# Patristic Baptism – Head Only?



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2020)

It has been insisted some early descriptions of baptism show that while immersion may have been the normal and preferred mode in the patristic church, such a practice didn’t necessarily involve the entire body. For proof of this I have seen the following three statements cited, all of which come from fathers that flourished in the 4th century:

[Chrysostom; _Homilies on John_, 25.2 (on 3:5)]​In this symbol are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; death and burial, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when *we immerse our heads* under the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then, as we raise them up, the new man rises again. As it is easy for us to *dip and lift our heads again*, so it is easy for God to bury the old man and show forth the new. And this is done three times. ...For as we easily *dip and lift our heads again*, so he [Christ] also easily died and rose again when he willed.​
[Jerome; _Against the Luciferians_, 8]​For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of *dipping the head three times* in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, oftasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy.​​[Cyril of Jerusalem; _Procatechesis_, _of Baptism_, 2]​When the priest says ‘(Name,) is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,’ he *puts your head down into the water* three times, and three times he lifts it up again.​
In imploring for the historical evidence - which has almost always been taken as relating to full bodily immersion - to be reconsidered, Dr. Rowland Ward cited and commented on the first two passages, respectively:

The following points may be noted in reference to this passage: 1. *The dipping and lifting of the head is meant quite literally:* *the whole body was not immersed*. 2. The font into which the candidate descended by steps is likened to a tomb in which, *upon dipping the head*, the old man is buried. ...3. There can thus be no question that the idea of burial is connected with baptism, but the mode of applying the water in Chrysostom’s time did not symbolize this in any convincing way.​(_Baptism in Scripture and History_, [1991], p.50; this work was apparently reissued in 2018 with “minor amendments”; whether or not this issue underwent such I do not know)​​It used to be supposed that Jerome was referring to total immersion, for how could the head be dipped without the rest of the body? ...Such is the power of preconception that the mode of *standing in shallow water while the head was dipped* *in the basin* was not considered.​(_Ibid._, p.49.)​
First, I have to say I found myself chuckling just a bit as I tried to envision what the process of dipping just the head while standing in shallow water might have looked like..!

More seriously, these kinds of broad and, it must be said, relatively modern suppositions suffer from a deficiency all too commonly seen in reevaluations of historical sources, namely, a failure to consult the evidence in a holistic manner. I know I frequently raise this issue, but the extent to which I continuously find it is rather troubling. In this case, if one indeed digs a little deeper it will be found that each of the three men cited above also made similar statements about baptism using the term “body”:

[Chrysostom, _Homily on Faith_, 7]​Christ delivered to his disciples one baptism in *three immersions of the body* [Greek: _samatos_], when he said to them, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’​
[Jerome; _Annotations_, on Matt. 28:19—speaking of the proper response to the Great Commission]​At first they teach all nations, then, when taught, they immerse them in water; *for it cannot be that the body *[Latin: _corpus_]* should receive the sacrament of baptism*, unless the soul shall have first received the truth of the faith.​
[Cyril of Jerusalem; _Procatechesis, of Baptism_, 2—showing that baptism does not always confer spiritual benefit, even though the physical rite is performed]​Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver: He was baptized_, _though not enlightened; and though *he dipped his body* [_soma_] *in water*, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: *his body* [_soma_] *went down and came up*; but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor was it raised up by Him.​
Taking all of the above statements together, it would appear that either two separate practices are being talked about, or else a common figure of speech called a synecdoche is being employed (where either a part is put for a whole, or vice versa). The fact that normative baptism is in view in each case strongly discourages the first prospect. A substantive basis for determining just how this binary language was in fact used is found in various baptismal catechesis that further describe the physical aspect of the ordinance. One of the earliest accounts to provide more direct and unifying information is generally ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome.

[_Apostolic Traditions_, 21; c.3rd century]​*When the one being baptized goes down into the waters*, *the one who baptizes, placing a hand on him*, should say thus: ‘Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?’ And he who is being baptized should reply, ‘I believe.’ Let him baptize him once immediately, *having his hand placed upon his head*.​And after this he should say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God..?’ And when he has said, ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again.​And again he should say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit..?’ And he who is being baptized should say: ‘I believe.’ And so he should be baptized a third time.​And afterwards, *when he has come up from the water*, he is anointed by the presbyter with oil …[etc.]​
A slightly later but entirely congruent account, and which in fact is the most detailed amongst all extant patristic descriptions, effectively unlocks the answer. While it initially uses just the term “head”, it subsequently shows the procedure certainly involved the entire body:

[Theodore (4th Century), Bishop of Mopsuestia (Asia Minor); _Baptismal Homilies_, 3]​So it is because Christ our Lord has abolished the power of death by his own resurrection that St. Paul says: ‘All of us who have been baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized into his death’; we know he means that Christ our Lord has already abolished death. Believing this we come to him for baptism, because we wish now to share in his death so as to share like him in the resurrection from the dead. *So when I am baptized and put my head under the water*, I wish to receive the death and burial of Christ our Lord, and I solemnly profess my faith in his resurrection; *when I come up from the water*, this is a sign that I believe I am already risen.​…​At that time, as I have already explained to you, *you go down into the water* that has already been blessed by the bishop.​​...*Then the bishop lays his hand on your head* with the words, ‘In the name of the Father,’ *and while pronouncing them pushes you down into the water*. You obediently follow the signal he gives by word and gesture, and *bow down under the water*. You incline your head to show your consent and to acknowledge the truth of the bishop’s words that you receive the blessings of baptism from the Father... *You bow down under the water, then lift your head again*.​​...Meanwhile the bishop says, ‘And of the Son,’ and *guides you with his hand as you bend down into the water as before*. ...*You raise your head*, and again the bishop says, ‘And of the Holy Spirit,’ *pressing you down into the water again with his hand*. *You bend beneath the water again. *​​...Then *you come up out of the font *to receive the completion of the mystery. ...*Three times you immersed yourself*, each time performing the same action, once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit.​​Such accounts show that patristic baptism typically involved what might be called a prompted or assisted self-immersion. Importantly, all patristic descriptions of normative adult baptism are consistent with such a procedure, as are portrayals of baptism in early Christian art. By all indication this practice continued well into medieval times. The following is found in a baptismal treatise from the 11th century, where the terms “head” and “body” are plainly used interchangeably:

[Ivo of Chartres; _On Baptism_, 3]​Before *your entire body* *was dipped* in the font, we asked you, “Do you believe in God the Omnipotent Father?”...After you affirmed that you believed, *we immersed your head* three times in the sacred font.​
Unfortunately, too many modern attempts to reinterpret historical information amount to trying to simplistically sever the legendary Gordian Knot, rather than to systematically unravel any perceived difficulties through the careful consideration of all the relevant data.

As an interesting development, Duns Scotus (a Scottish priest and theologian), in a lecture to his students at the University of Paris, given in 1303, made these informative as well as rather amusing remarks:

It is requisite that ministers perform three immersions, unless there is reasonable cause not to. Three times is appropriate, respecting the fact that in baptism we are buried with Christ, and the three days he lay in the grave. *Now, a minister may be excused from performing three immersions if he is physically feeble and a really big country fellow *[_unus magnus rusticus_]* comes to be baptized, whom he could not submerge, and then lift out.* So, in some cases pouring is allowable…​(_Reportata super quartum Sententiarum fratris Johannis Duns Scoti_, [1518], section on _Sentences_, 4.3.4 – no pagination)​
Scotus’ comments are significant in their suggestion that by the early 14th century, at least, a prompted self-immersion wasn’t necessarily still the normal procedure used in adult baptism. Rather, his description appears to be the earliest allusion to a practice common among immersionists in later Western churches, in which the minister cradles the upper part of the candidate’s body, horizontally lowers them into the water, and then lifts them out again. This evidence again controverts various assertions I’ve come across that insist this particular method only originated in the 16th or more likely 17th century among the radical Anabaptists or early English Baptists.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## DTK (Oct 31, 2020)

Here is a first century prescription . . .

*The Didache (written sometime between 50-100 AD): *Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. *But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” *And before the baptism, *let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast*, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. See J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., _The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings,_ 2nd. ed., _The Didache, _Chapter 7.1-4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p. 259.
*Greek text: *1. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. 2. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. 3. ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. 4. πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

Basil of Caesarea also referenced the mode of triple immersion in his work on the Holy Spirit attributing it to unwritten tradition.

*Basil of Caesarea (AD 329-379): *Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. *On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? *And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? _NPNF2: Vol. VIII_, _On the Holy Spirit, _Chapter 27, §66.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2020)

DTK said:


> *The Didache (written sometime between 50-100 AD): *Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. *But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” *And before the baptism, *let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast*, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.


Correct, though it should be noted that the scholastic consensus has always been and yet remains that _baptizō_ in the initial instruction inherently comprehends the act of immersion, with some translations even rendering it such. Philip Schaff, who was among the first Western scholars to examine the newly rediscovered document, made this observation:

Immersion must be meant otherwise, there would be no difference between the first mode and the last which is aspersion or pouring. Besides it is the proper meaning of the Greek word used here. (_The Oldest Church Manual_, 32)​
It has also been pointed out that some of the earliest translations of the _Didachē _use vernacular terms to translate _baptizō _that explicitly denote immersion, such as is found the Armenian and Georgian versions (c.2nd or 3rd century).

Also see: Aaron Milavec, _The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary_, [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004], 18ff; Charles Bigg, “_Notes on the Didache: III_”; J. F. Bethune-Baker, F. E. Brightman, eds., _The Journal of Theological Studies_, (Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1905), 6:410ff; _The Didache in Modern Research_, Jonathon A. Draper, ed., (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997), 46ff.

With respect to Basil, I recently posted this thread exploring various patristic statements concerning the origins of triple immersion.

Nor should it be presumed that the patristic fathers who deemed _triple_ immersion to be a tradition, like Tertullian, Basil and Jerome, meant to extend that to the action of immersion itself. There are additional statements from each that clearly indicate otherwise.


----------



## DTK (Oct 31, 2020)

I posted for information, not for debate.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 31, 2020)

DTK said:


> I posted for information, not for debate.


I appreciate that. I responded in the interest of further clarification, based on the portions that were highlighted.


----------

