GC - 02-Baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
2. Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the investigation of this subject, the following queries are naturally suggested:
What is the meaning of the word baptize? What action did Christ intend to express by the use of the original term baptizo?
Who are to be baptized? Or, in other words, who are proper subjects of baptism according to the terms of this Commission?
What is the meaning of the phrase, "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"
Let us briefly consider each of these in order.
1. What is the meaning of the word baptize (baptizo)? For the last five hundred years, this has been a question of growing interest throughout Christendom. And even to-day the investigation is still increasing in interest and importance. This is owing chiefly to the influence that baptism has on the unity, harmony, and prosperity of the Church of Christ. A diversity of practice with regard to this ordinance serves to divide the Church itself. And, to estimate fully the consequences and bad effects of this division, is not a problem that is to be solved by the common rules of logic, or the known laws and principles of mathematics. The evils reach far beyond the narrow limits of time and sense. They belong not to the finite, but to the infinite.
It is very important, therefore, that every man who hears the Gospel, and especially that every man who preaches the Gospel, should know what our Savior meant when He said to his Apostles, Make disciples and baptize them. And this, I think, may be easily done by any and every man who can lay aside his prejudices, and listen honestly to the testimony of inspired and uninspired witnesses. In this brief discussion I have not, of course, room for even a tithe of the evidence that might be given on this subject; but, nevertheless, I will endeavor to so indicate and illustrate the proper course of argument as to enable even the unlearned reader to draw for him-self a fair logical and scriptural conclusion.
Let us, then, notice very briefly I. A FEW EXAMPLES FROM CLASSIC AUTHORS.
Aristotle, who flourished about three hundred and fifty years B.C., and who is celebrated throughout the world for his great accuracy in the use of terms, says, in his work "Concerning Wonderful Reports," vol. 6:, p. 136: "They say that the Phoenicians, who inhabit the so-called Gadira, sailing four days outside of the Pillars of Hercules, with an east wind, come to certain desert places full of rushes and seaweed; which, when it is ebb-tide, are not immersed (baptizo), but when it is flood-tide are overflowed (katakluzo)."
Polybius flourished about one hundred and fifty years B.C. In his "History," book 36:, ch. 3, 7, while describing the manner of taking the sword-fish with a sort of spear, or harpoon, he says: "And even if the spear falls into the sea, it is not lost: for it is composed of both oak and pine; so that when the oaken part is immersed (baptizo) by the weight, the rest of it is buoyed up and easily recovered."
Again, in book 3:, ch. 72, 4, of the same work, the author, speaking of the passage of the Roman army across the swollen Trebia, says: "They passed through with difficulty, the foot-soldiers being immersed (baptizo) as far as their breasts."
Diodorus Siculus flourished about thirty years B.C. He wrote a history consisting of forty books; in the first of which, while describing the rapid rise of the Nile during its inundations, he says: "Most of the wild land animals are surrounded by the stream and perish, being submerged (baptizo); but some escaping to the high grounds are saved."
Strabo, the contemporary of Diodorus, says in book 6:, ch. 2, 9, of his "Geography:" "Around Acragas (in Sicily) are marsh-lakes, having the taste of sea-water, but of a different nature: for even those who cannot swim are not immersed (baptizo), but float like pieces of wood."
In all these examples, which might be greatly multiplied to the same effect, it is evident that nothing but the word immerse, or some one of its equivalents, would meet the requirements of the context. To substitute for it either sprinkle, or pour, or wet, or moisten, or wash, in any of these cases, would make sheer nonsense.
II.-EXAMPLES FROM THE SEPTUAGINT. This version of the Old Testament was made in Egypt, under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about two hundred and eighty years B.C. The word baptizo occurs in it but four times: twice in the canonical books, and twice in the Apocrypha, as follows:
2 Kings 5:14 : "And Naaman went down and immersed (baptizo) himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the saying of Elisha; and his flesh came again as the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."
Isaiah 21:4 : "My heart wanders, and iniquity overwhelms (baptizo) me."
Judith 12:5-9: "And the servants of Holofernes brought her (Judith) into the tent, and she slept till midnight. And she arose when it was toward the morning watch, and sent to Holofernes, saying, Let my lord now command that thy handmaid may go forth unto prayer. Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not hinder her. Thus she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, and immersed (baptizo) herself in the camp at the fountain. And when she came up, she besought the Lord God of Israel to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people. So she came in clean, and remained in the tent until one brought her food in the evening."
Wisdom of Sirach 34:30 (English version 25): "He that immerses (baptizo) himself after touching a dead body, if he touch it again what availeth his washing ?"
In the first of these examples, the word baptizo is evidently used in its literal physical sense. There can be no doubt that Naaman dipped or immersed himself seven times in the river Jordan. In the other examples, the word is used figuratively. But, nevertheless, it retains in every case the ground idea of an immersion. In the second, as given in Isaiah, the immersion is represented as if caused by a wave or flood of iniquity. In this tropical sense, we are often said to be overwhelmed or baptized in cares, troubles, sufferings, etc. In the third and fourth examples, the idea designed to be expressed is that of a washing, made more thorough and complete by an immersion of the whole body; as when the Jews are said to wash themselves by immersion when they come from the market, etc., Mark 7:4. The word commonly used to denote a washing of the whole body is louo; but baptizo is frequently used instead of louo, when the person or thing to be washed is wholly immersed in water.
III.-EXAMPLES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. The verb baptizo occurs in the New Testament eighty times, and the noun baptisma twenty-two times. Of these the following will suffice for illustration:
Matthew 3:5-6 : "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the Jordan, and were immersed (baptizo) by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins."
John 3:23 : "And John was immersing (baptizo) in Aenon, near to Salim; because there was much water there."
Acts 8:36; Acts 8:38 : "And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be immersed (baptizo)? ... And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he immersed (baptizo) him."
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 : "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant that all our fathers were under the cloud; and all passed through the sea; and were immersed (baptizo) into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea."
Colossians 2:12 : "Buried with him in immersion (baptisma), wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead."
In all these cases, the radical idea of an immersion is made quite obvious by the terms and conditions of the context. In the first example, this is so very plain that no other words could be used to express it more clearly. In the second, the reason assigned for choosing Aenon as a place of baptizing is wholly without force and significance on any other hypothesis than that John was an immerser. The word Aenon means a fountain, or rather a great fountain. It comes from the intensive form of the Hebrew word ahyin, which means a fountain. From the third example, it is very obvious that more than a cup of water was necessary in order to baptize the eunuch. In the fourth, the historical circumstances, as well as the terms of the context, all go to show that the Israelites were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And, from the fifth, it is quite obvious that in every legal baptism there is, and of necessity must be, a symbolic representation of a burial and a resurrection. This is seen in every case of immersion; but never in a sprinkling or a pouring.
IV.-EXAMPLES FROM JOSEPHUS.
Flavius Josephus was born in Jerusalem, in A.D. 37, and died in Rome about A.D. 100. He was of the sacerdotal order, of the sect of the Pharisees, and well instructed in both Greek and Hebrew literature. After the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, he accompanied Titus to Rome, where he spent the rest of his days in literary pursuits. His "History of the Jewish War," and his work on "Jewish Antiquities," were both written in Hebrew, and afterward translated by himself into Greek. The former was published about A.D. 75, and the latter about A.D. 90. He is certainly one of the most learned of all the Hellenistic Greek writers; and, as he was contemporary with the Apostles, his writings are of the highest authority in settling the questions as to the New-Testament meaning of the word baptizo. The following examples are sufficient to illustrate his use of this term:
"Jewish Antiquities," book 4:, ch. 4, 6. Describing the manner of purifying the people during the thirty days that they mourned for Miriam, our author says: "When, therefore, any persons were defiled by the dead body, they put a little of the ashes (of the red heifer) into spring-water; and immersing (baptizo) a branch of hyssop in it, they sprinkled them with it both on the third day and on the seventh; and after that they were clean."
"Antiquities," b. 9:, ch. 10, 2, Speaking of the case of Jonah, Josephus says: "Now at the first they would not do so" (cast Jonah overboard), "esteeming it a wicked thing to cast a man who was a stranger, and who had committed his life to them, into such manifest perdition. But at last, when their misfortunes overbore them, and the ship was just going to be submerged (baptizo), and when they were animated to do it by the prophet himself, and by the fear concerning their own safety, they cast him into the sea."
"Antiquities," b. 15:, ch. 3, 3. Describing the death of the young high-priest, Aristobulus, who, at the command of his brother-in-law, Herod the Great, was by the Gauls drowned in a swimming-bath, he says: "Continually pressing down and immersing (baptizo) him as if in sport, while swimming, they did not desist till he was entirely suffocated." (See also "Jewish War," b. 1:, ch. 22, 2.)
"Jewish War," b. 2:, ch. 18, 4. Speaking of the suicide of Simon after putting to death all the members of his own family, our author says: "So when he had gone over all his family, he stood on their bodies, to be seen by all; and stretching out his right hand, that his action might be observed by all, he plunged (baptizo) his entire sword into his own bowels."
"War," b. 2:, ch. 20, 1. Having described the retreat of Cestius, the Roman general, from the walls of Jerusalem, Josephus says: "After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swum away from the city as from a ship when it is going to be submerged (baptizo)."
"War," b. 3:, ch. 8, 5. In this instance, Josephus is trying to persuade his Jewish brethren that it is better for them to fall with the hands of the Romans than to commit suicide. He says: "It may also be said that it is a manly act for one to kill himself. No, certainly; but a most unmanly one: as I should esteem that pilot to be an arrant coward, who, out of a fear of a storm, would sink (baptizo) his ship of his own accord."
"War," b. 3:, ch. 9, 3. Describing the frightful condition of vessels in the port of Joppa during violent storm, he says:
"Now as these people of Joppa were floating about in this sea, in the morning there fell a violent wind upon them (it is called, by those that sail there, the Black North-wind), and then dashed their ships one against another; and dashed some of them against the rocks, and carried many of them by force, while they strove against the opposite waves, into the main sea. For the shore was so rocky, and had so many of the enemy on it, that they were afraid to come to land: nay, the waves rose so very high that they overwhelmed (baptizo) them."
"War," b. 3:, ch. 10, 9. Speaking of the unequal contest between the Jews and the Romans on the Sea of Galilee, he says: "And when they (the Jews) ventured to come near the Romans, they became sufferers themselves, before they could do any harm to the others, and were submerged (baptizo) they and their ships together;...and as for such as were sub-merged (baptizo) in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts or caught by the vessels."
Other examples might be given, but these are quite sufficient to warrant the conclusion that, in the writings of Josephus, the word baptizo always means to immerse, submerge, plunge, or dip.
V.-TESTIMONY OF THE GREEK AND LATIN FATHERS. As the testimony of Josephus is of the highest authority in settling the current Hellenistic meaning of the word baptizo in the first century of the Christian era, so also the testimony of the Christian Fathers is of paramount importance in determining what was the practice of the primitive Church in administering the ordinance of baptism. And it therefore gives me pleasure to say that, under this head, the evidence is full and unequivocal. The few following examples will suffice for illustration:
Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, was born at or near Jerusalem, about A.D. 315, and made bishop in 350. In his "Instruction on Baptism," he says: "For as Jesus, assuming the sins of the world, died, that having slain sin he might raise thee to righteousness; so also you, going down into the water, and in a manner buried (thapto) in the waters, as he in the rock, are raised again, walking in newness of life."
Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea and one of the most learned of the Greek Fathers, was born in Caesarea, in Palestine, A.D. 328, and died January 1, 379. In his work "On the Holy Spirit," he says: "Imitating the burial of Christ by the immersion (baptisma), for the bodies of those immersed (baptizo) are as it were buried in the water." And again he says in the same passage: "The water presents the image of death, receiving the body as in a tomb."
John (afterward called Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed) Archbishop of Constantinople, and eminent both for his learning and his piety, was born in Antioch, about A.D. 347, and died in exile A.D. 407. In his "Commentary on I Corinthians," discourse 40:, 1:, he says: "For to be immersed (baptizo) and to sink down, then to emerge, is a symbol of the descent into Hades, and of the ascent from thence. Therefore Paul calls the immersion (baptisma) the burial, saying, We were buried with him by the immersion (baptisma) into death."
Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, in his "Commentary on Nahum," about A.D. 1070, says: "For there is one immersion (baptisma), as also one faith, because of the doctrine respecting the initiation being one in all the Church, which has been taught to immerse (baptizo) with the invocation of the Trinity, and to symbolize the Lord’s death and resurrection by the threefold sinking down and coming up."
Tertullian, one of the most learned and pious of the Latin Fathers, was born in Carthage, about A.D. 160, and died about A.D. 240. In the following extracts from the writings of this eminent scholar, we have the most clear and satisfactory evidence with regard to the action of baptism in the primitive Church.
In his work "On the Resurrection of the Body," ch. 47:, he says: "Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed (tingo) into Christ Jesus, were immersed (tingo) into His death? .... For by an image we die in baptism (baptisma); but we truly rise in the flesh, as also did Christ."
In his work "Against Praxeas," ch. 24:, he says: "And last of all, commanding" (referring to the command of Christ in Matthew 27:19) "that they should immerse (tingo) into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
"On the Soldier’s Crown," ch. 3:: "Then we are three times immersed (mergo), answering somewhat more than our Lord prescribed in the Gospel."
"On Baptism," ch. 7:: "As of baptism (baptismus) itself there is a bodily act, that we are immersed (mergo) in water; a spiritual effect, that we are freed from sins."
Ambrose was born at Treves, in Gaul, A.D. 340 and died at Milan, A.D. 397, where he had presided as bishop for about twenty-two years. In his work "On the Sacraments," b. 2:, ch. 7, he says: "You were asked, Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? You said, I believe; and you did sink down (mergo), that is, you were buried."
Jerome was born at Stridon, in Dalmatia, about A.D. 342, and died in Bethlehem, in Palestine, A.D. 420. He has, by common consent, been styled "the greatest of all the doctors in ex-pounding the divine oracles." In his "Commentary on Ephesians," b. 2:, ch. 4, he says: "And three times we are immersed (mergo), that there may appear one sacrament of the Trinity."
Alcuin was born in York, England, A.D. 735, where he was well instructed by "the venerable Bede." In A.D. 782 he was invited to France by Charlemagne, who constantly consulted him on all matters pertaining to the religious and literary improvement of his empire. In his "Epistle to the Church at Lyons," while speaking of the common doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church, he says: "And so in the name of the Holy Trinity, he" (the candidate) "is baptized (baptizo) with a trine submersion (submersio)."
Such extracts might be multiplied indefinitely, but this is unnecessary. Those already given, in connection with the examples and illustrations cited from the Greek classics, the Septuagint, the New Testament, and Josephus, prove beyond all doubt that the proper meaning of the word baptize is to immerse; and that immersion was, in fact, for several centuries, the common practice of the Christian Church. This, it gives me pleasure to say, is the testimony of Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Bishop Bossuet, Bishop Taylor, George Campbell, Moses Stuart, Dr. Wall, Mosheim, Gieseler, Neander, and, in fact, I may say, of all the most eminent writers on this subject, Pedobaptist as well as Baptist.
How, then, does it happen that sprinkling is now so prevalent throughout so great a part of Christendom? By what authority has it been substituted for immersion, and on what authority does it now rest as an ordinance of the Church of Christ? On the Catholic hypothesis, it is a very easy matter to answer all such questions. Concede that the Pope is the infallible successor of the Apostle Peter, and that to him have been committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with all the authority that is necessary to change times and laws ad libitum, and then all is plain and consistent. Then, indeed, he may substitute pouring, sprinkling, or anything else that he chooses, for immersion. This, as perhaps all my readers are aware, is the Catholic ground of defense; and we are constrained to admit that it has at least the merit of consistency.
But, can any Protestant defender of sprinkling give as consistent an answer to these questions? Can he stand up before heaven and earth, and say to the candidate for baptism, "By the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, I sprinkle or pour water upon you?" If so, where is this authority given?
It is of course conceded by all true Protestants, that the Apostles have really no successors; that they themselves still live in their writings; and that in this capacity they still rule and govern the Church, and will govern it, while Christ sits on the throne of His glory: and, moreover, that this being so, it is now not only presumptuous, but also exceedingly sinful and dangerous for any man or body of men to change, or in any way set aside, any law or ordinance which bears the seal of Apostolic authority. This is, in fact, the cardinal and fundamental principle of Protestantism. The man who receives this, and consistently conforms his life to it, is a Protestant; nay, more, he is a Christian. But the man who rejects this fundamental principle, and claims that there is now authority vested in any man or council, to change or modify, in any sense, a law or ordinance of Christ, is a Papist. There is really no middle ground to be occupied on this question.
Whence, then, I again ask, do Protestants derive their authority for either pouring or sprinkling water on the face or person of any man?
I do not wish to be censorious. I have no pleasure in finding fault with such men as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Wesley. I revere their memories, and humbly try to imitate their many virtues. But, as an apology for the errors and inconsistencies of these great and good men, be it remembered
That they were all more or less under the influence of Popery; as, perhaps, we all are, to some extent, even to this day. The work of reformation is, of necessity, a very slow and difficult process. It is so even with an individual, but it is much more so with a people, a Church, or a nation. Nothing short of plenary inspiration would have enabled Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, to at once divest themselves of all the evil effects and influences of their previous education, and to see in their just and proper proportions all the elements of the entire plan of redemption. They each did a great and glorious work in their day and generation; and all things considered, they did it well. But they found the Church under a cloud; and with all their zeal, labor, and self-denial, they were able to but partially disperse the dense fogs and mists which were then intercepting from her vision much of the glorious light and effulgence of the Sun of Righteousness.
There is also another element that should always be taken into the account in every attempt that we make to apologize for the great and good Protestant Reformers; and to estimate aright the great and mighty work which, under God, they have done for the civilization and salvation of the world. If it is true, as it undoubtedly is, that all men now see but in part and know but in part, it is also equally true that, owing perhaps chiefly to our very limited field of vision, one extreme almost invariably leads to another. This is a law of our fallen nature, from the influence of which even the great and good Reformers of the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, have not wholly escaped. They found, for instance, in the Roman Catholic Church the very absurd doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This gave to baptism, as an element of the Christian system, an influence and an importance which the holy Apostles and Prophets never attached to it. The error is, in fact, fundamental and soul-destroying. It ascribes to the shadow what can only belong to the substance. It substitutes the water of baptism for the blood of Christ and the renewing influence of the Holy Spirit, to the eternal disappointment and ruin of thousands-perhaps, indeed, of millions, who might be saved through the influence of the truth.
All true Protestants have felt this, and protested against it. But, while avoiding Scylla, how very liable we all are to fall into the vortex of Charybdis! While opposing the errors of baptismal regeneration, and every other species of formalism, many Protestants have unwittingly fallen into the opposite extreme. Some ignore baptism in water as a matter that is wholly inconsistent with the known spirituality of the Christian religion. Others regard it as "a mere outward sign of an inward cleansing;" and, from these inadequate and erroneous premises, they hastily infer that it is of but little consequence how this outward sign is applied, provided only that water be used in some may as a symbol of an inward purification. That this is the ground now occupied by most Protestant pedobaptists, will appear from the following concessions of the very learned, pious, and amiable Prof. Philip Schaff. He is very justly regarded as a representative man; and he gives, in substance, the views of nearly all the great and good Protestant pedobaptist Reformers. In speaking of the action of baptism in his "History of the Christian Church," vol. 1:, p. 123, he says: "That the usual form of the act was immersion is plain from the original meaning of the Greek baptizein and baptismos; from the analogy of John’s baptism in the Jordan; from the Apostles’ comparison of the sacred rite with the miraculous passage of the Red Sea, with the escape of the ark from the flood, with a cleansing and refreshing bath, with a burial and resurrection; and from the custom of the ancient Church, which prevails in the East to this day." And, again, on the same page, he adds: "Unquestionably immersion expresses the idea of baptism more completely than sprinkling. But it is a pedantic Jewish literalism, to limit the operation of the Holy Spirit by the quantity or the quality of the water. Water is absolutely necessary to baptism as an appropriate symbol of the purifying and regenerating energy of the Holy Ghost; but whether the water be in large quantity or small, cold or warm, fresh or salt, from river, cistern, or spring, is relatively immaterial." This is, in some respects, the opposite extreme of the Popish doctrine. If Catholic pedobaptists overestimate the value of baptism as an element of the Christian system, it is equally obvious to every candid and unprejudiced student of the Living Oracles that Prof. Schaff and his many Protestant pedobaptist brethren undervalue it. And hence it is not at all surprising that, with their inadequate views of the design of baptism, they should, as a matter of convenience, substitute sprinkling for immersion.
There is still another matter to be considered in this apologetic explanation of the conduct and teachings of many of the great Protestant Reformers. The extreme error into which many of them have fallen, touching the action of baptism, is owing largely to their neglect or failure to discriminate properly between moral and positive institutions. A moral law or ordinance has its foundation, first, in the nature of God; and, secondly, in the nature and relations of things created. It may, therefore, not unfrequently be at least partially understood from the study of Nature, and especially of the relations which the subjects of the law sustain to each other and to the law-giver. And hence it is that in the Holy Scriptures moral laws are for the most part expressed generically; or it may be that they are merely indicated by some moral example which ex-presses to the mind of the Christian philosopher a moral law or principle, just as the fall of Newton’s apple indicated to his mind the existence of a physical law.
But a positive law has no such natural basis. It depends for its existence and all that pertains to it, wholly and exclusively, on the will of the law-giver. And hence the necessity that every positive law should be expressed in the most clear, definite, and specific terms passible: and, furthermore, that it should be interpreted and obeyed according to the strict letter and conventional meaning of the terms used to express it. This important difference between moral and positive precepts will be best understood and illustrated by an example. Take, for instance, the lesson that Christ taught His disciples, as recorded in John 13:13-15 : "Ye call me master and Lord" (says Christ); "and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."
What is the nature of this injunction? Does Christ, by His example and instruction on this occasion, design merely to teach His disciples a great moral lesson? or does He, as some think, design to make feet-washing a positive ordinance in the Church, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper? If the former is His intention, then it is obvious that the duty inculcated by His example is a very broad and comprehensive one. It requires simply that, as the followers of Christ, we should perform any and every menial service which may be necessary to promote in any way the health, comfort, and happiness of our brethren. This may consist in washing their hands, bathing their temples, or sponging their bodies, as well as in washing their feet. But not so if this is a positive ordinance. In that event, nothing but the literal washing of the feet will meet the requirements of Christ. It will not do to wash the face, bathe the body, or sprinkle water on the feet, as a substitute for this. The feet must, in that event, be literally washed, just as Christ washed the feet of His disciples; or otherwise the ordinance is perverted. To those who have any remaining doubts on this subject, I would respectfully recommend the careful study of the laws and institutions of Moses, both moral and ceremonial. And, as an introductory lesson for the instruction and encouragement of beginners in this department of moral philosophy and sacred literature, we will take the consecration of the priests, as re-corded in Exodus 29 :, and Leviticus 8:9 : In the course of this ceremony it was required-
That Moses should bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle, and then wash them in water (Leviticus 8:5-6).
That he should clothe them in their own proper sacerdotal garments (v. 7-9).
That he should anoint the tabernacle, the laver, the altar, and Aaron himself, with oil made out of given parts of pure myrrh, cassia, sweet cinnamon, sweet calamus, and olive-oil (v. 10-12. See also Exodus 30:22-33).
That he should bring a bullock for a sin-offering; cause Aaron and his sons to put their hands on its head; kill it; put some of its blood on the horns of the brazen altar; pour out the rest of the blood at its foot; burn the fat on it, and the rest of the carcass without the camp (v. 14-17).
That he should bring a ram for a burnt-offering; cause Aaron and his sons to put their hands on its head; kill it; sprinkle its blood on the altar; and then burn the whole victim as a holocaust on the altar (v. 18-21).
That he should bring another ram for a peace-offering; cause Aaron and his sons to lay their hands on its head; kill it; put some of its blood on the right ear of Aaron and his sons, on the thumb of their right hand, and on the great-toe of their right foot; and then sprinkle the rest of the blood on the altar (v. 22-24).
That he should then take the fat of this ram of consecration; his rump, his kidneys, his caul, and his right shoulder, with one loaf of unleavened bread, one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer anointed with oil; put them into the hands of Aaron and his sons, wave them for a wave-offering, and then burn them on the altar (v. 25-28).
That he should wave the breast, and take it as his own portion (v. 29.)
That he should take some of the blood of this ram of consecration from the altar, mingle it with oil, and then sprinkle the composition on Aaron, and on his sons, and on their garments (v. 30).
That he should cause Aaron and his sons to boil the rest of the flesh of this ram, at the door of the tabernacle, and then eat it with unleavened bread (v. 31, 32).
How very definite, then, and minute are all these specifications! Every particular, even to the consecration of the right ear, the right thumb, and the great-toe of the right foot of Aaron and his sons, is limited, defined, and particularized, by a "Thus saith the Lord." And for the willful neglect of any such law, rule, or regulation, the penalty was death. "The soul," says God, "that doeth aught presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or is a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him" (Numb. 15:30, 31). This law was fearfully illustrated in the case of Nadab and Abihu, who, it seems, with the spirit of a modern rationalist, presumed to offer strange fire before the Lord (Leviticus 10:1-2). But does anyone allege that there is now no such law, or principle, binding on the followers of Christ?-and that, under the Gospel, we are at liberty to disregard everything like "Jewish literalism," and to change or modify the positive ordinances of Christ, according to our own imperfect sense of propriety? If so, where is this license given? Let anyone produce it, and then the question as to the proper action of baptism is settled forever. We will all reverently bow to the law of Christ, and rejoice in the liberty bestowed. But be not deceived. Every such suggestion is from the Man of Sin. Paul, speaking by the Spirit, teaches us a very different lesson. "For if the word spoken by angels," he says, "was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:2-3.) It is therefore just as true under the New Covenant, as it ever was under the Old Covenant, that not even one jot or one tittle of the divine law can be willfully neglected, or set aside with impunity (Matthew 5:18). So long, then, as the twelve Apostles sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, so long will it be the solemn duty of every man who hears the Gospel, and believes it, to be buried with Christ in baptism; and also in it to rise with Him, to walk in newness of life. (See Romans 6:1-4, and Colossians 2:12.) That sprinkling and pouring, then, should be universally discarded, and that all true believers should be immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we respectfully but most earnestly plead and urge, chiefly for the following reasons:
This is the law of Christ given in the Commission, and plainly illustrated by the evangelical labors of the Apostles, and other primitive Christians. This, of itself, is a reason that is altogether sufficient and paramount. For, if Christ has all authority in heaven and on the earth, it is certainly His province to command, and it is our duty as well as our honor and privilege to obey.
Because, if this were done, it would serve very greatly to promote unity, peace, and harmony among the followers of Christ. For this our Savior Himself prayed, and for this all His faithful disciples are now praying. But it is utterly vain to expect unity, peace, and harmony among God’s people, so long as sprinkling or pouring is substituted for immersion. Many of us never can, and by the grace of God never will, unite with others on such a basis. We love to see peace and harmony in the Church; but we dare not, for the sake of these, sacrifice a law or ordinance of Christ.
It would tend very greatly to the conversion and salvation of the world. When Christ prayed that all His followers might be one, He, of course, had some reference to their own comfort, convenience, and welfare. But it is worthy of remark that His main object in making this request was, that the world might believe (John 17:21). He foresaw, of course, all the evil consequences of division among His followers; and He desired that as far as possible they might all be prevented. But that which seems to have most deeply affected His great and tender heart was the fact that, in consequence of these divisions, many precious souls for whose redemption He was about to die, would be lost-finally and utterly lost!
Will, then, our pedobaptist friends think of these things, and do what they can to remove existing evils? It is utterly vain to expect union on any basis of human construction. We must, of necessity, have the sanction of Divine Authority before we can be united, and cooperate as we should for the conversion and salvation of the world.
2. Who are to be baptized?
Evidently not the nations as such, but the disciples. The word nations (ethnee), in the Greek, is in the neuter gender, and the pronoun them (autous) is in the masculine. And hence the pronoun represents by syllepsis only those who, through the instructions of the Apostles and their coadjutors, become disciples of Christ. Besides, it is evident from the terms of the Commission, that the work of making disciples is prior, in point of time, to that of baptizing. Christ says, Go and first make disciples; secondly, baptize them; and, thirdly, teach them to observe all things whatever I have commanded. But to make disciples of all persons in any and every nation is practically impossible. Some persons, as infants and idiots, have not the capacity that is necessary in order to become disciples; and others have not the will or the disposition to come to Christ, and to submit to His authority. "Ye will not," says Jesus, "come to me that ye may have life." And hence we never read of the Apostles baptizing any but penitent believers; men and women who realized and acknowledged that they were sinners; and who trusted in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of sinners. This point is so very important that I deem it necessary to illustrate it with more than ordinary care and precision. Let us, then, if you please, notice every case of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and as many other cases of conversion as may serve to throw light on this subject. These examples are, of course, the very best possible commentary on the Commission; and they were recorded for our instruction and guidance in the great work of saving the world from sin and death. They occur as follows:
Acts 2:37-41 : "Now when they heard this" (all that Peter had just said respecting Christ as the anointed Sovereign of the universe), "they were pierced to the heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
This is all in beautiful harmony with the terms of the Commission. Christ had said to His Apostles, Go and first make disciples, and then baptize them They did so. They first preached the Gospel to the people; and then they baptized those, and those only, "who gladly received the word."
Acts 3:19-21; Acts 4:4 : "Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, in order that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send forth Jesus Christ, before appointed for you: whom the heavens must indeed receive, until the times of the restoration of all things which God spoke by the mouth of all the holy prophets from the beginning.... But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men be-came about five thousand."
This is but another illustration of the same Divine order and process of making disciples, and adding them to the Church. Through the good providence of God, the multitudes were gathered together, and Peter preached to them Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And having again demonstrated that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, and perceiving, no doubt, from sundry clear and unmistakable indications, that many of his audience had faith to be saved, he said to them: "Repent, and turn to God, in order that your sins may be blotted out, and that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." For this the Apostles were imprisoned and persecuted. But, nevertheless, many of those who heard the word, believed and obeyed.
Here, then, we have another clear case of the conversion and implied baptism of adults. But in all that is said in this part of the sacred narrative, there is not the slightest evidence that any but believers were added to the Church.
Acts 5:12-14 : "And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch; and of the rest durst no man join himself to them; but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." Here we have given another very marked instance of believers being added to the Lord, but no others.
Acts 6:7 : "And the word of God increased; and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." Here, again, we observe the same train and order of events. The influence of the Gospel is greatly increased in Jerusalem; and, as a con-sequence, a great many priests, but no children, became obedient to the faith.
Acts 8:5-12 : "And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits crying with a loud voice came out of many that were possessed with them; and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city. But there was a certain man called Simon, who beforetime in the city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that he himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they all had regard, be-cause that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women."
From this passage, it is evident that the primitive Evangelists, in making converts to Christ, followed strictly the law of the Commission, as did also the Apostles. Philip does here in Samaria just what Peter had before done in Jerusalem. That is, he first preached the Gospel to the people, demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus is the Christ. And when they believed Philip, they were baptized, both men and women, but no infants.
Acts 8:35-38 : "Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Whether the thirty-seventh verse of this chapter is genuine or spurious, does not in the least affect our present argument. For, from the whole connection, it is obvious-
That it was God’s purpose to convert the eunuch; and that this was to be done according to the law of the Commission, by preaching Christ to him.
That, through the preaching of Philip, the eunuch was led to believe in Christ: as Paul says in Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
And, finally, it is evident that, as soon as he believed, he was baptized, and went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 9:17-18 : "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales; and he received his sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized."
Paul, like other men, was converted to Christ through the influence of the truth. And when he believed in Christ as the Son of God, he was baptized, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 10:44-48 : "While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on them who heard the word. And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter; because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
From the evidence here submitted, compared with Acts 15:9, it is perfectly evident that none but believers, who were capable of glorifying God, received in this instance the Holy Spirit, and were baptized.
Acts 11:19-21 : "Now they who were scattered abroad by the persecution that arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but Jews. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord."
This passage is somewhat elliptical, being sufficiently explained by what precedes. But, even from this brief narrative, it is quite obvious that in Antioch, as well as in Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, etc., the Gospel was first preached to those who were capable of hearing and understanding it; and, secondly, that as many as gladly received the word, turned to the Lord by submitting to all the requirements of the Gospel.
Acts 16:14-15 : "And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us."
Some have inferred that there may have been infants in this household, and also in that of Cornelius (Acts 10:14); that of the jailer (Acts 16:31) and that of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). But be it observed, that what is here required is not the evidence of possibility, nor even of probability, but of absolute certainty. For it is manifest, as we have seen, that the terms of the Commission are against infant baptism: so that, unless it can be shown clearly and unequivocally that the Apostles did baptize some infants, it follows, of necessity, that the law of the Commission must be taken in its plain and most obvious sense. But this never can be done. For the household of Cornelius it is said that they all feared the Lord (Acts 10:2); of that of the jailer, that they all believed in God (Acts 16:34); and of the household of Stephanas, it is said that they had de-voted themselves to the service of the saints (1 Corinthians 16:15). So that the house of Lydia is really the only one concerning which there is any room for doubt. And even this doubt, if doubt it may be called, seems to wholly vanish when we find that in the fortieth verse of the same chapter (Acts 16 :), the members of this household are called "brethren." At all events, it can never be proved from this passage that an infant was ever baptized by the authority of Christ, or of His Apostles. And, consequently, we are still constrained to believe that the law of Christ, given in the Commission, has reference only to the baptism of believers.
Acts 16:29-34 : "And calling for lights, he" (the jailer) "sprang in, and trembling fell down before Paul and Silas; and having brought them out said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house. And they spoke to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And taking them along, the same hour of the night, he washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his immediately. And having brought them into his house, he set food before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."
From this passage we learn-
That Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer, and to all that were in his house. And-
That they all believed before they were baptized.
Acts 18:5-8 : "And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook his raiment and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go to the Gentiles. And he departed thence and entered into a certain man’s house named Justus; one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crisps, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."
Here, again, we have the same order and succession of events:
The people hear the word of the Lord.
They believe it.
They are, by the authority of Christ, baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
From all these examples, then, it is very evident that the practice of the Apostles and primitive Evangelists was in perfect harmony with the law of Christ given in the Commission; that is, they first made disciples, and then they baptized them. And hence we are constrained to conclude that infant baptism is without any warrant, sanction, or authority, in the word of God. But it is argued that the Jewish Church was typical of the Christian Church; and as there were confessedly infants in the former, so also it is alleged there should be infants in the latter. This is the ground which is now occupied by the most pious and learned of the Protestant pedobaptists. And as it is in it-self a plausible hypothesis, and supported also by many of the most illustrious Protestant Reformers, it is deserving of at least a very candid and impartial consideration.
I think, however, that the following remarks are quite sufficient to show that the conclusion is erroneous, and that the position is therefore wholly untenable. Observe, then
I. That the points of analogy between the type and the antitype are generally very few. The resemblance is in all cases but partial. And hence, in reasoning on and from such matters, it is very necessary that great caution should be our conclusion what is wholly unwarranted by our premises. Adam, for in-stance, is said to be a type of Christ (Romans 5:14). But surely nothing could be more erroneous than to infer from this that Adam resembles Christ in every particular. It is true that they each sustain a peculiar relation to the entire human race, and also that their conduct has affected the entire race. But it is not true that their acts have affected the race in the same way or in the same degree. The conduct of the former brought a curse on the entire race; but the conduct of the latter has brought a great blessing on all, and especially on those who are of the household of faith: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). "For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners; even so, by the obedience of the one, shall the many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19).
II. Before, therefore, it can be logically inferred, from the analogy that exists between the Jewish and Christian Churches, that infants may of right be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it must be shown that infant membership is one of the points of resemblance that were designed and preordained by the Divine Founder of these two institutions. That it was God’s intention that there should be babes in both, is of course conceded. But this is not enough. It must be further shown that these babes are of the same class with respect to their age, and their intellectual and moral developments. But, that this never can be done, is Obvious from several considerations:
1. From the nature and the necessity of the case. The covenant which God made with Abraham was twofold; each branch of it being also called a covenant. The first referred to Abraham’s posterity according to the flesh; and the second to his posterity according to the Spirit. The members of the former, except those only who were proselyted, or bought with money, became such by a birth of flesh; and were, therefore, at the time of their initiation into the covenant, but babes in the kingdom of Nature. But the members of the latter, as it is now fully developed, under the personal reign of Christ, become such by a birth of water and of the Spirit; and must, there-fore, be of sufficient age and intelligence to understand the word of truth (John 3:3-5).
All this will be made plain by the following passages:
Genesis 17:7 : "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." The plain and obvious meaning of this passage is, that all the children of Abraham were, from the period of their birth and by virtue of their birth, members of this covenant in its first intention; just as all the children of Adam are, by virtue of their birth, subjects of the Adamic covenant.
I know, some are of the opinion that the children of Abraham became members of this covenant by virtue of their circumcision on the eighth day after their birth. But for this opinion there is not even the shadow of evidence in the whole Bible.
On the contrary, it is quite evident, from the fourteenth verse of the same chapter (Genesis 17 :), that every child was from its birth regarded as a subject of the Abrahamic covenant, and as such was, for typical reasons, held responsible from the moment of its natural birth. For, otherwise, how could it be said with propriety, of the child that was uncircumcised after the eighth day, that it had broken God’s covenant? Who but a subject of a covenant can be truthfully and properly said to break it?
Matthew 3:9 : "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." From this, and many other like passages of Scripture, it is evident that the Jews all regarded themselves as subjects of the Abrahamic covenant, not by virtue of their circumcision, but in consequence of their birth. And this, within proper limitations, John does not deny. The common error of the Jews did not consist in their claiming to be in covenant with God by virtue of their descent from Abraham. This claim was just, and is often conceded in both the Old and New Testament. But the Jews failed to perceive the twofold nature of the Abrahamic covenant; that it was in fact two covenants, respecting two families, and guaranteeing to each certain peculiar rights and privileges. And, failing in this, they claimed as members of the Old Covenant what belong properly and exclusively to the subjects of the New Covenant. This was the great and fundamental error into which the Jews had all fallen; and it is this that Christ and His Apostles, as well as John the Baptist, labored so much to correct. Even Nicodemus, the great teacher of Israel, had fallen into this error. He came to Jesus by night to learn more of Him respecting His mission as an ambassador from God, evidently presuming, however, that as a son of Abraham he was legally entitled to participate in the peculiar rights and privileges of the Messiah’s kingdom. But Christ knew his thoughts, and at once labored to correct his mistake. He tells him that his natural birth as a son of Abraham was wholly unavailing; and that every man, whether Jew or Gentile, must be born again before, as a citizen, he can enjoy the kingdom of God. This, of course, very greatly surprised Nicodemus; and he proceeded to inquire further into the possibility of this new birth, clearly showing that even he was trusting wholly in the flesh. But Christ immediately added, by way of explanation: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, ye must be born again." (John 3:5-7. For further proof and illustration of this matter, see also John 1:12-13; Romans 9:6-8, etc.)
It is evident, therefore, that the subjects of the Old Covenant, save the few exceptions already named, were all made such, simply by virtue of their natural birth; but that no one can now become a subject of the New Covenant, as the fully-developed constitution of the Church of Christ, without being born of water and of the Spirit. Most of the members of the Church, under the old Theocracy, became such without any knowledge on their part whatever. Their minds were perfectly destitute of even the most simple and elementary ideas. But not so with the members of the Church of Christ. They are all begotten by the Holy Spirit, through the word of truth as the good seed of the kingdom. So James clearly and unequivocally testifies in his letter to the brethren of the Twelve Tribes, that were scattered abroad. `Of His own will," says he, "He (God) begot us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures" (James 1:18). And so also Peter testifies, in his first Epistle to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia: "Being born again," he says, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (1 Peter 1:23. See also Luke 8:4-15; John 6:44-45; 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, etc.). From these premises, then, it clearly follows that no one is now born again without the word of God. But the word of God can have no power to change the heart and control the life, unless it be first understood. "He," says Christ, "that receiveth seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the word and understandeth it; who also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth; some a hundred fold, some sixty, and some thirty" (Matthew 13:23). But to understand the word requires a degree of intellectual, moral, and religious development and intelligence, such as no child of Abraham ever had, either at the time of its birth or of its circumcision. And hence it follows of necessity, from the nature of the case, that the babes of the Jewish Church were very different, in point of intellectual, moral, and religious character and development, from those who are the legitimate babes of the Church of Christ.
2. This may also be still further proved by the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. This is given with sufficient fullness in the following brief extract from the prophecy of Jeremiah: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, though I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their, hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34. See also Hebrews 8:5-12.) When God called the Israelites out of Egypt, He gave them a covenant, with the assurance that if they would faithfully observe and keep it, they would all be happy and prosperous. "The man" said He, "that doeth these things, shall live by them" (Romans 10:5, and Galatians 3:12). But it very soon became manifest that, according to the terms and conditions of that covenant, no flesh could be justified. The people all repeatedly transgressed its requirements, and thus brought about and sealed their own condemnation. And hence it was that God graciously promised, by His servant Jeremiah, that the days would come when He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. And He says, moreover, that it would not be according to the Old Sinaitic Covenant, but that it would differ with and from it the following particulars:
The New Covenant would be faultless, whereas the Old Covenant was faulty (Hebrews 8:7-8). The Holy Spirit here, of course, speaks relatively. The Old Covenant was, in one sense, just as perfect as the New; that is, it was perfectly adapted to the end for which it was designed. But it never did, and never could, either justify, or sanctify, or save any one. And it is simply with reference to these ends and purposes that it is said to be faulty. God often addresses men according to their own conceptions of things. (See, for instance, Matthew 19:17; John 1:21, etc.)
The Old Covenant was written on stone and parchment; but the New was to be written on the understanding and the heart; and hence it would of course be far more efficacious in forming the character and controlling the wills and lives of the people than the Old Covenant. It is of but little use that the truth of God is written on marble, paper, or parchment, unless it is also written on our hearts.
The subjects of the Old Covenant were not all necessarily pious; but all the subjects of the New Covenant must, of necessity, take Jehovah to be their God (Hebrews 8:10). Many of the natural posterity of Abraham as they grew up believed in God, and became members also of the family of the faithful, and subjects of the embryonic or imperfectly-developed coven-ant concerning Christ. For, the two promises relating to the two families were given to Abraham at the same time, and coexisted as parts of the same general arrangement down to the end of the patriarchal age. And even when that which related only to the family of Abraham according to the flesh was finally and fully developed into a national covenant at Mount Sinai-even then that which related particularly and exclusively to the family of the faithful, was still associated with it and supported by it; though all the while as distinct from it as the vine is from the oak which supports it. For, says Paul, "The law is not of faith" (Galatians 3:12). And hence it was that many were subjects of the Old Covenant who were never, like Abraham, begotten by the Holy Spirit. But no one can really be a subject of the New Covenant, and a member of the Church of Christ, who has not been born again (John 3:3).
Most of the subjects of the Old Covenant were, as we have seen, introduced into it by a birth of flesh; and they had of course to learn afterward even the name and the existence of God. But all the subjects of the New Covenant enter into it and become members of the Church of Christ on the confession of their faith. And hence they must all, from at least the period of their new birth, know the Lord, even from the greatest to the least of them (v. 11).
I am aware that this declaration (Hebrews 8:11) is by many referred to the whole human race. But in this sense it never was true and never can be true. It clearly refers, as is evident from the context, simply and exclusively to the members of the New Covenant, every one of whom must know the Lord, from the least of them even to the greatest of them. This, then, marks a contrast between the subjects of the Old and the New Covenant which forever nullifies the claims of infant baptism.
There was nothing in the Old Covenant that could really take away sins. And hence all the sins of the people were again remembered every year on the Day of Atonement. But under the New Covenant, the sins of God’s children are remembered no more (v. 12).
Under the Old Covenant, there was a lamb offered every morning, and also every evening, for the sins of the people. And besides these and the many annual offerings of the three great national festivals, there were also offered special weekly and monthly sacrifices. But nevertheless on the Day of Atonement (tenth day of the month Tishri) all the sins of the year were again called into remembrance. (See Leviticus 16 :) But it is not so under the more free and gracious economy of the New Covenant. The blood of Christ procures full and final pardon for all who comply with the terms and conditions of this covenant. And hence, on the Day of Judgment, the faithful will be treated as if they had never sinned (Hebrews 10:1-8).
The Old Covenant was abolished when Christ was crucified (Ephesians 2:14-17; Colossians 2:14, etc.); but the New Covenant will continue in force while time endures (v. 13. Compare also Daniel 2:44; Hebrews 12:28; 1 Peter 5:12, etc.)
Many other passages of Scripture might be cited to the same effect; but this one from Jeremiah is, I think, quite sufficient for our present purpose. That none but believers in Christ should be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is abundantly evident from each and all of the following considerations:
From the terms of the Commission itself.
From the labors of the Apostles and primitive Evangelists.
From the distinctive nature and design of the New Covenant; and-
From the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit.