BAPTISM of JOHN. — It is the baptism administered by the precursor (whence the epithet “baptist” = “baptizer”) on the banks of the Jordan, inviting the people to change their lives and prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mt. 3:5). In appearance, it brought nothing new to the Jews, who already found in the Law several washings prescribed as rites of purification from legal impurities (Lev. 14:1 ff., 15:5 ff.), and who knew the baptism of the Essenes, and perhaps also that of proselytes, administered to Gentiles after circumcision as they were incorporated into Judaism. In reality, however, the baptism of John, both in rite and above all in moral significance, had certain absolutely novel features that distinguished it from all others.
1. John invokes a divine mandate for his work. To the Jews who asked him, “Why do you baptize, if you are not the Christ or a prophet?” he replies: “He who sent me to baptize in water” (Jn. 1:33), and Jesus publicly confirms this divine origin (Mk. 11:30). 2. The precursor’s baptism has the very special purpose of messianic preparation: “After me comes one who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie; I have baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Mk. 1:7-8; cf. also Acts 19:4). It is therefore a transitory rite, announcing a new order, entirely in function of the Jewish messianic expectation, so lively at that time that there were no lack of false Messiahs. 3. From what has been said, the difference between the precursor’s baptism and the others easily appears. It is distinguished: a) from the washings imposed by the Law, because these each person performed for himself and conferred only a legal, external purity; b) from the baptism of proselytes, because this was administered only to Gentiles and implied no more than a ritual purification, whereas John’s baptism was given even to Israelites themselves and had reference to the remission of sins; c) from the baptism of the Essenes, because this was repeated many times, had no reference whatever to the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and implied nor signified any full interior renewal.
The baptism of John, moreover, differs specifically from Christian Baptism: a) in origin, because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ; b) in the external act that constitutes it, because it consists only in the application of the matter, without the addition of any form; in its significative virtue, because it signifies not the grace present but the future grace that Jesus would merit for us by His passion and death; in its causal virtue. The baptism of John did not act *ex opere operato*, like a Sacrament, that is, by producing what it signifies, namely the remission of guilt and the conferral of grace; it acted only *ex opere operantis*, disposing through works of penance; and finally, Christian Baptism regenerates the one who receives it, impresses an indelible character on the soul, introduces him into the society founded by Christ, and renders him capable of receiving the other Sacraments—effects that the precursor’s baptism was incapable of producing (cf. H. Houbant, *Jean B. [baptême de]*, in DThC, VIII, col. 655).
John himself is explicit on this point: “I baptize you in water; but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit” (Mk. 1:8), “in the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16), where the addition “and fire” indicates that the grace given by Baptism will consume sins like fire, purify, and enlighten. The divine agent, who is the Holy Spirit, is at the service of the Messiah alone. The Apostles, from the very first moment of their preaching, considered John’s baptism as non-existent and baptized “in the name of Jesus” all who presented themselves, even those who had previously been baptized by the precursor (Acts 2:38; 19:1-7), because the peremptory command of Jesus aimed at all without exception (Mt. 28:19). Therefore, the Church, arising against the errors of the so-called Reformation, defined at the Council of Trent: “If anyone asserts that the baptism of John had the same efficacy as that of Jesus, let him be anathema” (Sess. VII, *de Bapt.*, can. 1: Denz.-U., no. 857).