Justification for re-Baptism is sometimes found in Acts xix. 1-7; but here it must be remembered that it was a difference between Christian Baptism and that of John the Baptist. There was no difference of view on the doctrine of Baptism so far as it concerned remission of sins, for both Baptisms were for this purpose. It seems to have been a question of form in connection with the words used and the fulfilment of a promise connected with Christian Baptism--the gift of the Holy Spirit. We have no evidence from the New Testament that an understanding of a doctrine of Baptism was required; and this is all the stronger because the doctrine of Baptism was fully developed in the Christian Church from earliest times, i.e., Baptism was definitely associated with remission of sins.

      In the history of the Church all the evidence supports the contention we have made from the New Testament. In the second century, when various small bodies split off from the Great Church, the re-Baptism of heretics agitated the minds of the leaders. It finally reached its height in connection with the Donatists of Northern Africa in the fourth century. Augustine clearly shows that it had always been the custom to allow validity to heretical Baptism so long as the form and formula had been [273] correct. The main point brought out in the Church of the first three centuries is that it is Christ who baptises, and this He does whenever there is a true intent and the correct form is used.

      Baptism has never been regarded as admitting into the local body of the Church, but into the great Church, which is universal; and I think there is no justification for insisting on anything but the correct form as instituted by Christ, and a full Christian formula.

[EOCU 272-274]