The Curious Case of Dr. Lightfoot and the Biblical Mode of Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

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).

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:
Very cool insight...thank you for providing!! Doesn’t the Westminster Confession even in the Orginal technically allow for 3 modes (Immersion, pouring, sprinkling), while showing preference to 2?
 
Doesn’t the Westminster Confession even in the Orginal technically allow for 3 modes (Immersion, pouring, sprinkling), while showing preference to 2?
From what I've seen most expositors would seem to agree with that assessment. On the other hand, I know of a few who see the semicolon in the applicable sentence as a demarcation between discordant ideas, rather than a continuation of a consonant idea (and of course technically it can function as either). I think the obvious fact that so many divines wanted to include immersion might circumstantially militate toward the intent being to give at least a technical nod to allow all three. :2cents:
 
From what I've seen most expositors would seem to agree with that assessment. On the other hand, I know of a few who see the semicolon in the applicable sentence as a demarcation between discordant ideas, rather than a continuation of a consonant idea (and of course technically it can function as either). I think the obvious fact that many divines wanted to include immersion might circumstantially militate toward the intent being to give at least a technical nod to allow all three. :2cents:
Regardless, I certainly appreciate your studying of this and providing the snipets in the OP. Thanks Phil. :detective:
 
I always understood the Confession to say that sprinkling, pouring, and immersion all legitimately baptize, but sprinkling or pouring are better pictures of baptism's symbolism, which is my position.

Personally, I am fascinated by credobaptists who do not believe immersion is best, or those who accept sprinklings of believers as legitimate baptism. Doesn't the 1689 LBCF allow for other modes of baptism, i.e., doesn't exclude those believers who were not immersed?
 
Unless I am mistaken, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was of this stripe.
Yes MLJ believed in sprinkling. But biographer Iain Murray says MLJ was not Baptist. Perhaps the best way to describe him was to say he held to the WCF (he quoted it frequently, I don't think he quoted the 1689 Confession) with the exception of Baptising infants.
 
Yes MLJ believed in sprinkling. But biographer Iain Murray says MLJ was not Baptist. Perhaps the best way to describe him was to say he held to the WCF (he quoted it frequently, I don't think he quoted the 1689 Confession) with the exception of Baptising infants.

That's interesting that Murray said that. But I’m confused. Wouldn’t not baptizing infants make one a Baptist de facto?

Sorry if this is a derail!
 
That's interesting that Murray said that. But I’m confused. Wouldn’t not baptizing infants make one a Baptist de facto?

Sorry if this is a derail!
I would say it makes you a credobaptist, but there is more to being a Baptist than just that one belief. Much like believing in paedobaptism does not mean one is necessarily a Presbyterian, or Reformed.
 
Very cool insight...thank you for providing!! Doesn’t the Westminster Confession even in the Orginal technically allow for 3 modes (Immersion, pouring, sprinkling), while showing preference to 2?

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. (Westminster Confession 28.3)

The OP in this thread is very interesting. I tend to understand the Confession as rejecting the notion that immersion is absolutely essential to the administration of baptism, and so a baptism may be "rightly administered" by pouring or sprinkling. It merely states that dipping is "not necessary"; it refrains from saying that dipping is inherently wrong. The substance/accidents distinction may have been lurking in the background at this point. Baptism with water is essential to the substance of the ordinance, but the mode of baptism is accidental to its administration. This interpretation seems to fit best with the primary sources that I have read by Reformed divines in this era. Many of whom accept that there were at least some immersions among the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, but then argue that this mode was accidental to the proper administration of the ordinance.
 
I’ll just add a few remarks that may be of interest concerning the minutes of the Assembly:

First, at least in the sections where mode is addressed, the notes are very incomplete, and what is covered is often vague or garbled. So while they do provide valuable information, they also leave many issues tantalizingly unanswered, and ultimately raise some additional and likely unanswerable questions. One session even begins with the minute takers essentially being reprimanded by the divines for their sloppiness, yet there is not much noticeable improvement in the subsequent record. Perhaps these parliamentarians were union… Anyway, a most unfortunate result, but surely all in good providence.

The rise in prominence of the early English Baptists (then still generally termed Anabaptists) at that time played a significant role in the proceedings, even being given as a primary reason why it was deemed a matter of urgency for the topic to be addressed. (It may be recalled that the First London Confession was published that same year, 1644.) Lightfoot wrote in his journal:

...We were ready to rise, and were consulting what to fall next upon. I moved urgently, that we might fall upon baptism, for the clearing of ourselves of Anabaptism, which so much increaseth: which was accordingly concluded to be done. (Works, 13:296)​

The specific issue of mode ended up comprising a surprisingly large portion of the Assembly’s overall discussion of baptism. In addition, there are both specific and implicit mentions of the problem of Baptist influence throughout the modal discussion. For example, it is noted that Lightfoot put the brakes on one pro-immersion line of discussion lest the divines “give countenance to anabaptists”. Lazarus Seaman worried that if immersion became the recommended mode, then “we will be hard put to it to persuade parents to have their children baptized.” On the other hand, a caution was given by Charles Herle that if immersion was concluded against it would in effect “condemn the Reformed churches that practice it.”

To get a further sense of the extreme antagonism that existed at the time one may also consult the Westminster divine (briefly) Daniel Featley’s highly caustic polemic, The Dippers Dipt (also written in 1644-45, posthumously published in late 1645—and which proved so popular as to undergo at least seven editions). Nonetheless, Featley also confirmed that immersion was then in common use among his fellow Anglicans.

Though dipping may be used in Baptism; and if the child be strong, and the weather and climate temperate, it is very fit to be used, and the church of England both alloweth it, and practiceth it; yet it is no way necessary, or essential to Baptism. (p.33)​

I’ll try and comment on the historical aspect of some additional things that have been brought up here later on.
 
Just wanted to make a slight correction. The copy of Lightfoot’s works I was initially working with wasn’t the best in terms of visual clarity, and used a somewhat archaic font. As such my transliteration of the Greek word he used in the second quotation in the OP was wrong. Not a big deal perhaps, but having accessed a clearer copy I see that the form of the word he actually used, ethelothréskeia / ἐθελοθρησκεία, typically carries a more intense and negative meaning than what I had originally deduced.

The word is used in Colossians 2:23, in describing the traits of Judaizers and proto-Gnostics.

KJV: Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

NASB: These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

HELPS Word Studies: ethelothrēskeía (from thélō, "desire" and thrēskeía, "religion") – properly, self-willed religion, defined by the desires of the human will... This form of "worship," which is accomplished "by self", is merely a "will-worship," exalting the worshiper at God's expense.

In context this description fits well with Lightfoot’s other early disparagements of baptismal immersion, albeit these were largely in reference to Jewish practice. However, he later took the position that immersion was the commanded practice for Levitical bathings denoted by רָחַץ / rahas (e.g. Lev. 8:6; 14:8; 15:7; etc.). He eventually went so far as to insist full immersion is also in view in some of the earliest OT mentions of cleansing or being clean, such as Gen. 35:2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top