John's baptism differed from proselyte baptism in bein" administered to Jews. The meaning of the challenge, ' Why then baptizest thou ? ' (Jn 1^) seems to be, ' What right hast thou, who art neither the Messiah nor the Prophet, to treat Israelites as if they were proselytes? Jews are fit for the Messianic kingdom without any such purification. '
And while John's baptism differed from these Jewish rites on the one hand, so it differed from Christian baptism on the other. This difference was clearly pointed out by the Baptist himself. ' I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ... he shall baptize you with t/ie Holi/ Ghost ' (Mt 3") ; ' He that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, LTpon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with tlie Holy Spirit ' (Jn 1^ ; conip. our Lord's words, Ac 1° 11"). And that this difference was regarded as essential, is shown bythe fact that Ephesian disciples who had received John's baptism were rebaptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, and then received the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands by St. Paul (Ac 19^"*). Cyril of Jerus., in con- trasting John's baptism with Christian baptism, says, that the former ' bestowed only the remission of sins' (Catech. xx. 6; comp. iii. 7). But there ii> nothing in Scripture to show that it bestowed that. TertuUian points out that ' baptism for the re- mission of sins' refers to a.futuic remission, which was to follow in Christ (De Bapt. x. ). And it may be doubted whether, if John's baptism had con- ferred remission of sins, Jesus would have sub- mitted to it. Its main aspect was preparation for the kingdom of God ; and in this aspect it fitted well into the opening of Christ's ministry. To everyone else this pr«>aratory act was a baptism of repentance. The Messiah, who needed no re- pentance, could yet accept the preparation. By means of this rite the people were consecrated to receive salvation, and He was consecrated to bestow it.
We are told by St. John that the disciples of Jesus baptized many, and that this led to an inaccurate statement that Jesus Himself baptized (322 41. 2). /^s to the nature of this baptism we are told nothing; but if not identical with the baptism of John, it v, ould be more akin to that than to Christian liaptism. It was preparatory and not perfecting, symbolical and not sacramental. The arguments of Tertullian on this point are weighty (De Baiit. x.-xii. ). Was Christian baptism possible until Christ had died and risen again ? The theory that this early baptism by Christ's disciples was the baptism of the gospel, but that its full effects remained latent until after the resur- rection, is not lielpful ; and to suppose with Peter Lombard that it was In nomine Irinitatis, scilicet in cA furmA in qud baptizavcrunt postea (Sent. iv. Dist. iii. 7), is utterly unreasonable. \\'hen John was put into prison, Jesus Himself continued .John's preaching. ' He came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and sapng. The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand • repent ye
BAPTISM
JiAPTIS.M
L'41
(Mk 1'*-"). Is it improbable that, while Christ continued the preachinj; of John, His disciples continued the baptism of John? lu that case there is no need to raise the question whether tiiey baptized 'into the name of tlie Lord Jesus'; for John certainly did not do so. In any case it is improbable tiat, at a time when the dis- ciples had such inadeijuate \-iew9 of the oliice of Jesus, they would baptize into His name. This baptism was certainly not accompanied by the gift of the Spirit : ' for tlie Spirit was not jyet given ; because Jesus was not yet glorilied ( Jn 7^). And it is to be noted that neither in the mission of the Twelve nor in that of the Seventy is there any command to baptize (Lk 9'-» 10'''). That omission is intelligible, if this early baptism, like that of John, was merely preparatory, a symbolical act conferring no grace. But the omission would be strange if there was already in use a rite equal in ellicacy to the baptism of the gospel. Until Christ had died and risen again, and sent the Holy Spirit upon His disciples, no such baptism by them was possible.
IV. The History of Christian Baptism. — This subject, as treated in NT, may be discussed under four heads — (a) the Institution, (6) tho Recipients, (c) the Minister, {d) the Rite.
(0) The Institution of Christian baptism is to be dated from Christ's farewell coramanil, ' Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Mt28'»). This command the Twelve do not attempt to carry out until they are free from the earlier charge (Lk 24**). But directly they have ' been clothed with power from on high,' l^eter begins to exhort the people to ' rejjent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of their sins' (Ac 2^), and with very great success. But here we are at once struck by the fact that, in spite of Christ's command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, no mention is made of the Trinity, but only of ' the name of Jesus Christ.' And this iirst and important record of Christian baptisms does not stand alone. The Samaritans who were converted by Philip were ' bactized into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Ac 8"). Peter at Ca.'sarea commanded that Cornelius and those with him should be ' baj)tized in the name of Jesus Christ' (10**). And the Ephesian disciples, when they were convinced of the in- sufficiency of John's baptism, were ' baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus ' (19'). Moreover, there is no mention in NT of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity ; anil the expression 'baptized into Christ' (Ro 6', Gal 3"; comp. 1 Co 1" 6") Ls more in hannony with the passages in the Acts than with the dinne command as re- corded Mt SS'".*