Acts 10:47 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Can any man forbid water, &c.— That is, according to Whitby and Doddridge, "Who can forbid that water should be brought?" In which view of the clause one would obviously conclude, that they were baptized by pouring water upon them, rather than byplunging them in it. "Can any man, how strongly soever he might formerly be prejudiced against such a thing, any longer hesitate, or offer one just reason, why these uncircumcised Gentiles should not be baptized with water, seeing theyhave received the baptism of the HolySpirit, in the same honourable manner that we, Christ's apostles and first converts, have received it: Καθως και ημεις, even as we?" It deserves to be remarked,that of all the institutions of our holy religion, that of water baptism was least proper to be called in question; being most invincibly established by the practice both of St. Peter and St. Paul. The former finding that the houshold of Cornelius had received the Holy Ghost, regards it as a certain direction for him to admit them into the church of Christ; which he does by the initiatory rite of water baptism. St. Paul, in his travels through the Lesser Asia, finding some of the Jewish converts who had never heard of the Holy Ghost, and on inquiry understanding thatthey had only been baptized by water unto John's baptism, thought fit to baptize them with water in the name of the Lord Jesus; that is to say, to admit them into the church: and then laying hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, &c. See ch. Acts 19:4-6. Yet notwithstanding these two memorable transactions, there is a people who reject water baptism, pretending that water baptism is John's baptism, and only a type of baptism by the Holy Ghost, or by fire: so that when this last came in use, the former ceased, and was abolished. In the two histories, given above, however, these fancies are fully reproved, and in such a manner, as if the histories had been recorded for no other purpose; for in the adventure of St. Paul, the water baptism of Jesus is expressly distinguished from the water baptism of John; and in that of St. Peter it appears, that water baptism was used for an admittance into the church of Christ, even after the administration of baptism by fire, or the communicated power of the Holy Ghost. St. Peter does not say, "They have the baptism of the Spirit, therefore they do not need baptism with water;" but just the contrary, "They have received the Spirit, therefore baptize them with water." Indeed this question were easily decided, if we would take the plain word of God for our rule. Either men have received the Holy Ghost or not; if they have not, Repent, saith God, and be baptised, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: if they are already baptized with the Holy Ghost, then, Who can forbid water? We may just observe further, that these two heads of the missions to the two great divisions of mankind, the Jews and Gentiles, here acted in each other's provinces—Peter, the apostle of the Jews, administering baptism to the Gentile household of Cornelius; and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, administering the same rite to the Jewish converts: and why was this crossing of hands, but to obviate that simple evasion, that water baptism was only partial and temporary.