Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
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:
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:
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”:
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.
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:
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:
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.
[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.
