Here it may be a proper time to call attention to the fact that many seek to make nice distinctions between the baptism of John and what they call Christian baptism; that is, baptism in the name of Jesus after the death and resurrection of Messiah, by which members were admitted into the Kingdom of Christ. The controversy on this subject became particularly sharp in the sixteenth century. Zwingle and Calvin, on the one hand, maintained that the two baptisms were identical, and for the same purpose, only that John baptized in the name of the future Messiah, while the apostles baptized in the name of the Messiah already come; on the other hand, Luther, Melancthon and the Catholics maintained there was an essential difference. The latter adopted the views of Tertullian, who lived about the close of the second century and the beginning of the third. To the baptism of John, Tertullian ascribed the negative character of repentance, and to Christian baptism the positive impartation of a new life. This distinction, it is maintained, arises from the words of John himself; viz., "I indeed baptize you 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."[C] But this reason for any such distinction as that sought to be made is worthless when it is remembered that while Jesus did baptize with the Holy Ghost, and commissioned others to do so, still that baptism of the Spirit did not supplant water baptism for the remission of sins. It was simply an additional principle and ordinance to the doctrines taught by John; and Jesus continued to authorize water baptism before his crucifixion,[C] and commissioned his apostles to continue it after he departed from them.[D] The New Testament is replete with instances of water baptism standing in connection with though, as a rule, preceding the baptism of, the Holy Spirit.[E] Whereas, to make the words of John quoted a valid reason for supposing a difference between the baptism of John and water baptism after Jesus was resurrected, it would be necessary to prove that the baptism of the Spirit took the place of water baptism as administered by John, which is contrary to the facts in the case, as already noted.
[Footnote C: Matt. iii: 11; see also Luke iii: 16, and John i: 25.]
[Footnote D: John iii: 22, and iv: 1-3.]
[Footnote E: Matt. xxviii: 19, and Mark xvi: 15,16.]
The ordinance of baptism, associated with the proclamation of the Gospel, in any age of the world, is always the same, whether taught by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Jaredite or Nephite prophets on the Western hemisphere, or by John the Baptist among the Jews. It was administered in the same manner, with the same object in view, and with the same powers and graces attending it before the crucifixion of Messiah as after that event. Only those who administered it before Jesus came in the flesh, performed the ordinance in the name of a future Messiah, while those who have officiated since the death of Jesus, have done so in the name of the Messiah already come; and that is a difference of little moment.[F]
[Footnote F: These views are capable of the strongest proofs from the writings of Moses as revealed to Joseph Smith and now contained in the Pearl of Great Price; from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and also from the Bible. But the reader will find a subsequent chapter on "The History of the Gospel" in which the subject is treated at some length, and to that chapter the reader is here referred if he now wishes to push further his investigation.]
One thing which has contributed largely towards creating the impression that a difference existed between the baptism of John and Christian baptism, is the account given in Acts of Paul's finding a number of disciples—twelve in all—at Ephesus, of whom he asked if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed; to which they replied, they had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. "And he said unto them, unto what then, were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them: and they spake with tongues and prophesied."[G] The fact of Paul re-baptizing those people, who, according to their statement, had been baptized "unto John's baptism," does not necessarily argue a difference between baptism as administered by John and Christian baptism. The circumstance of this re-baptism may be reasonably attributed to other causes.
[Footnote G: Acts xix: 1-6.]
The preaching of John was always accompanied with a reference to one who should follow after him, mightier than he was, whose shoe latchet he esteemed himself unworthy to unloose: and his baptism was always attended by the declaration: "I, indeed, baptize with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I; * * * he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." So the apostle Paul, when he found these disciples, who claimed to have been baptized unto John's baptism, and yet had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost, he might well have his suspicions as to the validity of their baptism, and suspect that some person, but partially acquainted with the doctrine of John, and, without authority, had taken it upon himself to baptize these parties. Upon these suspicions, and in order, doubtless, to put the validity of their baptism beyond all question, he re-baptized them with water, and then followed the baptism of the Spirit. This, to my mind, is the most reasonable conclusion to come to respecting this circumstance.
But now to return to the subject of this chapter —the object of baptism: