You will perhaps be surprised to hear me say I do not like answering you (I do not say writing). I believe all is in such confusion in the church, and I so thoroughly prefer dwelling on Christ to ordinances, that I have no comfort in speaking of them, and specially of this; as our real work as to this is to get Christians clear practically of a great corrupt baptized body-to which the Lord's supper helps; and the bringing them into it such as it is (though till judged it is owned of God-not practically) does not present itself in thinking [of it] with attraction. I believe they should be; but as a child ought to come home to his Father's house, yet if the house be in disorder morally, there is not satisfaction in thinking of it, even though right, and we should be glad as to him to see him return_ The word of God remains the same, as Christ calls the temple His Father's house, though man had made it a den of thieves. I am the rather disinclined to take the subject up, not to trouble any brother's conscience Indeed, the only counsel I ever gave was to be baptized because the person thought he ought, 's brother, of Cork, and he never was, the Baptist minister so put it in the place of Christ it drove him from it. I have answered when asked, but never sought to persuade any- only Quakers and unbaptized I have told that I thought they ought to be.
You have given the true reasons for not re-baptizing: if it is initiatory, and reception into the house or public professing assembly on earth, you cannot introduce him if he has been. If this has been bona fide done, done with this object, hence called christening, it is done; and a second service cannot be this, but only on the ground of being declaratory and obedience, which you yourself reject, as indeed baptizing brethren themselves do generally now, and which are clearly unscriptural. The only question then is, are the children of believers entitled to be so received? Now the rejecting them as infants was clearly not God's way of old, nor Christ's mind. It is the question, are they entitled to be received into the habitation of God by the Spirit, or are they to be left in the world of which Satan is prince? Now in Matthew the general character of infants in God's sight is clearly stated: their angels behold the face of His Father. It is not His will that one should perish, and that referred to His saving like a lost sheep. This clearly refers to infants as such, not those who have as Christians a character like them- it would be poverty itself as to them; He had the child in His arms. It is said this is not baptism. Clearly not. But it is not merely or at all Jewish, "of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Now the kingdom of heaven was not then set up; now it is, and such belong to it. They are of it, and ought to be admitted to its privileges. I know no administrative entrance to it on earth but baptism. It was the prescribed order down on earth. But when I come to 1 Cor. 7:14,14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14) I think I get the question specifically decided. It is directly the subject. If a Jew married a Gentile he was profaned (not profane, a profane thing cannot be profaned) and was to send away his wife and children (see Ezra and Nehemiah): was it so under grace? No, the converse; the unbeliever was sanctified (opposite to profaned, not holy) and the children were holy, to be received, not cut off. Hence the word is "unclean," the force of which as precluding approach to the house of Jehovah in Israel is well known. There is a place where God sets His blessings besides individual conversion, I mean down here. Thus Rom. 11 and the sacramental place on earth (1 Cor. 10) answers to this in Judaism; hence, as you recognize, special judgment on it, and it is called the house of God, though spoiled with false doctrine in man's hand, still judged as God's house and temple, though wood and hay and stubble be in it. Without this indeed there could not be apostasy. Hence the Lord, and the faith (not personal, but the "one Faith") and baptism are associated. In the baptism of a child there is plain testimony to the need of Christ's death for its admission. I trust you will not press- 's conscience the least. Should you even feel bound to do it, leave her quite at liberty not even to be present if she is not free, or a mere looker on if she wish to be it. Your own conscience God will direct. Take it quietly for yourself and for her. I trust and pray, nor do I doubt His goodness, that the gracious Lord will be with her in her hour of need, and may He give her to rest as a child in His arms, and trust His gracious care....
The brethren here are getting on very happily, freshly and unitedly. I am not uneasy about -: uphill work is good work.
[1873.]