A Bible History of Baptism

by Samuel J. Baird

The baptism of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost has been already illustrated fully. That there was also a ritual baptism, with water, I venture to regard as equally certain. (1.) We have just seen that the apostolic commission contained a command to baptize the disciples. Peter, therefore, in inviting his hearers to repent and be baptized, was simply following the literal terms of his instructions. And had he omitted baptism,—that ritual baptism which alone the apostles could administer—he would have been acting in direct violation of his commission. (2.) In his exhortation, the baptism is secondary to repentance. This is the proper order of ritual baptism, which is predicated on profession of repentance. But it is the reverse as to the real baptism, which precedes repentance and is its cause. (3.) The language used in describing the result of the exhortation is conclusive.—“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.” The glad reception of the word is stated as the antecedent ground of receiving the baptism; the reverse, again, of the order in real baptism. (4.) In the case of Cornelius and his house, Peter based their baptizing with water upon the fact that the spiritual phenomena were identical with those of the day of Pentecost. “The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.”—“Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?”—Acts x, 47; xi, 15. This argument would have been wholly inappropriate had there been no water baptism on Pentecost.

But Dr. Dale urges another objection.—“While the reception of these thousands that day into the church by dipping into water, is improbable to absurdity, for reasons both moral and physical, their reception by any ritual form whatever, is, for moral considerations mainly, not without embarrassment. These thousands were all personally strangers to the apostles, mostly from foreign lands, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Cretes, Arabians, etc. An hour before, they were mockers of the work of the Holy Ghost, and declared the apostles to be drunk. Now, is there moral fitness in the reception of such men into the church, by a rite without any personal intercourse, to learn their moral condition? But the passage states that the baptism was grounded in the ‘glad reception of the word’ preached. If the baptism was the work of the apostles, then this knowledge must also be the knowledge of the apostles; and if so, then it must have been obtained, either by divine illumination, or by personal intercourse touching repentance and faith, the knowledge of Christ and the duty of baptism; then, how could the addition of three thousand be made ‘that day?’”[^[124]] The theory that, the baptism here in question was spiritual and not ritual, is, here, self-condemned, by the statement which truly represents it to have been “grounded in the glad reception of the word preached.” That word was, “Repent and be baptized.” Its glad reception, therefore is equivalent to the exercise of repentance, which is the immediate fruit of the spiritual baptism, and therefore of necessity follows, but can not precede it. The baptism, therefore, which was “grounded in the glad reception of the word,” can have been no other than ritual baptism. The fundamental fallacy of the argument lies in the assumption, which we have before noticed, that the Pentecostal transactions were incident to the organizing of a new church; instead of being, as we have shown, the separating of the existing church from the corrupt and ungodly elements which had taken possession of it.

It is asserted respecting the three thousand that, “an hour before, they were mockers of the work of the Holy Spirit.” A kindred statement is frequently heard, in illustration of the fickleness of the multitude,—that those who yesterday filled the air with shouts of “Hosanna!” to-day cry, “Away with him.” Both representations are erroneous, and tend to obscure the true state of the case. In the Pentecostal scene, there were “some” mockers, and possibly, nay, probably some of these were made trophies of grace that day. But to represent the assembly as characteristically of that class, involves an utter misconception of the case as expressly stated by the sacred historian. He represents them as “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”—Acts ii, 5. It was they, who came thronging to the assembly of the apostles. It was characteristically they who gladly received the word and were baptized. Nor is the language of Peter to them incongruous to this view. “Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands, have crucified and slain.”—v. 23. Their rulers had done it, and the whole people were responsible and polluted with the crime of his blood, until they purged themselves, by separation and baptism. So, the multitude who cried, “Hosanna!” were “the multitude of the disciples,” from Galilee. (Luke xix, 37; compare Ib. xxii, 59.) For fear of the people, the conspirators seized Jesus by betrayal, by night; and the cry against him was uttered, at the instigation of the rulers and priests, by their retainers and dependents. (Mark xv, 11.) “It was early,” when they brought Jesus before Pilate. (John xviii, 28.) And it is probable that the sentence was already passed and Jesus in the hands of the executioners, before the Galileans who were accustomed, at the feasts, to encamp on Olivet, had any knowledge of the fearful tragedy of that day. These facts are all of importance, in order to a just conception of the real nature of the separation which began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and ultimately extended throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and to all parts of the world, where a synagogue of the Jews was to be found. We do no service to the truth, by underestimating the number of those who in that day, were waiting for the consolation of Israel, and “gladly received the word” of the rising of the Sun of righteousness, in the person of the Lord Jesus.

From the foregoing considerations, we conclude it to be certain that the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were baptized with water. The order of occurrences, as it appears from the record was this: The preaching of Peter was accompanied with the promised power, the baptism of the Spirit being bestowed upon his hearers, by the Lord Jesus. By that baptism was given to them repentance and remission of sins. (Acts v, 31.) Upon their correspondent profession, they were baptized with water; and thereupon, they received the gifts of tongues and of prophecy, in fulfillment of the promise of Christ (Mark xvi, 17), and in accordance with the assurance given them by Peter;—“Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children,”—the promise, to wit, which he had before quoted from Joel, in explanation of the Pentecostal signs.

Section XCIV.—Symbolic Meaning of this Baptism.

The rite of immersion is inseparably identified with the theory that ritual baptism is designed to symbolize the burial of the Lord Jesus. By the advocates of this theory, the baptism administered to the converts of Pentecost is held to have been the original of the institution. By all, that baptism must be recognized as a most conspicuous and normal exemplification of the rite. We are perfectly willing to stake the whole issue upon the question of the symbolic meaning of the ordinance, as determined by the Scriptural statements concerning that baptism.

It has been shown that the Old Testament baptisms symbolized the gift from on high of the Spirit of life from God. We have seen that John administered his baptism as an announcement and symbol of that which the coming One should dispense,—the baptism of the Holy Ghost. We have heard the Lord Jesus appropriate to himself the testimonies of John, and promise their fulfillment, in terms by which the baptism to be administered by him was distinctly identified as the antitype of that of John. “John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”—Acts i, 5. We have seen the promise fulfilled, and heard the testimony of Peter, that therein was accomplished the prophecy of Joel,—a prophecy in which and the kindred language of the other prophets, the baptisms of the Old Testament were so clearly interpreted. We have seen that his baptizing office was the great end of Christ’s exaltation, and the consummate function of his scepter,—that by which he begins, carries on, and accomplishes the salvation and the glory of his people; and that this, his exaltation and saving power, were, on the day of Pentecost, preached as the express ground of the call to repent and be baptized, for his name’s sake. In view of these facts, how is it possible, by argument or by sophistry, to avoid the conclusion that the ritual baptism to which Peter’s hearers were thus called, was designed to signify that real baptism with which it was thus so closely identified? But the evidence is more specific.

1. The sum and substance of the preaching of John and of Jesus was the same, and reported by the evangelists in the same words:—“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

2. In both cases, this preaching was accompanied with a ritual baptism, which was as identical as was the preaching. Else, have we a house divided against itself,—the one doctrine, attested by two rival rites, which, under one and the same name, competed for acceptance with the Jews!

3. Of this baptism, Paul says, that “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after, that is on Christ Jesus.”—Acts xix, 4. Of it, Mark and Luke state that “John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”—Mark i, 4; Luke iii, 3. And John himself declares,—“I indeed baptize you with water, unto repentance: but He ... shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”—Matt, iii, 11. It thus appears that this baptism was identified with a doctrine the cardinal elements of which are (1) repentance, and (2) faith in the Lord Jesus; as the conditions precedent; and (3) the remission of sins, as the result. These were what the ordinance meant. From them it took its name,—“The baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”