Lightfoot takes to account for the silence of scripture, as to this
matter[78], which is, for substance, as follows, _viz._ that baptism was
well enough known to the Jews, as practised by them under the ceremonial
law; by which he means the ordinance in general, as including in it a
consecration to God, to worship him in that way which he then
instituted; and accordingly they are said to have been _baptized into
Moses_. He also adds, that the apostle speaking concerning this matter,
as referring to what was done _in the cloud, and the sea_, 1 Cor. x. 2.
supposes that the whole congregation, of which the infants which they
had in their arms, were a part, were solemnly devoted to God at that
time; which, I cannot but conclude to be more agreeable to the sense of
the word _baptize_, than that which some critics give, who suppose that
nothing is intended by it, but their being wet, or sprinkled with the
water of the sea, as they passed through it; for that was only an
occasional baptism, which could not be well avoided. But, if I may be
allowed a little to alter or improve on his method of reasoning, I
rather think, that the apostle’s meaning is, that the whole congregation
was _baptized into Moses_, soon after they were delivered from the
Egyptians, while they were encamped at the sea-shore; at which time,
God, for their security, spread a cloud for a covering to them; and
then, as the kind hand of Providence had led the way, and brought them
under a renewed engagement, they hereupon expressed their gratitude and
obligation to be God’s people, by this universal dedication to him in
baptism. But to return to the author but now mentioned; he adds, that
when Jacob was delivered from Laban, and set about the work of reforming
his household, he ordered them, not only to _put away the strange gods
that were among them_, but _to be clean_, Gen. xxxv. 2. by which, as he
observes, the Jews confess, that baptism, or a dedication to God by
washing, is intended. He also observes, that the ordinance of baptism in
general, before Christ instituted gospel-baptism, was so well known by
the Jewish church, that they no sooner heard that John baptized, but
they came to his baptism; and they did not ask him, why dost thou make
use of this rite of baptizing? but, what is thy warrant, or, _who sent
thee to baptize_? He further adds, that both John and Christ took up
baptism as they found it in the Jewish church; by which he means the
ordinance in general, without regard to some circumstances, in which
Christ’s baptism differed from that which was practised under the
ceremonial law; and this was, as he observes, applied by the Jewish
church to infants as well as grown persons; therefore, our Saviour had
no occasion, (when he instituted this ordinance with those
circumstances, agreeable to the gospel-state, in which it differs from
the baptism which was before practised,) to command them to baptize all
nations, that is, all who were the subjects of baptism, and infants in
particular.
_Obj._ 3. It is further objected, that our Saviour was not baptized in
his infancy; therefore his example is to be followed, and, consequently,
no one is to be baptized till he be adult.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that every circumstance or action in
the life of Christ, is not designed to be an example to us; and, indeed,
there were some things signified in his baptism, that are not in ours,
inasmuch as in its application to him, it did not signify his being
cleansed from the guilt and power of sin. The only thing wherein that
which was signified in his baptism, agrees with ours, is in that he
devoted himself unto God, not as expecting salvation through a Mediator
as we do, but as denoting his consent to engage in the work that he came
into the world about; which he now began to perform in a public manner,
which he fulfilled in the course of his ministry, while he went about
doing good. Now it was not convenient that this should be done in his
infancy; for though the work of redemption began from that time; yet his
proving himself to be the Messiah, especially his doing this in a public
manner, did not take place till he was thirty years of age, and then he
was baptized, that this might be an ordinance for the faith of his
church, that he was engaged in the work of our redemption. Moreover, it
must be considered, that John’s baptism, which circumstantially differed
from that which was practised in the Jewish church, as well as our
Saviour’s, was not instituted till the year before Christ was baptized;
therefore he could not be baptized agreeably to the alteration that was
made in baptism at this time, had he been baptized in his infancy.
_Obj._ 4. It is further objected, that infant baptism is a novelty, and
not practised by the church in the earliest ages thereof from the
apostles’ time.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that if this could be proved to be
true, I should regard arguments deduced from scripture-consequences,
much more than the sense of antiquity to determine this matter. The
principal use of the writings of the Fathers, in my opinion, is to lead
us into the knowledge of what relates to the historical account of the
affairs of the church in their respective ages. The main thing supposed
in this objection is, that infant-baptism was not practised in the early
ages of the church; the contrary to which will appear, if we consider
some things mentioned by the Fathers concerning this matter: Thus Justin
Martyr says, we have not received the carnal but circumcision by
spiritual baptism; and all persons are, in like manner, enjoined to
receive it, as they were to receive circumcision of old, wherein he
refers to that of the apostle, in Coloss. ii. 11, 12. _We are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in
baptism_; and, consequently, he supposes that baptism comes in the room
of circumcision, as has been observed elsewhere; and he likewise speaks
of their being brought to the water, and there regenerated; by which he
means, baptized, in the same manner as we are, in the name of the
Father, our Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Ghost[79]. And Cyprian, in a
council, wherein there were sixty-six bishops convened, delivered it not
only as his opinion, but supposes it to have been received by them all,
that infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day, in answer to a
question under debate, whether the time in which this ordinance was to
be performed ought to be the same with that in which children were
circumcised under the law[80]. And, Irenæus[81], speaks of Christ’s
sanctifying and saving persons of every age, infants not excepted; and
therefore they are to be regenerated; by which he means, baptized; as
the Fathers often put the thing signified for the sign: And Gregory
Nazianzen speaks to the same purpose[82], that baptism may be performed
as circumcision was, on the eighth day; but that it ought not to be
omitted any longer, than till the children are two, or three years old.
And to this I might add, the testimony of Augustin; who asserts, that it
had been practised by the church, in foregoing ages, from our Saviour’s
time; which, had it not been matter of fact, he would, doubtless, have
been disproved by Pelagius, and his other antagonists[83].
It is further objected, by those who deny infant-baptism, that the
practice of many in the ancient church, who deferred baptism till they
were adult, argues, that they did not think it lawful for any to be
baptized in infancy. Thus Constantine the great, as Eusebius observes,
was not baptized till a little before his death: And, it is well known,
that Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, and others of
the Fathers, were not baptized till they came to a state of manhood; and
Tertullian, who lived in the second century, exhorts persons to defer
baptism, and adds, that it is the safest way to delay the baptism of
infants, till they are capable of engaging for themselves, being arrived
to years of discretion[84].[85] But to this it may be answered, that
particular instances, or the sentiments of some of the Fathers are not
sufficient to prove that infant-baptism was not practised by the ancient
church. As to what is alleged concerning Constantine’s not being
baptized till a little before his death, and Gregory Nazianzen,
Chrysostom, _&c._ not till they were adult: This may be accounted for,
by supposing that their parents did not embrace the Christian religion
while they were infants: and, if that were true, they ought not to be
baptized till they could give up themselves to God by faith: This a late
learned writer attempts to prove[86]. Moreover, some who have been
converted, have neglected baptism, out of a scruple they have had of
their unfitness for it, as many, in our day, do the Lord’s supper; and
others, it may he, might have neglected to baptize their infants, or to
be baptized themselves, till they apprehended themselves near to death,
as being misled by a false supposition, which was imbibed by several,
that baptism washed away sin; therefore, the nearer they were to their
end, the more prepared they would be, by this ordinance, for a better
world. However, whether it was neglected for this, or any other reason,
it does not much affect the argument we are maintaining, our design
being principally to prove, that it was practised in the early ages of
the church; and, in what instances soever it was omitted, it was not
because they denied that the infants of believing parents had a right to
it. As to several things mentioned by the authors before cited, and
others that treat on that subject, whereby they seem to maintain the
absolute necessity thereof, to wash away the pollution of sin; or, when
they assert, that it is as necessary to salvation as regenerating grace,
we have nothing to say as to this method of reasoning: However, whatever
they speak in defence of it, is a sufficient evidence that it is not a
practice of late invention.
As to what respects Tertullian’s advice to defer baptism till persons
were capable to engage for themselves; this caution argues, that it was
practised by some, which is the principal thing designed to be proved.
And the reason assigned by him for the neglect of baptism, being this,
because the sureties, who undertook to instruct them in the doctrines of
religion, often promised more than they made conscience of performing,
and so brought themselves into a snare thereby; therefore, for their
sakes, infant-baptism, which could not be administered without sureties,
had better be delayed; this only proves that he was against
infant-baptism for some prudential reasons, as it was attended with this
inconvenience, not that he thought it was in itself unlawful to be
practised by them. From hence we may conclude, that the objection taken
from infant-baptism, being supposed to be a novelty, does not weaken the
cause we are maintaining[87]. Thus concerning the subjects of baptism.
We are now to consider the mode thereof, or what we are to understand by
the word baptism. It is said, in the foregoing answer, to be the washing
with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. There has been a great dispute in the world, concerning the
meaning of the word βαπτιζω, by which this ordinance is expressed; from
whence arises the different mode of the administration thereof. Some
think, that it only signifies the putting a person, or thing, into the
water, whereby it is covered, or, as it were, buried in it; which is
otherwise expressed by the word dipping. Others (whose opinion I cannot
but acquiesce in) conclude that it may as well be performed by the
application of water, though it be in a different manner, either by
pouring or sprinkling; and accordingly, that it signifies the using the
means of cleansing by the application of water, whatever be the form or
mode thereof. This argument depends very much upon the sense in which
the word is applied to the action intended thereby, either in scripture
or other writers. And, inasmuch as the sense thereof, as used in
scripture, and other writings, is well explained by the learned and
judicious Dr. Owen, agreeably to the sense we have given of the word; I
have no occasion to make any other critical remarks upon it, by
referring to those writings in which the word is found[88].
But, since the greatest number of christians are not so well versed in
the Greek language, as to be able to judge whether those methods of
reasoning that are taken from the use of the word which we render
_baptize_, are sufficiently conclusive: And, when it is asserted, that
many who are undoubtedly very good masters of the Greek tongue, have
determined that it signifies all manner of washing with water, as well
as dipping into it, this will be reckoned, by them, a very fruitless and
unprofitable subject; however, we are obliged to mention it, because
great stress is usually laid on the sense of this word, to establish
that mode of baptism which is always used by those who are on the other
side of the question.
I shall take leave to add, to what that learned author, but now quoted,
refers to, has observed on this subject; that it does not appear to me
that the word Βαπτιζω always signifies to wash, by dipping into water,
but by the application of water some other way; because it is sometimes
applied to those things which were too large and cumbersome, and
therefore could not well be cleansed that way. Thus it is said, in Mark
vii. 4. that _the Pharisees_ not only _held the washing_, or, as it is
in the Greek, _the baptism of cups and pots, and brazen vessels_, which
might, indeed, be washed by immersion, but of _tables_, or, as it may be
rendered, of _beds_, or those seats on which the Jews, according to the
custom of the eastern nations, lay at their ease, when they eat their
meals. These, I conceive were washed some other way, different from that
of dipping or plunging in water; And if it was possible that they might
be washed that way, yet the word may be applied to innumerable things,
that cannot be baptized by immersion: Therefore, the general sense that
we have given of it, that it signifies to wash, whether by dipping into
the water, or by the application of water to the thing washed, may
justify our practice, with respect to the mode of baptism, commonly used
by us.
_Object._ 1. It is objected hereunto, that the mode used by us, is not
properly baptism, but rantism; or, that to sprinkle, or pour, is not to
baptize.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that this method of begging the
question in controversy, is never reckoned a fair way of arguing. If
baptism be a using the means of cleansing, by the application of water,
which is the thing we contend for, then the word _baptize_ may as well
be applied to it as to any other mode of washing. That which may be
further replied to this objection is, that if the thing signified by the
action of baptizing, namely, the blood of Jesus, together with those
gifts and graces of the Spirit, which are applied to those to whom God
makes this a saving ordinance, be sometimes set forth by sprinkling or
pouring clean water upon a person, then it cannot be well concluded,
that sprinkling, or pouring, is not baptizing, though it differ very
much from that which they who contend with us about this matter
generally call baptizing. That sprinkling or pouring, is sometimes used
in scripture, to signify the conferring of those spiritual gifts and
graces which are signified in baptism, is very evident; inasmuch as it
is said in John i. 17. _The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us
from all sin_; and this is called _the blood of sprinkling_, in Heb.
xii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 2. Therefore, in a spiritual sense, sprinkling is
called cleansing from sin; and the graces of the Spirit conferred in
regeneration, are represented in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. by _sprinkling
clean water_; which mode of speaking would never be used, were not
sprinkling a means of cleansing. And, some think, that the apostle when
he speaks of our _drawing near to God, having our bodies washed with
pure water_, Heb. x. 22, intends the ordinance of baptism; yet it
alludes to the ceremonial cleansings that were under the law, which were
often done by sprinkling: Therefore we cannot but assert, that
sprinkling water in baptism, is as much cleansing as any other mode used
therein.
Moreover, sometimes the thing signified in baptism, is represented by a
metaphor taken from pouring; which, if our mode of baptizing be just,
will not seem disagreeable to it; and, it may be, the explication is
taken from it, as the conferring the Holy Ghost, which they who were
baptized were given to expect, is often called _pouring out the Spirit_,
Acts ii. 17, 18. chap. viii. 38.
_Obj._ There is another objection which is concluded by many, to be
unanswerable, viz. that when we read of baptism in the New Testament,
the person baptized is said to _go down into the water_. Thus the Eunich
did, chap. viii. 38. and immediately after this, he is said to _come up
out of the water_; which can be applied, as is supposed, to no other
mode of baptism but that of immersion.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that the whole strength of this
objection depends upon the sense that is given of the Greek particles,
which we often render _into_, and _out of_[90]. But this will have no
weight with any but those who are unacquainted with the Greek language,
since it is so well known to all that understand it, that the former of
these particles often signifies _to_, as well as _into_; and the latter
_from_, as well as _out of_; as innumerable instances might easily be
given, was it needful, from scripture, and other Greek authors, in which
the words are applied to those things, that according to the natural
signification thereof, cannot be understood as denoting _into_, or _out
of_. There is one scripture which no one can suppose is to be taken in
any other sense but what is agreeable to our present purpose, _viz._
Mat. xvii. 27. wherein our Saviour bids Peter _Go to the sea[91], and
cast an hook, and take the fish that first cometh thence_, &c. where, by
_go to the sea_, we can understand nothing else, but go to the
sea-shore; and yet the word is the same with that which is, in some
other places, rendered _into_. There are other scriptures in which
persons are said to _go to the mountain_, or some other places, wherein
it would be very improper to say, that they went into the place; though
the word be the same with that which in other instances we render
_into_. And the word[92] which is sometimes rendered _out of_, is
frequently rendered _from_, and can be understood in no other sense: As
when it is said, in Luke xi. 31. _The queen of the south came from the
utmost parts of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon_; which cannot
be understood of her coming _out of_, but _from_ thence. But, this
matter being so well known to all that read the New Testament in the
original, it is needless for me to give any other instances.[93]
As to what concerns the Eunuch’s _going into the water_, I cannot think
any thing else is intended by it, but that he descended or lighted down
from his chariot, to the water, that is, by a metonymy, to the
water-side, in order to his being baptized by Philip. It is no uncommon
mode of speaking, to say, that a person goes down to the river-side, to
take water, or to the well, to draw it; therefore, this is no strain on
the sense of the word; and I am the rather inclined to give into this
opinion, because some modern travellers, taking notice of the place
where this was done, intimate, that it was only a spring of water; and
therefore without sufficient depth to plunge the body in: And some
ancient writers, who lived between three and four hundred years after
our Saviour’s time, as Jerom and Eusebius, intimate the same thing. If
it be said, that these may be mistaken as to the place, inasmuch as the
particular spot of ground in which this water was, is not mentioned in
scripture: I will not lay much stress upon it; however, I cannot but
observe, that it is represented by a diminutive expression, as it is
said, they _came to a certain water_, that is, probably, a brook, which
was by the way-side; not a river, or a great collection of water. And it
is further observed, that Philip, as well as the Eunuch, _went down into
the water_; though none suppose that he was plunged in the water;
therefore it does not certainly appear, from the sense of the word, that
the Eunuch was, unless the matter in controversy be taken for granted,
that baptism can be performed in no other way, but by plunging.
Moreover, _to go down to the water_, does not always signify in other
scriptures, going down to the bottom of the water; as when the Psalmist,
in Psal. cvii. 23. speaks of them that _go down to the sea in ships_, he
does not mean them that go down to the bottom of it; therefore, going
down to the water does not always signify being plunged in it. As for
what is said concerning Philip and the eunuch’s _coming up out of the
water_, it may very fairly be understood of their returning from the
water-side, and the eunuch’s going up again into his chariot. Moreover,
I cannot but think, that in this, and all other places, where persons
are said to _come up out of the water_, it denotes an action performed
with design, and the perfect exercise of the understanding in him that
does it; which seems not agreeable to one who is at the bottom of the
water, and cannot well come up from thence, unless by the help of him
that baptized him. The sense of the words, _coming out of the water_, is
agreeable to what is said concerning our Saviour at his baptism, in
Matt. iii. 16. _Jesus went up straightway out of the water_; which seems
to be a mistake in our translation; where the words απὸ τοῦ ὑδαλος, have
been rendered, _from the water_; which is of the same import with the
sense of the Greek particle ἐκ when a person is said to _come up out of
the water_.
_Obj._ 3. It seems very evident, that John the Baptist used no other
mode but that of immersion; because he chose those places to exercise
this part of his ministry in, that were well supplied with water,
sufficient for this purpose. Accordingly, we first read of his removing
from the _wilderness of Judea_, in which he _preached the doctrine of
repentance_; and told the people, that _the kingdom of heaven_, that is,
the gospel-state, which was to begin with the appearing of the Messiah,
_was at hand_; and then we read of his removing to the banks of the
river Jordan, for the conveniency of baptizing those who came to him for
that purpose: And, after that, we read of another station in which he
resided, _viz._ _Enon, near to Salim_; and this reason is assigned;
_because there was much water there_, John iii. 23. Now, if he had
baptized by sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face, he had no
need to remove out of the _wilderness of Judea_: For, whatever scarcity
of water there might be there, it was no difficult matter for him to be
supplied with enough to serve his occasion, had this been his mode of
baptizing.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though John removed to Jordan
and Ænon, that he might be well supplied with water, as he daily wanted
large quantities thereof; yet it doth not necessarily follow from hence,
that this was done for the sake of immersion therein: And it doth not
sufficiently appear to me, that Ænon afforded water deep enough for a
person to be baptized in it after this manner; for it seems to be but a
small tract of land, in which it is hardly probable, that there were
many lakes, or rivers of water contained; which is as much as can be
said concerning a well watered country. Therefore, I think, the
words[94] ought to have been rendered _many waters_; by which we are to
understand, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, that it was a place of
springs[95], or small brooks of water. This place John chose, that he
might be supplied with water for his use; but it doth not, I think,
necessarily, follow from hence, that he baptized by immersion; Besides,
if there had been a great collection of waters there, there would have
been some indications thereof at this day; which, I believe, it would be
hard to prove that there are.