nar.ces by h's ministers, accordinj^ to His institution, is as His own work. The disciples' baptizing is called His baptizing."
The questions have often been raised, "In what name was this baptism administered?" " Was it a baptism that needed tj be repeated after the day of Pentecost ?" — The most probab'e answer to the first question is, that it was a baptism in the name of Jesus, upon profession of belief that he was the Messiali. The most probable answer to the second question is, that it was certainly not a baptism that required repetition. To suppose that a baptism, administered by our Lord's disciples, under our Lord's own eye, and by our Lord's own command, was not as effectual and profitable an ordinance as any baptism that was ever afterwards administered, is a most improbable supposition.
It may be remarked here, that there is no ground for the common idea, that it is absolutely necessary that baptism should be administered in the name of the Trinity, in order to be a valid and Christian baptism. In three cases recorded in the Acts we are expressly told that baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ, and no mention is made of all three Persons in the Trinity. (See Acts ii. 38; viii. 37; x. 48.) In all these cases, however, it will be remembered, baptism in the name of Christ was practically baptism in the name of the Trinity. It was con- fession of faith in Him whom the Father sent, and who was the giver of the Holy Q-host.
As a general rule in the Church of Christ, no doubt, baptism ought to be in the name of the Trinity. (Matt, xxviii. 19.) But that our Lord's disciples, in the place now before us, did not baptize in the name of the Trinity is pretty certain, and that baptism in the name of Jesus is vaHd Christian baptism seems clear from the places referred to in Acts.
Hutcheson remarks, that " Christ's own bodily presence, filled with the Spirit without measure, did not take away the use of external ordinances," such as baptism. The Quaker's opinion, that we need no external ordinances under the Gospel, is hard to reconcile with such a text as this.
23. — [John also was baptizing.] We can hardly doubt that John baptized all who came to him, at this period of his ministry, in the name of Jesus, upon confession of faith that Jesus was the Messiah. It seems most improbable that after publicly pointing out Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, and the promised Saviour, he would be content to baptize with the baptism of repentance, which he had administered before Christ appeared. In short, John's baptism at tiiis period, and the baptism administered by Christ's disciples, must have been precisely the same.
I may remark here, that the opinion maintained by Roman
175
Catholics, and those who agree with them, that there was an essential diflference between John's baptism and Christian bap- tism, seems to me entirely destitute of foundation. I agree A\ilh Brentius, Lightfoot, and most of the Protestant commentators, that John's baptism and Christian baptism differed only in cir- cumstantials, but were the same in substance, and tliat a person baptized by John the Baptist had no need to be re baptized after the day of Pentecost. — Unless we take this view, I cannot see any evidence that Peter, and Andrew, and James, and John ever received Christian baptism at all. There is not a single word in the Grospel to show that they were ever baptized again after leaving John the Baptist's company, and becoming Chris' 'a disciples. Moreover, we are expressly told that " Jesus himself baptized not." (John iv. 2.) The only baptism that the first apostles received appears to have been John the Baptist's bap- tism. This fact seems to me to prove irresistibly, that John's baptism was essentially of equal value with Christian baptism, and that a person baptized by John had no need to be baptized again.
The well-known passage in Acts, (Acts xix. 1 — 6,) which is always quoted in opposition to the view I maintain, does not appear to me at all conclusive and decisive upon the question now before us. — For one thing, the persons described in that passage as having only been baptized with John's baptism, seem to have been ignorant of the first principles of Christianity. They said, "we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." That expression shows pretty clearly that they had not been hearers of John the Baptist, who frequently spoke of the Holy Ghost, (Matt. iii. 11,) and had not been baptized by John himself — It is most probable that they were inhabitants of Ephesus, who had only heard Apollos preaching, and knew even less than their teacher. Whether St. Paul might not think it needful to administer baptism to such ignorant disciples as these, who could give no intelligent account of Chris- tianity, is a question I would not undertake to decide. — But beside this, it is by no means certain that these disciples were really baptized again with water at all. Brentius holds that the words, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," mean the baptism of the Spirit. Streso maintains that the words are the concluding sentence of St. Paul's address to these ignorant men. I cannot say that either of these last views is altogether satisfactory. All I say is, that I would infinitely rather adopt either of them, than hold such a monstrous opinion as the Romish one, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism at all, and needed to be repeated. The difficulties in the way of this last view appear to me far greater than the difl&culties in the way of the one which I support. To say that the first five apostles never received any Christian baptism at all is really preposterous. To
176 EXPOSITORY ^fTOUGHTL
assert that Christ Himself baptized them is tc ct^bert what tht Bible never even hints at. There is not a shadow of proof that Jesus ever baptized a single person. I see no escape from the conclusion that Andrew, John, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael either received John's baptism or no baptism at all.
Whatever men may think about John's baptism before the time when our Lord appeared, they will never prove that the baptism he administered in the text before us was not Christian baptism. To suppose that John would go on administering an ordinance which he knew was imperfect, while Christian baptism was being administered by Christ's disciples a few miles off, is simply absurd.
l^non near to Salim.] It is not certainly known where this place was. The probability is that it was somewhere in Judaea. In the list of the cities given to the tribe of Juda, we find together " Shilhim and Ain." (Josh. xv. 32.) It is very possible that these two may be the ''^non and Salim" now before us. The changes which proper names undergo in passing from one language to another, every one knows, are very great.
[Because there was much wateri] It is frequently assumed from this expression, that John's baptism was immersion and not sprinkling, and that on this account a great supply of water was absolutely needful. It may perhaps have been so. The point is one of no importance. That immersion, however, is necessary to the validity of baptism, and that sprinkling alone is not sufficient, are points that can never be demonstrated from Scripture. So long as water is used, it seems to be left a matter of indifference whether the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled. I should find it very hard to believe that the three thou?and baptized on the day of Pentecost, or the jailor and his family, bapiized at midnight in the Phihppian prison, were all immersed. The Church of England wisely allows either mode of applying wa er to be used. To suppose that dipping is forbidden to English Churchmen is mere ignorance.
[They came...l)aptized.] This is an elliptical sentence. "We are not told who are meant by " they." It is like " men," in Matt. V. 15, and means generally " people."
24..— [John... not yet. .prison^ John's diUgence in his Master's work is here pointed out. He doubtless knew that his ministry was fulfilled when Christ appeared, and that the time of his own departure, and violent death under Herod's hands, was at hand. Yet he worked on to the very last. "Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matt xxiv. 46.)
Tlieophylact thinks that John's early death was permitted la
177
God's providence, in order to prevent any distraction in people's minds between him and Christ.