Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
First, I’m truly not wanting to be irksome to any by starting this thread, but then who knew that with the way all things Covid have come to dominate discussion, even here on the PB, a previously deemed it’s-already-been-beaten-to-death topic like baptismal mode might actually provide a little respite… And actually I bring this up more as an interesting historical side note (hence my choice of thread genre) than a matter for doctrinal debate—although if relevant and carried out with conscious charity that would be fine too.
Anyway, in my continuous study on the topic I’ve come across what I think is a rather intriguing situation regarding the Westminster divine, Dr. John Lightfoot. Lightfoot is probably best known as a Hebraist, his magnum opus being Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations). He also composed a multi-volume Harmony of the Gospels, which contain his earliest published remarks on mode (1644).
Lightfoot also kept a journal of the early portions of the Westminster Assembly, especially the proceedings that culminated in the creation of the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Lightfoot’s previously stated reasoning is evident there as well, and he in fact takes credit for having led the effort to have immersion excluded as an acceptable mode of baptism (not merely included amongst other modes, as some on both sides have wrongly insisted):
After much intense debate, the now famous vote to have immersion excluded from the Directory was taken, passing 25 to 24. Interestingly, the recently published minutes from the Assembly further reveal that the first time the votes were counted, immersion was affirmed to be included, 25 to 24. A notion to recount was entertained, with the vote then changing to exclude immersion, 25 to 24. It is not stated whether the first vote had been miscounted or if a divine may have changed their mind. In any event, the divided opinion within the assembly, or at least among the divines in attendance that particular day, could not possibly have been closer.
However, in reading Lightfoot’s subsequent writings one finds an evolution of sorts in his thinking on apostolic mode. Six years later he addressed the issue in another installment of his Gospel harmony (1650), where he is decidedly more agnostic on the matter:
In the volume of Horae Hebraicae on Matthew (3:16), published in 1658, Lightfoot again revisited John’s mode of baptizing (and the apostolic baptism of the eunuch), and by now asserted that the biblical descriptions of baptism indeed most likely indicate immersion:
Several points in conclusion: Lightfoot did maintain that some New Testament baptisms must have been by non-immersion, although the lone case he poses as evidence in any of his writings is the Apostle Paul’s by Cornelius. In fact, throughout his writings Lightfoot’s justification for not baptizing by immersion almost always takes the form of either affirming or denying various Talmudic propositions (including the record we have of what he argued during the Assembly), reflecting his main profession as a Hebraist. He also posits that John’s baptism differed significantly from Christian baptism in its purpose—and as such different modal practices are also justifiable—although in this he clearly differed from a broad consensus among the early Reformed that the two were substantially the same (for example, see Calvin's Institutes 4.15.7).
My main take away from all this is purely speculative, namely, to wonder if the matter of mode may have turned out differently at the Westminster Assembly had Lightfoot then held his more mature and inclusive opinions on the matter...
Anyway, in my continuous study on the topic I’ve come across what I think is a rather intriguing situation regarding the Westminster divine, Dr. John Lightfoot. Lightfoot is probably best known as a Hebraist, his magnum opus being Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations). He also composed a multi-volume Harmony of the Gospels, which contain his earliest published remarks on mode (1644).
For as it is undoubted, that John brought those that were to be baptized, into the river—so is it almost as little to be doubted, that when they were there, he threw and sprinkled the water upon them, both to answer the types of sprinkling, that had preceded in the law, and the predictions thereof, that were given by the prophets, Ezekiel 36:25. (Harmony, on Luke 3:16; Works, 4:274)
Lightfoot also kept a journal of the early portions of the Westminster Assembly, especially the proceedings that culminated in the creation of the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Lightfoot’s previously stated reasoning is evident there as well, and he in fact takes credit for having led the effort to have immersion excluded as an acceptable mode of baptism (not merely included amongst other modes, as some on both sides have wrongly insisted):
[Thursday, August 8th, 1644] Then fell we upon our work about dipping in baptism. …And I first proposed that those that stand for dipping should show some probable reason why they hold it. Dr. Temple backed me in the thing. And Mr. Marshall began; and he said that he doubted not that all the Assembly concluded that dipping was lawful. I flatly answered that I hold it unlawful, but an ethelozrescheia [something self-imposed; a custom or tradition—I have transliterated the Greek used in the original]; and therefore desired that it might be proved. (Works, 13:300)
After much intense debate, the now famous vote to have immersion excluded from the Directory was taken, passing 25 to 24. Interestingly, the recently published minutes from the Assembly further reveal that the first time the votes were counted, immersion was affirmed to be included, 25 to 24. A notion to recount was entertained, with the vote then changing to exclude immersion, 25 to 24. It is not stated whether the first vote had been miscounted or if a divine may have changed their mind. In any event, the divided opinion within the assembly, or at least among the divines in attendance that particular day, could not possibly have been closer.
However, in reading Lightfoot’s subsequent writings one finds an evolution of sorts in his thinking on apostolic mode. Six years later he addressed the issue in another installment of his Gospel harmony (1650), where he is decidedly more agnostic on the matter:
The baptism of the Jews [i.e. the baptism of proselytes to Judaism] was, by dipping, as is apparent by the records alleged [in historical Jewish writings like the Mishna and Talmud]: and herein, how far the manner of baptizing in the New Testament went along with them, may be some question. There are some passages that seem to carry a color of conformity of the one to the other: as Matthew 3:6, ‘They were baptized of John in Jordan’—Matthew 3:16, ‘Jesus came straight out of the water’—Acts 8:38, ‘The eunuch went down into the water’—and the words in hand [John 3:23], ‘John baptized in Aenon, because there was much water.’ (Harmony, on John 3:23; Works, 5:65)
In the volume of Horae Hebraicae on Matthew (3:16), published in 1658, Lightfoot again revisited John’s mode of baptizing (and the apostolic baptism of the eunuch), and by now asserted that the biblical descriptions of baptism indeed most likely indicate immersion:
...That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes, was), seems to appear from those things, which are related of him; namely, that he ‘baptized in Jordan;’ that he baptized ‘in Aenon, because there was much water there;’ and that Christ, being baptized, ‘came up out of the water:’ to which, that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, ‘Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,’ etc. (Works, 11:54)
Several points in conclusion: Lightfoot did maintain that some New Testament baptisms must have been by non-immersion, although the lone case he poses as evidence in any of his writings is the Apostle Paul’s by Cornelius. In fact, throughout his writings Lightfoot’s justification for not baptizing by immersion almost always takes the form of either affirming or denying various Talmudic propositions (including the record we have of what he argued during the Assembly), reflecting his main profession as a Hebraist. He also posits that John’s baptism differed significantly from Christian baptism in its purpose—and as such different modal practices are also justifiable—although in this he clearly differed from a broad consensus among the early Reformed that the two were substantially the same (for example, see Calvin's Institutes 4.15.7).
My main take away from all this is purely speculative, namely, to wonder if the matter of mode may have turned out differently at the Westminster Assembly had Lightfoot then held his more mature and inclusive opinions on the matter...
Last edited: