of such is
the kingdom of heaven" would be a text at least very easily made plain were it
seen that the kingdom is the sphere of discipleship, and that baptism is
"discipling." it is not the fact that this discussion is irrelevant therefore,
least of all where not household baptism only, but baptism as a whole is the
subject of inquiry. On the contrary, it may be affirmed that the only hope of
contention for our brethren lies just here. These points must therefore be
looked at in the first place, if we would be clear.
But I shall be
told," says one of our brethren (J.J.), "that I do not 'see' the kingdom. I
quite grant that to 'see' it, one must be born again ; nay, I maintain that is
the only way to see it, or to enter into it. And I further maintain, on the
authority of Scripture, that baptism is no more introduction into the kingdom
than the Lord's Supper is introduction into the Church. Introduction into the
kingdom is by new birth; into the Church by the sealing of the Holy
Spirit."
The last sentence is the strangest, perhaps, here, where much
is strange. Had our brother been asked, in time past, " How are we introduced
into the Church ?" I think there is little doubt he would have replied, in the
very words of Scripture, that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body."( i Cor. xii 3.) Somehow this seems now to have slipped out of his mind:
he speaks now as if we were "sealed" into it I suppose he would admit the
incongruity in the term, at least ; but how could he forget that the Scripture
mode of expressing introduction into the body of Christ is by this term
"baptism"? Is it not plain, at least, that here Scripture uses "baptism'' as
implying introduction into that which is of Christ?- and that if the kingdom
were a circle of profession larger than and external to the body of Christ,
then one could easily understand the analogy between the outward material and
the spiritual baptism? How else can we, in fact, understand it? Perhaps our
brother would be ready to agree to this: that baptism is the introduction into
the profession of Christianity? But this is, in fact, the kingdom, the sphere
of discipleship, where Christ is Master and Lord.
But he answers " No!
introduction here is by new birth : to see this, or to enter into it, one must
be born again."
By " seeing'' it, he evidently understands such spiritual
insight as could only come from spiritual life; but this is not what the
passage means. The undoubted reference to Ezek. xxxvi. shows that it is not to
a spiritual kingdom, invisible except to faith, that the Lord points, but to a
kingdom which, when established, every eye will see. A Jewish teacher certainly
could not be expected to know of any other. Nor does the Lord at all say that
men are born again into it; but that they must be born again to have title to
enter in,- a very different thing. Israel, in fact, must be converted, in order
to escape the judgments which introduce the kingdom. (See, for example, Isa.
iv. 2-4.) thus there is NO Scripture for new birth being introduction to the
kingdom, but the two things are quite distinct ; nor is the kingdom one only to
be seen by faith, but the opposite. Our brother evidently confounds the two
things, stating sometimes that introduction is by new birth, sometimes that
only the latter is necessary as a condition for the former, as if these things
were the same. Matt. xviii, 3, speaks quite similarly, not of conversion as
entering the kingdom, but "except ye be converted, ye shall not enter it".
Here, however, it will be contended, all is admitted that is necessary to the
argument new birth is necessary to enter the kingdom; and if this be true when
the kingdom is set up in power, it is a "strong reason in itself, one would
have thought, for its present application. . . . The Lord Himself, however, in
the immediate context, makes it of the most important present application for
our conduct in the kingdom now; and it is only by applying the passage to the
present that the prevailing confusion is removed, and the whole subject of the
Kingdom of Heaven becomes simple." Now no one, surely, doubts that there is to
be a present application of such truths. The question is, how are they to be
applied? If the long-suffering goodness of God ordain a door to be kept open
now, which it is plainly warned will, bye and bye, be shut, are we to apply the
future to the present by shutting the door beforehand?
However, the
statement is definitely made that- "The kingdom of God covers all
dispensations. In all ages God has reigned; and the Lord, in John iii, gives
the moral truth concerning the kingdom: "Except a man be born again he cannot
see the kingdom of God." New birth into the kingdom, in all ages, is the plain
teaching of the Lord. Before the cross God was dealing with man as under trial,
and therefore a nation was taken up, but in the midst of this nation only those
born again were really in the kingdom of God."
These words are by another
writer (J. J. S.), but they only express more boldly tile same thought - God
had a kingdom in all ages. "Dealing with man as under trial," He takes up a
nation. How? As His people, or not as belonging to His kingdom, or not? "Only
those born again were really in the kingdom of God." In what way "really"? When
Solomon "sat on the throne of the Lord," "on the throne of the kingdom of the
Lord over Israel" (i Chr. xxviii, 5; xxix, 23), did he "really" reign only over
the "born-again souls" there? And did he "really" reign over all truly
converted persons elsewhere? And when the Lord pronounced the sentence Lo-ammi,
"not my people," upon Israel, did this mean that He was casting off the
"born-again ones," who were those over whom alone He had ever reigned ?- or
what else?
"Really"! Why, who doubts that it is, and also was, only
the converted people in whose hearts God reigned? But was that what He meant
when He took up a nation? Was it not of necessity a very different thing? Was
this only the kingdom "as men saw it," or the kingdom also as God, who knoweth
the hearts, proclaimed it? How could men "see" what we are told cannot be seen
by any but those born again?
God did not, then, make the truths of eternity
- or of the kingdom set up in power - truths for His people to act upon, then,-
that is clear. And our brother's "really" is something foreign to the matter in
hand, or else something absolutely untrue, and plainly so. We cannot so ignore
the dispensations. Thus the kingdom of God in Israel is against this view
decisively. Of course it must be different now; and the same writer, speaking
of the mysteries of the kingdom, bids us - "Note in this parable, the seed are
the people, and the Lord only sowed good seed; that is, 'born-again' souls. But
now, as men see it, there are tares; that is, unconverted professors. Who sowed
them? The devil. And so we must never forget the two stand-points from which
the kingdom is seen. From God's standpoint, as He sees it in His counsels, the
kingdom is composed of born-again ones only. But from man's standpoint, and as
we see it, there is a mixture."
So when the angels "gather out of His
kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity," they simply gather
out those whom men take to be in His kingdom, but who are not there. Is that
just fair interpretation,- commending itself as honest and true? For this is
the Lord's own account of the matter, at the end, to His disciples; and why
should He say "out of" His kingdom, when we are bidden to believe that none but
those born again are, or ever were, or could be, in the kingdom ? Was it not
easily possible to avoid words so ambiguous? But the good seed are the
"children of the kingdom" ; and the tares are unconverted professors: is not
that true?
It is the truth, but, as to the last, not the whole truth.
We must go more slowly, and look more carefully, to find that. For, while the
good seed in the second parable is indeed said to be "children of the kingdom,"
in the first parable it is as plainly said to be the "word of the kingdom." Of
course there is not the least inconsistency between these two views: the
children of the kingdom are only those in whom the word of the kingdom has
grown up - the wheat. Are the tares, then, produced in any sense by the word of
the kingdom?- and does Satan sow such seed as this? Clearly not. He sows false
doctrine, not true, and the fruit are heretics, not mere unreal professors. All
this has been often told, and cannot be a thing unknown to J. J. S. Its
consistency with the whole meaning of the second parable I have elsewhere
pointed out.
Still, the good seed are the children of the kingdom and
the wheat,- are they not?- gathered into the barn? Yes, the crop. But it does
not follow that all the good seed goes into the crop, as every farmer too well
knows. How much he would like to have all the seed he sows fulfill the likeness
to these "born-again souls" which J. J. S., in complete disregard of all the
congruities, would import from John into Matthew. He is the more inexcusable
because the first parable is plainly given to guard against the very thing that
lie is doing. Not all the good seed furnishes the crop, is its declaration; but
here, as part of that good seed which gives the children of the kingdom, we are
taught that the mere unconverted professors are really to be placed. In entire
opposition to what our brethren teach, the 'children of the kingdom'is not a
term convertible with those born again. And our Lord expressly teaches (Matt.
Vii1, 12) that "the children of the kingdom" may, as none of the converted ever
can, be "cast into outer darkness," where "there is wailing and gnashing of
teeth." How plain, then, that the kingdom is not what they teach, when such as
these are expressly called "the children of the kingdom"!
It is one
thing certain, then, the infants cannot have place "AMONG THE TARES," as our
brother puts it in small capitals, and this as "bringing them into A PLACE OF
BLESSING." If these were his own views when he practised household baptism, it
is not to be wondered at that he has given it up.
This is a full answer
also to J. J., who allows that there are foolish virgins in the kingdom "ill
its outward aspect,"- words that, as we have seen, Scripture never authorizes.
He adds, "what makes them to be 'foolish'is their taking the place, probably by
being baptized." Of course, not as infants: even our brother will acquit
household baptism in this case. As for the rest, what shows their folly is
their taking "no oil with them.they would not have become "wise" by throwing
aside their lamps: no, nor by never having carried them.
KINGDOM
AND CHURCH.
We turn now to look at the question of the distinction
between the Kingdom and the Church; and here our brother C. deserves a first
answer, as he has said all perhaps that can be said. As to the three circles of
Eph. iv. he maintains that "even if verses 5 and 6 here could apply to
something else than the Church or Assembly, we could have no right so to apply
them." Why? "Because Paul's known and acknowledged subject is the Assembly, and
verses 5 and 6 will apply to the Assembly." Now the Church is in tile Kingdom,
and therefore what applies to the subjects of the Kingdom will apply to the
members of Christ's body - the Church. It is freely granted, also, that the
passage in Ephesians would not decide that the Church is not co-extensive with
the Kingdom.*
The relationships implied are different. All Christ's
members are also children of God, but the family of God is nevertheless not
identical with the body of Christ. Much that our brother says here misses the
point, therefore. Moreover, the circle of the Kingdom is not "intermediate," as
he puts it, between the Church and the world. This would imply that the Church
was not in it, which it is. Nor do I need to discuss the question of the
Church, for which the better word, as we all know, would be "assembly,"-a word,
too, of various application, even to a heathen gathering.
By the
Church here I mean always "the Church which is His body."
Moreover, our
brother is right in refusing to find room under "One Lord, one creed, one
baptism," for those who "deny that Jesus is God." This is the Kingdom as
constituted of God, not designed surely to include the Satanic work of the
second parable. The enemy, "while men slept," may have introduced his followers
into the Kingdom, and Christians be power1ess to undo what has thus been done;
but this, nevertheless, is only an intrusion. Satan's work is not Christianity,
even in its lowest form. On the other hand, with those who are simply " unreal"
(C. ix) the case is different. They come under the first parable, not the
second,- while, of course, that does not mean any sanction of their unreality.
On this subject it is more to my purpose to quote what I have formerly said
than to restate it: "The kingdom of heaven, with its message of peace and
reconciliation, remains the testimony of a love which goes out to all, and
would gather in to God wherever the will of man is not hardening itself in
opposition. We do not, in fact, in Scripture meet with the long delay of
baptism and the preparation of catechumens, which came in as baptism itself
came to be looked at as reception into the Church, and the symbol of the full
Christian state. In the New Testament the catecumens were inside, not outside,
the sphere of discipleship. Instead of being kept waiting at the threshold, the
applicants were met with a generous and unsuspecting welcome. Three thousand
were baptized on the day of Pentecost: how much preliminary instruction had
they? And if, as at Sarnaria, a Simon Magus were received, with his heart not
right in the sight of God, his reception had not defiled those tender arms of
mercy which had been flung around him, and from which he had, as it were, to
burst, to pursue the headlong path to everlasting ruin. It is evident, upon the
face of Scripture, that baptism was not then fenced round, as many now would
fence it round. It was a door, not carelessly, but readily and with a full
heart, opened to the applicant for it. No question of Christ's heart, no " if
Thou wilt,'' was to be permitted."
To this the meaning of baptism,
and the Lord's words as to little children, unite their testimony. The doctrine
of the Church as Paul declared it, and as to which our brother writes, "To
profess to be a Christian is to profess to be a member of the body of Christ,"
was unknown for years after Pentecost; and therefore, whatever may be the
profession now, NONE certainly made it then. The power of the Spirit was
abroad; and, of course, in the same proportion there was earnestness and
reality, yet with proof soon afforded that the first parable of the kingdom was
fulfilling too. The more reality there was the more the Church and the Kingdom
would be co-extensive. The fervour of divine love in souls refused to allow any
neutrality. Men were drawn along with the current that was then in full tide,
or flung out as drift by the eddies along the shore. And granting, for a
moment, that there were growing up with the years that went by the families
that were baptized,- these, too, would be no exception to the rule. Thus the
inability to find more than the "within and without" of which our brother
rightly speaks. When he uses it as an argument upon his side, he simply is
unable to realize the true character of that which he opposes,- that the grace
of the Kingdom was not meant to promote, and did not promote, the growth of a
neutral class, impossible until love slackened and zeal cooled, and that
confusion which the after-parables of the kingdom indicate as so soon to set in
began to appear and grow.
The idea of the open sinners in the Church
being left in any "intermediate circle," such as he imagines for us (C. 19),
only shows how little our brother understands the position which he attacks.
When men manifest themselves as " wicked persons," they cannot be treated as
neutral.
"OF SUCH IS THE KINGDOM."
But the case of
children shows more definitely the character of the Kingdom. Our brother C.
finds abundant fault with the obscurity of my utterances on this point. This
may be true, that they are obscure; but I believe it proceeds a good deal from
believing that the Lord's words are not obscure, and may be trusted to speak
for themselves. But our brother uses certainly many more words than are needed
to explain the matter. "Of such," of course, means "likeness." In this I agree
with him with all my heart: "'Of "much displeased" that His disciples would not
have suffered it. "Suffer them to come," He says, which undeniably means here
"Suffer them to be brought," as they were being brought; and which (as
undeniably, one would have thought) did not mean "Suffer them to believe on
Me"(!) which is C's interpretation ! Can he really mean that the disciples were
trying to hinder the babes from believing on Jesus? Or would he, admitting the
simple fact that "coming" means literally what it says, think it just as
reasonable that the Lord should have received sheep or lambs, because it might
be said "of such is the kingdom of heaven"? No; it is He who was Israel's king
of old proclaiming for the new kingdom that was then "at hand," the continuance
of no less goodness than He had shown in the one passed away. He would not be
less gracious in the present than He had been in the past, nor less answer the
craving of the hearts of His people for the children intrusted to them.
J. J. has less to say than this, and J. J. S. no more than J. J. For both
these, "Suffer them to come" means "Suffer them to believe"; and "of such "is
read so as to exclude those that are most of all "such"! "If we do not bring
our children to Him in any other way than by baptism, we shall not do it at
all"! And if we do not eat the Lord's flesh in any other way than in the Lord's
Supper we shall not do it at all. Are we, then, indeed, such poor, pitiful
ritualists, that we need to be reminded of such things as these?
But can we
make the meaning of the "of such" a little plainer yet, and show how the babes
and the grown people like them are linked together? Let us try to get at the
point of the comparison; and this will be got, I think, by considering what
"the word of the kingdom " must imply for those receiving it. It implies, of
course, submission to the King; that is, to His commandment, the yoke of
discipleship. For this they must be as little children; for what is the little
child the type of but of the learner, of one under the yoke? The will of man it
is that resists the claims of the Lord Jesus,- the independence of man that
refuses submission : "we have turned every one to his own way" is the inspired
description of the world as away from God. For blessing, therefore, that way
must be given up; and men must become like children, and take, in obedience,
the learner's place.
But the children are, in some sense, already there.
The state of childhood is what God has ordained for blessing, when the will is
in its plastic state, and when submission to authority is natural, as it is
necessary. Here the parent is the designed minister of God for good, standing
in the place of authority, which most of all represents God among men. That
"that which is born of the flesh is flesh," is, of course, true: the little
child, as soon as it begins to live, begins to manifest that it is a fallen
being. Still, the child's being "flesh" may be pressed in a harsh way, with
which those who press it are happily quite inconsistent. Rightly, they teach
their children; and we are expressly assured, "Train up a child in the way he
should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." And we are expressly
bidden, "Bring up your children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord."
God must be with this for any good, but He will be with it: and here we are
bidden to put our children in the place of disciples. "I know him," God says of
Abraham, "that he will command his children and his household after him, and
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the Lord
may bring upon Abraham that which He has spoken of him." Now we know what God
had spoken of Abraham's seed; and to us He has given as comforting assurance of
what His mind is toward us: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt
be saved, and thy house." But to this we shall have to return later on.
DISCIPLES AND DISCIPLING.
C. is right as to the expression
"discipled to the kingdom." He will find it given correctly a few lines further
on (Reasons, p. 25), and the force is on the word "discipled." The phrase is
the same as in Matt. xxvii. 57, where Joseph of Arimathea is said to have been
"discipled to Jesus"; that is, of course, made a disciple of Jesus. It will not
do, from any interpretation of Luke xvii. 21, to make the kingdom and the king
convertible terms. The kingdom was in the midst of Israel, I do not question,
in the person of the king; and those who were discipled to the kingdom were, of
course, discipled to the king, but that is no ground for changing the one into
the other. The phraseology of Scripture is always the most accurate; and in
Matt. xiii, which treats of the "mysteries of the kingdom,"- things unknown
before-we see at once how the Old Testament "scribe," brought to the
understanding of these mysteries, would have new treasures added to the old
ones. The parables show, also, if they show anything, that the kingdom is
formed by the word of the kingdom being received into men's hearts: that is, it
is the sphere of discipleship. The first parable also shows that there were
disciples, and "disciples indeecl,"- disciples who "continued" in the word, and
those who did not (Comp. John vi. 66). This merely means, and is only taken to
mean, that the word is not at all equivalent to "child of God," or "member of
Christ." Our brother C. complains, as '' unfair,'' of the use of our Lord's
words in John viii. 31, "as if it implied the existence of a recognized class
of disciples of a lower grade." It is simply used to show that continuance (as
the wheat which had no proper root did not continue) distinguished true
disciples from the unreal. C. says it is in contrast with some who had just
then (v. 30) become convinced that He was the Messiah." There is no contrast at
all; and there was, as yet, nothing to contrast with. It is a word of
encouragement, and, at the same time, of admonition; and what they might turn
out to be is of no account whatever. By the fact of their professed belief in
Him they were taking the place of disciples, and He spoke to them in that
character. As a fact, it is well known what "disciples" meant. There were
"disciples" of John, of Moses, of the Pharisees: the word is a common word for
the followers of any teacher, and does not decide as to the reality of the
profession even. Who can deny it?
When the Lord is risen from the
dead, and the kingdom is ready to be proclaimed, He says, "All authority"- not
power-" is given unto Me, in heaven and in earth: go ye, and disciple all
nations." It is plain He would not say "Make children of God": this was within
His own power only. "Disciple" was the suited word in reference to the kingdom;
and this
THE COMMISSION AND THE KEYS.
The words here,
literally, are "Go and disciple all the nations, baptizing them . . . teaching
them."
J. J. S. remarks upon a quotation: "The writer admits that the
grammatical construction requires that the them should be connected with
disciples.' " Grammatical construction makes this quite impossible, for there
is no word "disciples" for "them " to be connected with. "Disciple all the
nations, baptizing them."
I agree with C. that "it is certain that
individuals, not nations collectively, are meant." I should have thought the
other view impossible. How could nations be got at "collectively"? A nation
could not be "discipled " in the mass, but only by individuals. The discipling
is defined, I doubt not, as to be effected in two ways,.- by baptism and
teaching. Our brother C. demurs, and produces passages in proof that the
grammar does not necessitate this construction of it. Yet it is, at least, the
most natural way of expressing mode: "Preach, saying"; "disciple, baptizing."
But, moreover, if "teaching" must be allowed to enter into the very idea of
discipling, as our brother would allow it must,- for it is what is taught that
makes the real scholar,- then still more must the ''baptizing," put side by
side with this, serve to fill out and explain further the same thing. It was
fit, where the Master was at the same time the Lord,- where the school was at
the same time the kingdom,-that there should be this sign of submission on the
part of those taking their place there. They are "baptized unto the name of the
Lord Jesus"; and this is connected with the authoritative "remission of
sins."
The "keys of the kingdom" are here clearly to be seen. "But
where does it say there were just two keys?" asks J. J. S. If he can find a
third we shall not object; but it surely requires more than one to make a
plural. The Lord Himself speaks of the "key of knowledge"; but there needs
another, if the expression be an accurate one. Our brethren are evidently shy
of the question. "The real truth is," says J. J. S. again, "that Peter had the
authority given him to open the door, that being what the keys represent in
Scripture; and when the door was once opened it did not need to be opened
again, so we don't need any man with keys today." This settles the matter, if
an assertion can settle it; but why should not the key of knowledge be enough,
then, without "keys"? Why "keys" at all? Take the commission as it reads, and
the whole is clear: we see that the keys are needed still, and that the door
was not thrown open once for all.
But "the keys were given to Peter,
and to Peter alone"! It is not said "alone." Was the promise "and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth" to Peter alone? Certainly as much as that of the
keys. Did it hinder the Lord extending this to the assembly a little after? Why
should the promise of the keys not have a similar extension in the commission
to disciple here?
But, urges C., "if infants are in the kingdom, they
are in it without the key of knowledge, why may they not also be in it without
the key of baptism?" A fair question; and it call be as fairly answered. With
regard to infants, they are received as the household of the parents, whom God
has put in the place of authority over them. The key of knowledge is not set
aside, but the parent acts as the guardian and representative of the child
before God, charged with its interests, and not for the setting aside of the
truth, but for its complete establishment over it. The exception is only
apparent in this case, the spirit of the rule being perfectly observed.
Why could one only baptize among the heathen those who give evidence of
some real conversion? It is because baptizing must be discipling; and where
this is not meant to take the Lord's yoke really, it would be merely a mockery
to baptize. For the child it is the parents' will that gives confidence as to
this, and so one can "disciple." In either case the result may, alas,
disappoint our hope.
One more objection only: it is that of J. J., who
says: " As to baptism being one of the keys of the kingdom, if it be such it
was an unaccountable omission not to give it to Paul, who was sent 'not to
baptize.' But I question very much whether the Lord would have called an
ordinance a 'key.'
Now I should think that the keys being given to all the
disciples after the resurrection of the Lord would be the very best reason why
they should not be given to Paul as part of his special commission Paul was the
special minister of the Church (Col. i. 25) in its full character, and in this
the baptismal commission could have no place.
Again, the simple and
external nature of baptism would in no wise hinder its being a token of the
Lord's authority, in its place very needful thus; and, when intelligently
practised, a witness to much essential truth. Bnt we shall have to look at this
further, presently.
It is evident that our brethren cannot show us any
other keys; and thus these, spite of their protests, fit the lock in this way
also.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM.
"'Scripture speaks of
baptism as a 'figure,'" says J. J. "'The like figure whereunto even baptism
doth also now save us' (i Pet. iii. 20). A figure is not efficacious in itself.
It is a figure of something else which is efficacious." This is simple enough,
surely. It is a figure of salvation; and a figure cannot really save.
But
while this is very well as a protest against ritualism, it is not the whole
thing. An ordinance may accomplish something, and yet be a figure of that which
it does not accomplish. Yet J. J. says: "Any system of doctrine which attaches
efficacy to an ordinance is ritualistic, and is so far a departure from the
truth. It is an unintentional but practical denial of the fact that ordinances
are taken out of the way and nailed to the cross of Christ. It is to take them
down again from the cross, and to assume to use them to effect what only a work
of grace can accomplish. The two ordinances of Christianity - Baptism and the
Lord's Supper - are not ordinances at all in this sense: they have no power
whatever to 'effect' anything."
Where does our brother find this teaching
in Scripture? The passage which he quotes for it does not bear him out, and his
appeal to it is of the loosest kind. The apostle is speaking of "the obligation
of ordinances (or decrees) which was against and contrary to" those in Judaism.
'l'his Christ has "wiped out," and stricken through with the nails of His
cross. Without any ordinance whatever, the dying thief, according to the word
of the Lord, goes to Paradise with Him. Cornelius receives the Holy Ghost, with
all his company, before they are baptized. This is the grace of God in
Christianity, gloriously free. But this household Baptism granted fully - and
the meaning left wholly unimpaired - how should this hinder that for the
entrance into the company of His people on earth there should be this simple
but significant and authoritative admission? Must we say, with J. J., that
baptism, though to Christ, effects nothing?- that even though one is baptized
unto remission of sins,- is baptized and washes away his sins,-still this is
nothing?-and as he would not, but still we must, say that baptism is
discipling, yet it accomplishes nothing?
Nor are we sacramentalists
because we cannot grant this (C. 21). Our brother may find, if he please to
look, whether in the Episcopal prayer-book, or the Westminster Confession of
Faith, that a sacrament is understood to be an ordinance that conveys the grace
it signifies. Thus if baptism is figuratively (as they hold) "the washing of
regeneration," it imparts this grace- it regenerates. This, assuredly, I do not
hold. And yet I do hold that there is a congruity between the figurative
meaning and what is accomplished by the baptismal act.
Baptism is
"discipling." It brings a person out of the outside world into the company of
disciples, the Lord's followers on earth. It does not work the spiritual change
which this would imply for one becoming in heart a disciple, but it does figure
this. It does not save in fact, but it does in figure. (i P. iii. 21.)
It
is easy to see why the figure of the internal work should be found in what is
external. The outward discipling becomes in this way a witness to the inward
necessity,- a gospel pledge or assurance that if that be truth in the heart
which is here outwardly declared, then the highest and fullest blessing which
it witnesses an "if," from the human side. God knoweth the heart; and hence the
conditionality always connected with the kingdom.
Take the "remission of
sins." In the absolute way we know that the Jews were right in their question,
guilty as they were in their unbelief of Christ's glory, "Who can forgive sins
but God alone?" Yet the Lord can say, and does, to His disciples, "Whose sins
ye remit they are remitted to them"; and baptism at disciples' hands is to the
remission of sins. Is this, then, the same kind of remission as His? No,
assuredly: it is for the present kingdom, and for earth,- not for heaven and
eternity. Yet it is the witness and conditional declaration of the other. And
such conditional remission we have in the parable of the unforgiving debtor
(Matt. xviii. 23-35), a parable of the kingdom of heaven.
"The reference
here is plainly" however, J. J. S. says, "to the Jewish nation"; although there
is nothing that I can see in the Lord's words to Peter to suggest such a
thought. The Jewish nation never sued for forgiveness at his hands, never took
the place of those forgiven; and there is nothing in the context of the parable
to make it likely. The connection with baptism, which our brother cannot find,
is simply that it is a parable of the kingdom.
Let us look now at the
figurative meaning of baptism, and we shall find that nowhere does it figure
the state, but the process,of salvation. Says J.J. "Baptism is a figure of
Christ's death; and . . . it supplies the answer to the demand for a good
conscience, because it is the figure of the death of Christ; and as He is risen
from the dead, faith finds in His death all the demands of conscience met." But
it is not the action in baptism that expresses this. The death of Christ is
what we are baptized to: we are baptized to Christ, to His death. The water,
like Jordan after Christ had been in it, does express to us that by which
salvation comes; but the baptism proper is the immersion into it. But, again,
"it supplies the answer to the demand for a good conscience" ! Not at all: it
is the "demand" itself, not the answer to the demand; and this shows that the
one coming to baptism is not, in idea, one saved, but one seeking salvation.
Baptism is the burial of the person himself, as judicially dead already, to
meet Christ in His death. It is thus "burial with Christ,"- Christ remaining in
the efficacy of His death for all who need Him, even while and because Himself
risen; so that baptism is, in figure, salvation,- the process, not the
state.
Again he says, speaking of those baptized upon the day of
Pentecost, "their baptism was 'upon' their confession." Not exactly, either:
their baptism was their confession. But this, too, he states elsewhere.
Again, "This forgiveness of sins was eternal re-mission, for it was founded
upon Christ's death, upon the confession of whose name they were baptized." If
this be so, what becomes of ordinances effecting nothing, as he tells us, when
they were baptized to get eternal remission! Surely extremes meet here!
As
to the gift of the Holy Spirit following, Heb. vii, 4, surely shows that it did
not necessarily result that a person made "partaker of the Holy Ghost" was
saved. The historical account, as in Acts, is not the record of the inward
state of souls. Nor, indeed, do we know how far the signs of the Spirit's
presence manifested themselves in the baptized. All did not work miracles, or
speak with tongues.
Again, very strangely, J. J. quotes, "The like
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us," and adds "plainly linking
it with a saved state." But in what way? As the result of the baptism, or in
order to it?-absolute or conditional ?-figure or fact?
J. J. S., commenting
on Rom. vi., says:- "We are buried with Him by baptism: that surely implies
death with Him. We are 'baptized unto His death'; that is, in recognition of
His death. But we are buried,- not to His, but unto death; that is, an
acknowledgment of our death with Him. The way our household baptists try to
reason out of this plain Scripture is a remarkable instance of the really
blinding effect of following human theories. The very truth it is taken up to
develop - that is, in connection with sin - is enough to show it is only
believers, and true believers, that could be in question here."
It is,
however, " plain," if anything is, in J. J. S.'s argument, that the truth of
our being "dead with Christ," which the apostle reaches only in the 6th and 7th
verses, he implies in the beginning of the 4th; yet the apostle is carefully
reasoning up to it. The truth of being dead with Christ has not been stated
before at all. He reaches it in this way:- We were baptized to Christ: But the
dead only can have title to the place of death: have we such title? Yes; but
not because naturally dead in sins, for we could never find Jesus there: that
could not be the death He took. Judicial death, then, the due of sin ? Yes;
this is ours; we can take this place, and Christ is in it. We must be buried
with Him,- buried in His sepulchre, so to speak; to touch and get virtue from
Him, that we may live.
Remember that we are baptized to Christ, to His
death; and baptism is the soul on its quest for Christ, the demand for a good
conscience, not the declaration that we have found it. The baptism is to Him,
to gain Him,- ends with effecting this. The rest is His work. The life, He
gives. The satisfaction of conscience is the fruit of His cross. Buried with
Him by baptism unto death, it is that, as Christ was raised from the dead by
the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life. For now (mark)
if we have become united to Him (R. V.) in the likeness of His death - the
quest of baptism attained - we shall be in the likeness of His
resurrection.
Here, now, in this new state of things, we can look
joyfully around. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him that the
body of sin might be destroyed -(annulled)- that henceforth we should not serve
sin."
Yes, now we may begin to speak of being dead with Christ: before we
could not. This is the effect of what baptism speaks of - impossible before we
had the effect. And now we can go on to the deliverance from the power of sin,
where, as J. J. S. says, "only believers, and true believers, could be in
question." But we have reached this point by a legitimate path, not implying,
at the start, what was really the conclusion, as our baptist brethren do. That
the conclusion is for believers, we are equally sure with them; but that does
not involve the unscriptural thought of baptism being the expression of a saved
state, instead of the "demand for a good conscience," and that which, as a
figure, saves. These are two opposite thoughts, impossible to reconcile; and
upon this rock J. J. S.'s argument is capsized and lost, without hope of
recovery.
Chapter Twelve . BAPTISM IN
RELATION TO CHILDREN.
Home | Links | Literature