It has been a point much debated whether John's baptism was the same as that administered by the disciples and apostles of Christ, or different from it. What has lent some keenness to the discussion of this question is, that, on the one hand, it enters into the controversy between the Catholics and the Reformers, the Anglicans and Evangelicals, re specting the efficacy of the sacraments, and, on the other, touches the question whether we, as Christ's followers, are baptized with the same baptism as that to which our Lord submitted. By most, the identity of the two baptisms is denied ; by the Sacramentarians, because, as John's baptism con fessedly did not effect a spiritual change, if it is to be viewed as identical with Christian baptism, it would follow that neither does the latter effect a spiritual change ; and by others for various reasons. The decision of the question depends mainly upon three considerations. i. When John says, `I bap tize with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I. . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matt. iii. m); does he intend by the concluding clause to describe the baptism by water, which the disciples administered in obedience to Christ's command, or that inner spiritual baptism which Christ reserves to himself? If the former, then John undoubtedly asserts a radical difference between his baptism and Christian baptism, but he does so by ascribing direct saving agency to the act of baptism as ad ministered by the followers of Christ ; so that those who accept this argument for the difference of the two must accept it as necessarily involving the doctrine of baptismal salvation. On the other hand, if the latter of the alternative interpretations be taken, the passage must be held as proving nothing to the point, its decision attaching to a matter not in dispute, viz., the inferiority of ritual to spiritual baptism. 2. As John baptized for a Christ who was to come, and the apostles baptized for a Christ who had come, it has to be determined whether these two ends were not so different as to constitute a difference in the baptisms. Those who would assimilate the two contend that both were baptisms for the same Christ, and that the fact of the one being prospective and the other retrospec tive is a mere accident that cannot affect the essen tial identity of the two ; but to this it is replied, that as John still stood on Old Testament ground, and baptized for the expectation of a coming visible theocracy (see Neander, Leken p. 57, E. T. p. 56), his conception of the Christ as the Theo cratic King must have been so different from that entertained by the apostles, who preached Christ as the propitiatory and glorified Saviour, that we cannot regard his baptism, and that of the apostles, as really baptisms for the same Christ, the one being a baptism for a temporal Christ, the other being a baptism for a spiritual Christ. 3. In Acts xix. 5, we read that certain who had received John's baptism were rebaptized by Paul for the name of the Lord Jesus.' This fact has, from the earliest times, been urged as decisive of the question. There is, however, the counterfact to be dealt with, that the immediate disciples of our Lord seem to have received no other baptism than that of John, and we must consequently either conclude that they were not baptized at all, or admit the validity of John's baptism as equivalent to Christian bap tism. Various attempts have been made to weaken the conclusiveness of the argument from the re baptism of John's disciples. Among others, it has been ingeniously suggested that the disciples of John, who were rebaptized by Paul, had been bap tized with John's baptism subsequently to Christ's death, when John's dispensation had passed away, and when, consequently, his baptism had become invalid ; and that in this, and not in any intrinsic difference between John's baptism and that of Christ, lay the reason of their rebaptism (Halley, Cong. Led. on the Sacraments, vol. i. p. IA. But besides the want of any conclusive evidence in support of the supposition that these disciples of John had been baptized after the death of Christ, it may be argued that even granting this suppo sition, the case would prove the very opposite of what it is adduced to prove, for it would prove that John's baptism was valid only so long as his dispensation lasted, but ceased to be so after it had passed ; so that there was the same reason for rebaptizing one who had received John's bap tism as there was for rebaptizing one who had been baptized as a proselyte under the Mosaic dispen sation. The whole question is encompassed with
difficulty ; but the evidence, on the whole, seems in favour of the ancient opinion, that John's bap tism was not Christian baptism, but one peculiar to and which terminated with his intermediate dis pensation. (For a view of both sides of the ques tion, see, on the one side, Hall's Terms of Com munion, Works, vol. ii. p. 20, ff ; and on the other, Halley's Cong. Lect. on the Sacraments, Lect. 4).
2. Christian Baptism. —During his personal ministry on earth, our Lord did not baptize with water ; as it was his prerogative to give the higher and real baptism, that of the Spirit, it was probably not fit that He should administer the lower and merely ritual. -His disciples, however, baptized, and doubtless in his name and into the faith of Him as the Messiah (John iv. I, 2 ; comp. iii. 25, 26), though this can hardly be called Christian baptism. Properly speaking, 'Christian baptism was instituted when our Lord, after his resurrec tion, gave the commission to his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.' He then authorized and enjoined upon them to teach (make disciples of, izakrciicrare) all nations, baptizing them for the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching (oLaCtS carrel) them to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them' (Matt. xxviii. to, 20; comp. Mark xvi. 15). In this commission the primary duty laid on the apostles was that of preaching the gospel ; as a result of this was the discipulising of nations ; and as consequent again upon this was the baptizing of them for the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the teaching of them to observe all that Christ, as the Head of the new dispensation, had enjoined. All this lies so obviously on the mere surface of the passage, that no doubt or dispute can arise on any of these points. When, however, we come to ask, What is implied in discipleship ? in what relation does baptism stand to the discipulising of nations ? and what is intended by men being baptized for the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? differences of opinion make themselves apparent.
By a disciple' some contend is meant a man truly converted to God through faith in Jesus Christ ; and they who hold this view regard bap tism as a sign and obsignation of such conversion in the case of those baptized. In opposition to this, others maintain that the state of discipleship into which nations are to be brought is simply that of learners in the school of Christianity ; and they who take this view hold baptism to be, in relation to such, merely the designation of them as dis ciples, and an outward significant expression, on their part, of their willingness to submit to Chris tian teaching, so that it may be appropriately ad ministered to all who are brought under such teaching.
The baptismal formula, ds rb bvona rofi II. rcal .roti "T. Kat vol 'A. II., has sometimes been inter preted as meaning no more than that baptism is administered by the authority of the Triune God ; but this is now generally repudiated by interpreters as philologically inadequate. It has also been in terpreted as denoting simply in ccetum Christian orum recipi ' (Kuinoel on Matt. xxviii. In) ; but this is at once set aside by the consideration that reception into the church is not an explanation of the baptismal formula, but a practical result conse quent, among other things, on the rite itself. The opinion now most generally received is, that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost means the revealed fact, lying at the basis of Christianity, of the Three-One-God, and that to be baptized, ens, into, for, with respect to, or with, a view to this, means that by submitting to this rite men acknow ledge this revealed fact, receive God thus revealed as their God, and profess willingness to be taught all that He has enjoined. The formula does not necessarily imply that all who receive baptism are true believers in the doctrines of Christianity ; it implies no more than a willingness, and an obliga tion on their part, to submit to the teaching of these doctrines with a view to being ultimately saved by them. In connection with the preaching of the gospel, men become unOn.rd, and by baptism the is carried forward ; for thereby they become bound to aim at the full apprehension of the revealed truth Concerning God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the consummation of their faith and their salvation (See. Meyer and Alford on Matt. xxviii. 16).