that "remission of sins" was the direct end of St. John's "Baptism of repentance," supposed that it was bestowed upon all who came sincerely to it, and yet were they at no loss to see the excellences of Christian Baptism, which still set it far above that of John's, even if this privilege were conceded to his. Christian Baptism still had peculiarly its own, the adoption of sons, the union with the Incarnate Word; it had not only "forgiveness of sins, and removal of punishment;" but, to use St. Chrysostome's words on this very subject," righteousness also, and sanctification, and redemption, and adoption, and brotherhood, and participation of the heritage and abundant ministration of the Holy Spirit, for all these things he implied when he said, 'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire;' by the very metaphor showing the abundance of the gift, for he does not say, 'He shall give you the Holy Ghost,' but, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost; and by the addition of 'fire,' he points out the vehemence and efficacy of the grace." Thus St. Cyril, who did think that remission of sins was given by John's Baptism, adds, "Thou hast, as the glory of Baptism, the Son of God Himself, the Only-Begotten. For why should I henceforth speak of man? John was great, but what was he to the Lord? Loud was that voice, but what is it to the Word? Most glorious was the herald, but what to the king? Glorious was he who baptized with water, but what to Him who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost and with fire" so likewise another, above quoted,† added. that the exceedingness of its grace and power was more than the sun above the stars, yea, the recorded sayings of the saints more mightily establish its incomparable superiority." And St. Augustine, when refraining from pressing his own view,‡ inasmuch as some might argue that sins were remitted in John's Baptism while some further sanctification was, through the Baptism of Christ, bestowed upon those whom Paul commanded to be again baptized," does not contemplate any other alternative, than that the Baptism of our Lord should have conferred some further grace. Remarkable in this way

*

*Catech. Lect. 3. § 7-9. p. 29. 30. Oxf. Transl.

† P. 202.

1. c. This passage has been often alleged (as by Chemnitz Exam. Conc. Trid. de Bapt.) as if St. Augustine had no very decided view on the subject, but it is plain from the context that he simply drops this part of the argument, as not essential to the point he had in view, for he proceeds (c. 11:) "For that ought to be kept mainly in view which most effects this question (whatever be the case of John's baptism since he evidently belonged to the unity of Christ,) why persons must needs be baptized after the Baptism of Saint John, and not after that of covetous bishops. What reason can there be then that the Baptism which Paul commanded them to receive, was not the same which was given by John? But neither indeed was the baptism of John himself repeated, when the Apostle Paul bade those baptized by him to be baptized în Christ. For what they had not received from the friend of the Bridegroom, that they were to receive from the Bridegroom Himself, of Whom that friend said, 'This is He Who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.""

is the comment of one, not of the most eminent of the Fathers, on the testimony of Holy Scripture to Apollos, that he was "fervent in spirit," although he then "knew only the Baptism of John." This writer does not go about to lower the witness of Scripture, as if a man could be" fervent in spirit" without the Spirit; rather he exalts this testimony to him, and yet shows that our Christian privilege is higher, in that we not only may be kindled by the Spirit, as from without, but have Him dwelling in us, and are His temple, are not only guided and led by Him, as by an Angel, but are the living creatures of Ezekiel's vision, living through His life within us, "when those went, these went; and when those stood, they stood; for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels," propelling them by an inward principle of vitality, not by outward impulse. "Again it must be noted, says Ammonius, "that after the Baptism of Christ, through the laying on of the hands of the baptizer, the Holy Ghost descends on the baptized; and that they who were baptized with John's Baptism had not the Holy Ghost. How, then, was Apollos, being only baptized into John's Baptism, fervent in Spirit?" Though it is said that Apollos was 'fervent in Spirit,' it is not said that he had the Spirit ;' accordingly, he neither spake with tongues nor prophesied. It is one thing then to be fervent in Spirit,' another to have the Holy Spirit;' he who hath the Holy Spirit' hath it indwelling in him, and the Spirit Himself spake from within, many of which instances have occurred; how He spake to Philip,' to Peter, to the Apostles, to Paul and his companions, forbidding them to speak the word, or to speak it in certain cities; but he who is 'fervent in Spirit,' did things through illumination and impulse from without, being guided by the Spirit, as if he were guided or guarded by an Angel. And say not, how could he be 'fervent in Spirit' who was not partaker of the Spirit? for you may infer things invisible from those visible. If the sun, being without, and fire, by being near, or, as in the case of fire, at a little distance from bodies, warmeth our bodies, what must we say of the Divine Spirit, which · is indeed the most vehement fire, kindling the inner man, although It dwell not within, but be without? It is possible then, in that all things are possible to God, that one may be warmed, although that which warmeth him be not in himself."

Scarcely less instructive, in its way, than this agreement of the ancient Church as to the inferiority of the Baptism of John to that of our Lord, is the agreement of the school of Calvin (with whom the later Lutheranst coincided,) as to its identity and equality, the grounds upon which those built it, from whom this traditional agreement was derived, or the incongruity of the mode in which they

*In Cramer's Catena, xix. 5.

Luther himself at an earlier period (1520) laid down, that "John had only a baptism of repentance, Christ, a Baptism of grace; that Christ's Baptism alone was a Sacrament; that the Baptism of John was preparatory only, that

explained away the Scriptures opposed to them. The author of this, as of all other depravations of the doctrine of the Sacraments, was Zuingli; the ground, which the rest repeated after him, was the denial of the inward grace or mystic efficacy of the Sacrament."The Baptism of John worked nothing," says Zuingli :—" (I speak here," he adds, " of the Baptism of water, not of the internal bedewing, which takes place through the Holy Spirit;) the Baptism of Christ works nothing, for Christ was content with the Baptism of John, both for Himself (!) and for His disciples; whereas, had His Baptism had any thing fuller, He would have baptized the disciples a second time, and not allowed Himself to be baptized with the Baptism of John."(!) It being settled, on such grounds, that the Baptism of our Lord has no inward grace, the Baptisms could not but be the same; i. e. alike empty in themselves, and but appendages of the same teaching. "John baptized to initiate to repentance, and promised that there should be salvation in Him who should come after him, for that He was the Lamb, who alone took away sin, in whom also he taught to trust. The Baptism then of John required a new life, and pointed to hope in Christ. And this was the Baptism of doctrine (for both equally baptized with water,) the Baptism of Christ required nothing else, for He began to preach no otherwise than John, Repent ye. For, that Christ Himself is the hope, and John was not the hope, since he was not the light,' but sent to Christ, this made no difference in the Baptism: for both tended to Christ, i. e. required a new life, to be formed after the pattern of Christ. Since then John taught that the life was to be changed, and formed after the pattern of Christ, and Christ taught no otherwise, (for what does all Christ's teaching require other than a new life to be formed according to the will of God, and to trust unshakenly in Christ?) it follows that if the Baptism of doctrine was the same, that of the water was the same also." The promise then that they should be "baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire, was, according to this writer, a mere outward thing, confined to the Apostles," as outward," he says,f" as the Baptism of water;" the

it had no grace [did not remit sin,] but rather brought despair, until it ended in Christ; and that those so baptized needed to be again baptized." (Disp. de Bapt. Leg. Joh. et Christi. Opp. t. 1. p. 373.) In 1541 he held that "it did not much differ from the Baptism of Christ," (Sermons on Infant Bapt. Opp. Germ. t. 7. f. 460. ap. Gerh. Loc. de Bapt. c. 3. s. 5. § 55.;) in 1546, "that the penitent obtained by it remission of sins;" (Serm. 1, on the Bapt. of Christ, Opp. Germ. t. 8. f. 301. ap. Gerh. 1. c.) which however does not go beyond some of the Fathers. Melancthon also varied; he contrasted the two baptisms in the Loci ed. 1520; identified them in the ed. 1558; and was the channel through which the reformed theory came among the Lutherans; thenceforth it became a regular part of their traditional system.

* De nova et falsa Relig. cap. de Baptismo, t. 2. f. 200. 1.

† Ib. f. 199. v. He admits another "baptism of the Holy Spirit, wherewith all are bedewed internally who believe in Christ," and this baptism, according

6

invocation of the Name of the Holy Trinity was also outward; "it is an outward thing, that when they are baptized, there concur the sacred words, 'In the Name of, &c.,' and a sign of the real substance and a ceremony! In like way Calvin,t "It is most certain that the ministry [Baptism] of John was altogether the same as that afterwards delegated to the Apostles. For its being administered by different hands does not make the Baptism different, but the identity of doctrine shows it to be identical. John and the Apostles agreed in the same doctrine; both baptized to repentance, to the remission of sins; both into the Name of Christ, from whom was repentance and remission of sins. John said that He was the Lamb of God, by whom the sins of the world were taken away: thereby declaring Him to be a Victim accepted by the Father, the Propitiator of justice and Author of salvation. What could the Apostles add to this confession?" And even the later Lutherans allowed themselves to be misled by the modern theory, that Sacraments were seals of the word preached, whence even Brentius asserts, that "the Baptism of John and the Apostles and the whole Christian Church was not only altogether the same, but that John was the first who administered that Baptism, which the Church uses to this day, and shall use to the end of the world;" and as the ground of this, alleges, "For the Baptism of John is such as is his teaching and his word. For since the sacraments depend upon the word, and are constituted by the word, they must be compared with the word, and be judged of according to the nature of the word whence they derive their hallowing. But we have shown that there is no difference between the teaching and word of John and of the Apostles. How then should their Baptisms differ?"

Such being the à priori and theoretic way in which men came to assert the identity of the baptism of St. John with that of our Lord, it is instructive to observe its effect on the interpretation of the two passages, on which Antiquity chiefly rested their disparity; the dec

to him, consists in teaching, for he assigns as its ground, only the texts, "No one can come unto Me, except whom the Father draws," and "They shall all be taught of God."

*Ib. f. 202.

Inst. 4. 15. 7.

This is not true, the Apostles baptized upon repentance, but not "to re pentance;" John "preached the baptism of repentance to the remission of sins" [i. e. with the view to their ulterior remission:] the Apostles baptized not to repentance," but directly "to the remission of sins." Acts ii. 38.Neither does it appear that John baptized plainly "unto Christ," or indeed to Him that was coming" at all, (though some have so understood St. Paul's words,) but rather St. Paul says, he "baptized to repentance, that so they might believe in Him who should come:" certainly he did not baptize into the Name of the Trinity.

Hom. 21. in Ev. Luc.

laration of the Baptist himself, and the act of St. Paul. For the first, whereas the Baptist says, "I baptize with water, but He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire," they said that he meant that "he was only the outward minister of the outward element, but that it was Christ who gave the Spirit, and that the miracle of the day of Pentecost would attest this;" so that when he said that he "baptized with water," he did not mean that his baptism was only in water, that it was any more a mere "baptism with water" than that of our Lord; rather that it was, equally with His, "with the Holy Ghost;" only that himself, as being a mere man, did not give to the baptism its power and efficacy,* that he being man had no power to bestow the Presence of God; and that when he said "He shall baptize you," he meant, "He is now baptizing you invisibly, of which the proof is that hereafter He shall baptize you visibly.' As to the history in the Acts, the interpretation is more varied. When these disciples said, "we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost, then said Paul unto what then were ye baptized? and they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, &c. When they heard this, they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus." Now, since John baptized with water, and speaks of his baptism as a baptism of water, nothing could seem plainer, than that the baptism here spoken of was, at all events, a baptism with water, that the word "baptism" or "baptized" is to be, throughout the passage, taken in the same sense, and that the baptism into the Name of the Lord Jesus, was a Baptism which these disciples then received in obedience to St. Paul's instruction. Nothing less! according to these interpreters, although they agree only that its obvious meaning is not its meaning; what else it can mean, becomes matter for conjecture. Thus they say, 1,† St. Paul when he asked, "unto what were ye baptized?" meant, "what were ye taught?" that they by " John's baptism" meant "John's teaching;" that St. Paul, by saying, "John baptized," meant, "John preached," and that Scripture when it relates finally, that "they were baptized into the Name, &c." meant that they were "taught" more correctly, and "led by Paul to Christ;" and so, whereas Scripture speaks four times of baptism it means every where not "baptism" but "preaching or teaching." This at least is consistent. Or, 2, "that they had really been baptized with water by John, but now were not baptized

*Calv. Inst. 4. 15. 8. So Brentius, Hom. 29. in Luc. † Zuingli de vera et falsa Relig. 1. c.

Calvin Inst. 4. 15. 18. Brent. Hom. 29. in Luc. Quidam ap. Chemnitz. Exam. Conc. Trid. P. 2. ad Can. 1. de Bapt. Vatablus. Osiander, paraphr. Franzius, ap. Calov. Loss. in Joh. 1. "Interpretes fere omnes," ap. Loss. ad Act. xix.