heard, we need not be careful to inquire. Possibly He knew it from information obtained by His disciples. We can hardly doubt that some of them kept up intercourse with their old master, John the Baptist, and so learned what was going on at ^non. — It is more probable that He knew it from His om- niscience as God. We are frequently told that " He knew the thoughts " of His enemies, and acted and spoke accordingly. It is good for us all to remember that nothing is spoken, talked of, or reported among men, however secretly, which Christ does not know.
2. — {^Though Jesus himself baptized not. c&c] The fact that our Lord did not actually administer baptism with His own hands, is only mentioned here in the Gospels, and is noteworthy. It shows, at any rate, that what is done by Christ's ministers, at Christ's command, in the administration of ordinances, is regarded as done by Christ Himself. The preceding verse says that " Jesus baptized," while the present one says, that He '^ baptized not." Lightfoot remarks, "It is ordinary, bath in Scripture phrase and in other language, to speak of a thing as done by a man himself, which is done by another at his appointment. So Pharaoh's daughter is said to 'nurse Moses,' and Solomon is said to 'build the temple and his own house.' So David ' took Saul's spear and cruse,' meaning Abishai by David's appointment," (1 Sam, xxvi. 12.)
The reasons assigned for our Lord's not administering baptism with His own hands, are various. Lightfoot mentions four.
1. " Because he was not sent so much to baptize as to preach.
2. Because it might have been taken as a thing somewhat im- proper for Christ to baptize in His own name. 3. Because the baptizing tliat was most proper for Christ to use, w^as not with Avater, but with the Holy Ghost. 4. Because he would prevent all quarrels and disputes among men about their baptism, which might have risen if some had been baptized by Christ, and others only by His disciples.''
To these reasons we may add another of considerable import- ance. Oar Lord would show us that the effect and benefit of baptism do not depend on the person w^ho administers it. We carniot doubt that Judas Iscariot baptized some. The intention of the minister does not affect the vahdity of the sacrament.
One thing seems abundantly clear, and that is, that baptism is not an ordinance of primary, but of subordinate importance in Christianity. The high-flown and extravagant language used by some divines about the sacrament of baptism and its effects, is quite irreconcilable with the text before us, as well as with the general teaching of Scripture. (See Acts x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 17.)
3. — [He Itft Jvdoea^ &c.'\ The context of the preceding verses seems