Answers from church history on today's questions
What Christian writers said, from about AD 70 to 1949.
60 passages · 28 writers · 11 centuries
The writers differ on the mode. Early writers such as Tertullian, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa describe three immersions, and the Didache allows pouring water on the head when running or other water is not available. Luther says that to baptize means to dip, and Spurgeon and Gill hold that baptism should be by immersion. Aquinas, Calvin, the Savoy Declaration, Hodge, and Berkhof hold that sprinkling or pouring is also valid and that immersion is not necessary. Hodge and Barnes argue from the Greek word and the New Testament cases that baptizo does not require immersion.
10 passages · 9 writers · 1st c. to 1800s
Tertullian, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, the Apostolic Canons, and Gregory the Great describe three immersions, and the Didache directs baptism in living water and allows pouring where water is scarce.
c. 70–120 · Anonymous (Didache), The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) 7
And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. 2. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. 3. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4.
c. 208–211 · Tertullian, The Chaplet (De corona) 3
When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week.
c. 210–213 · Tertullian, Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxean) 26
After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.
c. 375 · Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit (De Spiritu Sancto) 15.35
This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit. For baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God.”
c. 375–380 · Anonymous (compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions), The Apostolic Canons (85) 50
If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, but with giving one immersion only, into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord said not, Baptize into my death, but, “Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
c. 383 · Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ, a Sermon for the Day of Lights (In diem luminum)
Now our God and Saviour, in fulfilling the Dispensation for our sakes, went beneath the fourth of these, the earth, that He might raise up life from thence. And we in receiving Baptism, in imitation of our Lord and Teacher and Guide, are not indeed buried in the earth (for this is the shelter of the body that is entirely dead, covering the infirmity and decay of our nature), but coming to the element akin to earth, to water, we conceal ourselves in that as the Saviour did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the Resurrection which was wrought in three days: and this we do, not receiving the sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the Names of the Three Sacred Persons on Whom we believed, in Whom we also hope, from Whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence.
590–598 · Gregory the Great, Register of the Letters (Registrum epistularum), Books I-VIII 1.43
But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days’ sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed. Or, if any one should perhaps think that this is done out of veneration for the supreme Trinity, neither so is there any objection to immersing the person to be baptized in the water once, since, there being one substance in three subsistences, it cannot be in any way reprehensible to immerse the infant in baptism either thrice or once, seeing that by three immersions the Trinity of persons, and in one the singleness of the Divinity may be denoted.
c. 743–750 · John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Expositio fidei; De fide orthodoxa) 82
For although the divine Apostle says: Into Christ and into His death were we baptized, he does not mean that the invocation of baptism must be in these words, but that baptism is an image of the death of Christ. For by the three immersions, baptism signifies the three days of our Lord’s entombment.
1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 66, a. 8, co.
Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the Trinity of Persons. But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time.
1830 · Philaret of Moscow, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church 1.290
What is most essential in the administration of Baptism? Trine immersion in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
11 passages · 6 writers · 1500s to 1900s
Luther says baptism is a dipping, and Spurgeon, Gill, and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession hold that it is immersion. Spurgeon and Gill say the burial language of Scripture requires it, Maclaren says that language presupposes it, and Calvin infers that John and Christ plunged the whole body but says the outward rite should cause no great uneasiness.
1520 · Martin Luther, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church baptism
Another thing which belongs to baptism is the sign or sacrament, which is that dipping into water whence it takes its name. For in Greek to baptize signifies to dip, and baptism is a dipping.
1553 · John Calvin, Commentary on John, part 1 (chapters 1-11) 3.22
From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord’s appointment and rule.
1770 · John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity Chapter 1. Of Baptism
Fourthly, the way and manner of baptizing; and to prove, that it is by immersion, plunging the body in water, and covering it with it. Custom, and the common use of writing in this controversy, have so far prevailed, that for the most part immersion is usually called the “mode” of baptism; whereas it is properly baptism itself; to say that immersion or dipping is the mode of baptism, is the same thing as to say, that dipping is the mode of dipping; for as Sir John Floyer observes “Immersion is no circumstance, but “the very act of baptism,” used by our Saviour and his disciples, in the institution of baptism.” And Calvin expressly says, “The word “baptizing” signifies to plunge; and it is certain, that the rite of plunging was used by the ancient churches.” And as for sprinkling, that cannot, with any propriety, be called a mode of baptism; it would be just such, good sense as to say, sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same; hence the learned Selden, who in the former part of his life, might have seen infants dipped in fonts, but lived to see immersion much disused, had reason to say, “In England, of late years, I ever thought the parson “baptized his own fingers” rather than the child,” because he dipped the one, and sprinkled the other. That baptism is immersion, or the dipping of a person in water, and covering him with it is to be proved, From the proper and primary signification of the word βαπτιζω, “baptize,” which in its first and primary sense, signifies to “dip or plunge into;” and so it is rendered by our best lexicographers, “mergo,” “immergo,” “dip or plunge into.” And in a secondary and consequential sense, “abluo, lavo,” “wash,” because what is dipped is washed, there being no proper washing but by dipping; but never “perfundo or aspergo,” “pour or sprinkle;” so the lexicon published by Constantine, Budaeus, &c. and those of Hadrian Junius, Plantinus, Scapula, Stephens, Schrevelius, Stockius, and others; besides a great number of critics; as Beza, Casaubon, Witsius, &c. which might be produced. By whose united testimonies the thing is out of question. Had our translators, instead of adopting the Greek word baptize in all places where the ordinance of baptism is made mention of, truly translated it, and not have left it untranslated, as they have, the controversy about the manner of baptizing would have been at an end, or rather have been prevented; had they used the word dip, instead of baptize, as they should have done, there would have been no room for a question about it.
1770 · John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity Chapter 1. Of Baptism
The end of baptism, which is to represent the burial of Christ, cannot be answered in any other way than by immersion, or covering the body in water; that baptism is an emblem of the burial of Christ, is clear from Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12. It would be endless to quote the great number, even of “paedobaptist” writers, who ingenuously acknowledge that the allusion in these passages, is to the ancient rite of by immersion: as none but such who are dead are buried, so none but such who are dead to sin, and to the law by the body of Christ, or who profess to be so, are to be buried in and by baptism, or to be baptized; and as none can be properly said to be buried, unless under ground, and covered with earth; so none can be said to be baptized, but such who are put under water, and covered with it; and nothing short of this can be a representation of the burial of Christ, and of ours with him; not sprinkling, or pouring a little water on the face; for a corpse cannot be said to be buried when only a little earth or dust is sprinkled or poured on it.
1833 · New Hampshire Baptist Convention, The New Hampshire Baptist Confession 14
We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the Church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn self-examination.
1857 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 3 (1857) 140
If it means sprinkle, let our brethren translate it “sprinkle.” But they dare not do that; they know they have nothing in all classical language that would ever justify them in doing that, and they have not the impudence to attempt it. But I dare translate it—“He that believeth, and is immersed, shall be saved.” And though immersion is nothing, yet God requires of men who believe that they should be immersed, in order to make a profession of their belief. Immersion is nothing, I repeat, in salvation, it is the profession of salvation; but God requires that every man that puts his trust in the Saviour should be immersed, as the Saviour was, in order to the fulfillment of righteousness.
1861 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 7 (1861) 381
This, indeed, is generally admitted by divines who still maintain that this mode is not binding upon Christians at the present time; but surely, if Baptism is to be a representation of burial and resurrection, there must be something in the ordinance itself which shall be suggestive of such a Truth of God! And then again, we appeal to the meaning of the word; this word, Baptism, has not been translated in our Scriptures excepting in one or two instances, in which it appears in the form of the word, "wash" or, "washing," and in these cases the idea of immersion, if not absolutely required, is at all events perfectly admissible, and involves no incongruity; and if you search the Scriptures through, you will not find a single passage in which this word, whether it is employed literally or figuratively, does not suggest, or may not suggest the idea of immersion. When we consider that Philip and the eunuch "went down both of them into the water;" that our Savior "went up straightway out of the water" after John had baptized Him; that John "was baptizing near Salim because there was much water there," I think it is very evident that something more than aspersion, or pouring of water, must be implied. And if we consult trustworthy authorities for the meaning of this word, we shall find that in all cases it either may or must imply the idea of immersion.
1861 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 7 (1861) 381
It is alleged by us, then, that in the ordinance of Baptism the candidate should be wholly immersed in water. And now, if we were disposed, and if we recognized any other authority than Scripture, we might refer to the law of the Church of England, which is most distinctly to the effect that excepting in cases of certified weakness, immersion shall be the mode of administering this ordinance and the Church of England man, at all events, has nothing to say against the adoption of this practice; it is his practice as much as ours; it is his law as much as ours! His prayer book tells him we are right; the large fonts, three feet in diameter, which he sees in so many parish churches, tell him we are right! And he knows that in this respect we are the only faithful Church of England people in this land! We might also refer to the testimony of the ancient Church, and the practice of the olden time, with regard to which it may be said with perfect certainty, that in the first ages immersion was the commonly accepted mode. But of course we appeal to the Scriptures, and appealing to the Scriptures, we find that Baptism is, as our text informs us, a burial and resurrection with Christ, that it is a sign and symbol of the Believer's participation in Christ's burial and resurrection, and this, I think as plainly as possible, shows us what the mode was in ancient times.
1861 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 7 (1861) 381
Well, if it is such a matter of indifference whether you adopt this or that mode, I would say it would be as well to follow the Society of Friends, and adopt neither one nor the other! But you do believe there is some external rite—well, then—surely the external rite should be that which sets forth figuratively the very Truth intended by the ordinance! In the language of symbols, forms are everything; forms give those symbols all their meaning, and therefore it is not altogether an unimportant matter that Baptism, signifying burial and resurrection with Christ, should indicate this even in its very form and mode!
1861 · Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Spurgeon's Sermons, Volume 7 (1861) 381
But it is a strong point, or supposed to be a strong point, that on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 people were baptized, and how could they all be immersed? Well, why not? The only objections I can imagine are these—a lack of water, and a lack of time. But to suppose that there was a deficient water supply—to suppose this from all that we know, and especially from all that we do not know about ancient Jerusalem, appears to me to be a great absurdity! And as to the lack of time—if the Apostles alone had baptized these three thousand, there certainly would be something rather formidable in the objection; but it would seem that the Apostles were not in the habit of baptizing many, and that they often gave this work to others—and on that occasion there might have been a hundred administrators of Baptism—those who were first baptized might baptize others—and in this way the administration to the whole 3,000 might very easily be accomplished before the sun went down upon the day of Pentecost!
1902 · Alexander Maclaren, The Expositor's Bible: Colossians 13
We see that the form of baptism here presupposed is by immersion, and that the form is regarded as significant. All but entire unanimity prevails among commentators on this point. The burial and the resurrection spoken of point unmistakably to the primitive mode of baptism, as Bishop Lightfoot, the latest and best English expositor of this book, puts it in his paraphrase: “Ye were buried with Christ to your old selves beneath the baptismal waters, and were raised with Him from these same waters, to a new and better life.”
20 passages · 13 writers · 1200s to 1900s
Aquinas, Calvin, the Savoy Declaration, Hodge, Berkhof, and Wesley hold that baptism is valid by pouring or sprinkling, and several of them call immersion fitting but not necessary.
1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 66, a. 7, co.
I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary for Baptism.
1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 2
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in use and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put under water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth.
1265–1273 · Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3
Reply to Objection 3: The principal part of the body, especially in relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.
1552 · John Calvin, Commentary on Acts, part 1 (chapters 1-13) 8.38
We ought rather to fight even an hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of baptism, inasmuch as it was delivered us by Christ than that we should suffer the same to be taken from us. But forasmuch as we have as well a testimony of our washing, as of newness of life, in the figure of water; forasmuch as Christ representeth unto us his blood in the water as in a glass, that we may fet our cleanness thence; forasmuch as he teacheth that we are fashioned again by his Spirit, that being dead to sin, we may live to righteousness; it is certain that we want nothing which maketh to the substance of baptism. Wherefore the Church did grant liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat, excepting this substance. For some dipped them thrice, some but once.
1559 · John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.15.19
How much better, therefore, is it to lay aside all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, and dulls their minds, and when any one is to be baptised to bring him forward and present him to God, the whole Church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him; to recite the Confession of Faith, in which the catechumen has been instructed, explain the promises which are given in baptism, then baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and conclude with prayer and thanksgiving. In this way, nothing which is appropriate would be omitted, and the one ceremony, which proceeded from its divine Author, would shine forth most brightly, not being buried or polluted by extraneous observances. Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.
1658 · Congregational Churches (Savoy Assembly), The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches 29.3
Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.
1710–1714 · Matthew Henry, Commentary on Matthew 28.16-20
First, They must admit disciples by the sacred rite of baptism; "Go into all nations, preach the gospel to them, work miracles among them, and persuade them to come in themselves, and bring their children with them, into the church of Christ, and then admit them and theirs into the church, by washing them with water;" either dipping them in the water, or pouring or sprinkling water upon them, which seems the more proper, because the thing is most frequently expressed so, as Isa. xliv. 3, I will pour my Spirit on thy seed.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Ephesians 4.5
I could not use this argument in this form, "Christians should be one because they have been all baptized by 'sprinkling;'" and yet the argument would be just as forcible as to use it in this form, "Christians should be one because they have all been baptized by 'immersion.'" There is one baptism, not one "mode" of baptism; and no man has a right to "assume" that there can be but one mode, and then apply this passage to that. The "essential thing" in the argument before us is, that there has been a consecration to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by the application of water.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Romans 6.4
The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss the mode of baptism, or to state any doctrine on the subject. It is an incidental allusion in the course of an argument, without stating or implying that this was the universal mode even then, still less that it was the only possible mode. His main design was to state the obligation of Christians to be holy, from the nature of their profession at baptism - an obligation just as impressive, and as forcible, from the application of water in any other mode as by immersion. It arises from the fact of baptism, not from the mode. It is just as true that they who are baptized by affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptised into his death; become professedly dead to sin and the world, and under obligations to live to God, as those who are immersed. It results from the nature of the ordinance, not from the mode.
1856–1869 · J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John 3.22-36
The point is one of no importance. That immersion, however, is necessary to the validity of baptism and that sprinkling alone is not sufficient, are points that can never be demonstrated from Scripture. So long as water is used, it seems to be left a matter of indifference whether the person baptized is dipped or sprinkled. I should find it very hard to believe that the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost, or the jailor and his family baptized at midnight in the Philippian prison, were all immersed. The Church of England wisely allows either mode of applying water to be used. To suppose that dipping is forbidden to English Churchmen is mere ignorance.
1858 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1: Apostolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100 9.54
Unquestionably, immersion expresses the idea of baptism, as a purification and renovation of the whole man, more completely than pouring or sprinkling; but it is not in keeping with the genius of the gospel to limit the operation of the Holy Spirit by the quantity or the quality of the water or the mode of its application. Water is absolutely necessary to baptism, as an appropriate symbol of the purifying and regenerating energy of the Holy Spirit; but whether the water be in large quantity or small, cold or warm, fresh or salt, from river, cistern, or spring, is relatively immaterial, and cannot affect the validity of the ordinance.
1871 · A. R. Fausset, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Colossians 2.12
Baptism is regarded as the burial of the old carnal life, to which the act of immersion symbolically corresponds; and in warm climates where immersion is safe, it is the mode most accordant with the significance of the ordinance; but the spirit of the ordinance is kept by affusion, where immersion would be inconvenient or dangerous; to insist on literal immersion in all cases would be mere legal ceremonialism (Ro 6:3, 4).
1871 · David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Romans 6.4
(Whether the mode of baptism by immersion be alluded to in this verse, as a kind of symbolical burial and resurrection, does not seem to us of much consequence. Many interpreters think it is, and it may be so. But as it is not clear that baptism in apostolic times was exclusively by immersion [see on Ac 2:41], so sprinkling and washing are indifferently used in the New Testament to express the cleansing efficacy of the blood of Jesus. And just as the woman with the issue of blood got virtue out of Christ by simply touching Him, so the essence of baptism seems to lie in the simple contact of the element with the body, symbolizing living contact with Christ crucified; the mode and extent of suffusion being indifferent and variable with climate and circumstances).
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
As by common consent the design of the institution is either to symbolize or to effect the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin, by the blood and spirit of Christ, it would seem to follow that washing with water, however done, is all that is necessary to the integrity of the ordinance. The idea of purification is as clearly and as frequently signified by affusion as by immersion. Besides, to make anything so purely circumstantial as the manner in which water is used in the act of cleansing, essential to a Christian sacrament, which, according to some, is absolutely necessary to salvation, and, according to others, is essential to membership in the visible Church of Christ, is opposed to the whole nature of the Gospel.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
With the fathers, therefore, the act of purification, and not simply or only the act of immersion, was baptism. It is not denied that βαπτίζειν means to immerse, or that it is frequently so used by the fathers as by the classic authors; it is not denied that the Christian rite was often administered, after the apostolic age, by immersion; it is not even denied that during certain periods of the history of the Church, and in certain regions, immersion was the common method in which baptism was administered. But it is denied that immersion is essential to baptism; that it was the common method in the apostolic Churches; that it was at any time or in any part of the Church the exclusive method; and more especially is it denied that immersion is now and everywhere obligatory or necessary to the integrity of Christian baptism.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
(Is. xxxii. 15; Joel ii. 28.) The Spirit’s influences are compared to rain which waters the earth, and to the dew which falls on the mown grass. From all this it appears that the truth symbolized in baptism may be signified by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling; but that the ordinance is most significant and most conformed to Scripture, when administered by affusion or sprinkling.
1872 · John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions 39
I believe infants ought to be baptized; and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling.
1891 · G. T. Stokes, The Expositor's Bible: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 Chapter VII
The mode wherein baptism should be administered has been a point often discussed. Some have maintained the absolutely binding and universal character of immersion; others have stood at the opposite extreme, and upheld the method of sprinkling. The Church of England, in union with the ancient Church, has laid down no hard-and-fast rule on the subject. She recognises immersion as the normal idea in a warm Eastern climate, but she allows pouring (not sprinkling) of water to be substituted for immersion, which has, as a matter of fact, taken the place in the Western Church of the more regular and ancient immersion. The construction of the ancient Churches, with their baptisteries surrounded with curtains, and the female assistants for the service of their own sex, amply proves that in the ancient Church, as to this day in the Eastern Church, baptism was ordinarily administered by immersion. The Church proved its Eastern origin by the mode wherein its initial sacrament was at first applied. But it also showed its power of adaptation to Western nations by allowing the alternative of pouring water when she dealt with the needs of a colder climate. Yet from the beginning the Church cannot have made the validity of her sacraments depend upon the quantity of water that was used. Take the cases reported in the Acts of the Apostles, or the rules prescribed in the apostolic manual, the Didache. In the latter it is expressly said that pouring with water shall suffice if a larger quantity is not at hand. On the day of Pentecost it was clearly impossible to immerse three thousand persons in the city of Jerusalem.
1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 5.2.4
Immersion is a proper mode of baptism, but so is baptism by effusion or by sprinkling, since they all symbolize purification. The passages referred to in the preceding prove that many Old Testament washings (baptizings) took place by sprinkling. In a prophecy respecting the spiritual renewal of the New Testament day the Lord says: "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," Ezek. 36:25. The matter signified in baptism, namely, the purifying Spirit, was poured out upon the Church, Joel 2:28,29; Acts 2:4,33.
1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 5.2.4
The idea of washing or purification gradually became the prominent idea, while that of the manner in which this took place retired more and more into the background. That this purification was sometimes effected by sprinkling, is evident from Num. 8:7; 19:13,18,19,20; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:10. In Judith 12:7 and Mark 7:3,4 we cannot possibly think of dipping. Neither is this possible in connection with the following passages of the New Testament: Matt. 3:11; Luke 11:37,38; 12:50; Rom. 6:3; I Cor. 12:13; Heb. 9:10 (cf. verses 13,14,19, 21); I Cor. 10:1,2. Since the word baptizo does not necessarily mean "to immerse," and because the New Testament does not in any case explicitly assert that baptism took place by immersion, the burden of proof would seem to rest on the Baptists.
19 passages · 8 writers · 1700s to 1900s
Hodge, Barnes, Berkhof, Brown, and Wesley argue that baptizo and the New Testament accounts do not require immersion, and Strong argues that the word means to immerse.
c. 1714 · Matthew Henry, Commentary on Acts 8.26-40
The eunuch ordered his coachman to stop, commanded the chariot to stand still. It was the best baiting place he ever met with in any of his journeys. They went down both into the water, for they had no convenient vessels with them, being upon a journey, wherewith to take up water, and must therefore go down into it; not that they stripped off their clothes, and went naked into the water, but, going barefoot according to the custom, they went perhaps up to the ankles or mid-leg into the water, and Philip sprinkled water upon him, according to the prophecy which this eunuch had probably but just now read, for it was but a few verses before those which Philip found him upon, and was very apposite to his case (Isa. lii. 15): So shall he sprinkle many nations, kings and great men shall shut their mouths at him, shall submit to him, and acquiesce in him, for that which had not before been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Observe, Though Philip had very lately been deceived in Simon Magus, and had admitted him to baptism, though he afterwards appeared to be no true convert, yet he did not therefore scruple to baptize the eunuch upon his profession of faith immediately, without putting him upon a longer trial than usual.
1754 · John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on Matthew 3.6
Confessing their sins - Of their own accord; freely and openly. Such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immerging their whole bodies under water: nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their heads or faces, by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Matthew 3.6
It cannot be proved from an examination of the passages in the Old and New Testaments that the idea of a complete immersion was ever connected with the word, or that it ever occurred in any case. If those who were baptized went into the water, it is still not proved by that, that the only mode of baptism was by immersion, since it might have been by pouring, though they were in the water. 5. It is not positively enjoined anywhere in the New Testament that the only mode of baptism shall be by an entire submersion of the body under water. Without such a precept it cannot be made obligatory on people of all ages, nations, and climes, even if it were probable that in the mild climate of Judea it was the usual mode.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Matthew 3.6
The Hebrew word טבל Tabal which is rendered by the word "baptize," occurs in the Old Testament in the following places, namely: Lev 4:6; Lev 14:6, Lev 14:51; Num 19:18; Rut 2:14; Exo 12:22; Deu 33:24; Jos 3:15; Job 9:31; Lev 9:9; Sa1 14:27 (twice); Kg2 5:14; Kg2 8:15; Gen 37:31; Jos 3:15. It occurs in no other places; and from a careful examination of these passages its meaning among the Jews is to be derived. From these passages it will be seen that its radical meaning is neither to sprinkle nor to immerse. It is to dip, commonly for the purpose of sprinkling, or for some other purpose.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 Corinthians 10.2
Dr. Gill supposes that the water stood up above their heads, and that "they seemed to be immersed in it." This might be true; but this is to give up the idea that the word baptize means always to immerse in water, since it is a fact, according to this supposition, that they were not thus immersed, but only seemed to be. And all that can be meant, therefore, is, that they were in this manner initiated into the religion of Moses, convinced of his divine mission, and brought under subjection to him as their leader, lawgiver, and guide. This passage is a very important one to prove that the word baptism does not necessarily mean entire immersion in water.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Acts 2.41
The mode in which this is done is not mentioned; but it is highly improbable that in the midst of the city of Jerusalem three thousand persons were wholly immersed in one day. The whole narrative supposes that it was all done in the city; and yet there is no probability that there were conveniences there for immersing so many persons in a single day. Besides, in the ordinary way of administering baptism by immersion, it is difficult to conceive that so many persons could have been immersed in so short a time. There is, indeed, here no positive proof that they were not immersed; but the narrative is one of those incidental circumstances often much more satisfactory than philological discussion, that show the extreme improbability that all this was done by wholly immersing them in water.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Mark 7.4
The word "baptism" is here used - in the original, "the baptism of tables;" but, since it cannot be supposed that "couches" were entirely "immersed" in water, the word "baptism" here must denote some other application of water, by sprinkling or otherwise, and shows that the term is used in the sense of washing in any way. If the word is used here, as is clear it is, to denote anything except entire immersion, it may be elsewhere, and baptism is lawfully performed, therefore, without immersing the whole body in water.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Matthew 3.16
The original does not imply that they had descended into the river, and it cannot be proved, therefore, from this passage, that his baptism was by immersion; nor can it be proved that even, if his baptism was by immersion, that therefore the same mode is binding on people now. In order to demonstrate from this passage that immersion is essential, it is necessary to demonstrate: (a) that he went into the river; (b) that, being there, he was wholly immersed; (c) that the fact that he was immersed, if he was, proves that all others must be, in order that there could be a valid baptism. Neither of these three things has ever been demonstrated from this passage, nor can they be.
1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: Acts 16.33
Compare Jam 1:27. And was baptized - This was done straightway; that is, immediately. As it is altogether improbable that either in his house or in the prison there would be water sufficient for immersing them, there is every reason to suppose that this was performed in some other mode. All the circumstances lead us to suppose that it was not by immersion. It was at the dead of night; in a prison; amidst much agitation; and was evidently performed in haste.
1871 · David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on Acts 8.38
they went down both into the water, and he baptized him, &c.—probably laving the water upon him, though the precise mode is neither certain nor of any consequence.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
To the first class belong those passages which speak of the persons baptized going into (εἰς) the water, and “coming up out of the water.” (Matt. iii. 16; Acts viii. 38, 39.) Such passages, however, must be isolated in order to create a presumption in favour of immersion. According to ancient accounts, the common way of baptizing was for the person to step into water, when water was poured on his head, and then he came up out of the water, not in the least incommoded by dripping garments. And when we remember that it is said concerning John, that “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region around about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matt. iii. 5, 6), it seems physically impossible that he should have immersed all this multitude. When all the circumstances are taken into view, the presumption in favour of immersion, even in this class of passages, disappears.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
It is notorious that the various ablutions prescribed by the Mosaic law were effected sometimes by immersion, sometimes by affusion, and sometimes by sprinkling. And it is no less true that all these modes of purification are called by the sacred writers διάφοροι βαπτισμοί, as in Hebrews ix. 10, and Mark vii. 4. So far, therefore, as the New Testament is concerned, there is not a single case where baptism necessarily implies immersion, there are many cases in which that meaning is entirely inadmissible, and many more in which it is in the highest degree improbable. If immersion were indispensable, why was not the word καταδύω used to express the command? If sprinkling were exclusively intended, why was not ῥαίνω or ῥαντίζω used? It is simply because the mode is nothing and the idea everything, that a word was chosen which includes all the modes in which water can be applied as the means of purification. Such a word is βαπτίζω, for which there is no legitimate substitute, and therefore that word has been retained by all the Churches of Christendom, even by the Baptists themselves.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
The word βαπτίζω, as Dr. Dale so strenuously argues, belongs to that class of words which indicate an effect to be produced without expressing the kind of action by which that effect is to be brought about. In this respect it is analogous to the word “to bury.” A man may be buried by being covered up in the ground; by being placed in an empty cave; by being put into a sarcophagus; or even, as among our Indians, by being placed upon a platform elevated above the ground. The command to bury, may be executed in any of these ways. So with regard to the word βαπτίζω, there is a given effect to be produced, without any specific injunction as to the manner; whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
The words baptize and wash are interchanged in this whole connection in such a way as to show that, in the mind of the writer, they were synonymous expressions. The Pharisees complained that the disciples ate with unwashen (ἀνίπτοις) hands; for they eat not unless they wash (νίψωνται) their hands; and when they come from the market they do not eat unless they wash (βαπτίσωνται), and they hold to the washing (βαπτισμούς) of cups, and pots, of brazen vessels, and of tables or couches. To baptize the hands was to wash the hands, and the usual mode of ablution in the east is by pouring water on the hands (see 2 Kings iii. 11).
1872 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
It is, therefore, to the last degree improbable that the thousands mentioned in the early chapters of Acts were baptized by immersion. The same improbability exists as to the case of the centurion in Cæsarea and the jailer at Philippi. With regard to the former, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water?” which naturally implies that water was to be brought to Cornelius, and not he be taken to the water. As to the jailer, it is said (Acts xvi. 33) that he and all his were baptized within the prison, as the narrative clearly implies, at midnight. There is the same improbability against the assumption that the eunuch, mentioned in Acts viii. 27-38, was baptized by immersion. He was travelling through a desert part of the country towards Gaza, when Philip joined him, “And as they went on their way they came unto a certain water (ἐπί τι ὕδωρ, to some water).” There is no known stream in that region of sufficient depth to allow of the immersion of a man.
1872 · Edward Robinson, quoted by Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Part III, chapters XV-XX; Part IV, Eschatology) 3.20.7
The late Dr. Edward Robinson, than whom there is no higher authority on all that relates to the topography and physical geography of Palestine and the habits of its inhabitants, so far as they are determined by the nature of the country, says: (1.) “The idea of private baths in families in Jerusalem and Palestine generally is excluded.” (2.) “In Acts ii. 41, three thousand persons are said to have been baptized at Jerusalem apparently in one day at the season of Pentecost in June; and in Acts iv. 4, the same rite is necessarily implied in respect to five thousand more. Against the idea of full immersion in these cases there lies a difficulty, apparently insuperable, in the scarcity of water. There is in summer no running stream in the vicinity of Jerusalem, except the mere rill of Siloam a few rods in length; and the city is and was supplied with water from its cisterns and public reservoirs. From neither of these sources could a supply have been well obtained for the immersion of eight thousand persons. The same scarcity of water forbade the use of private baths as a general custom; and thus also further precludes the idea of bathing” in such passages as Luke xi. 38; Mark vii. 28. He confirms his conclusion by further remarking, (3.) “In the earliest Latin versions of the New Testament, as, for example, the Itala, which Augustine regarded as the best of all, which goes back apparently to the second century and to usage connected with the apostolic age, the Greek verb, βαπτίζω, is uniformly given in the Latin form, “baptizo,” and is never translated by “immergo,” or any like word, showing that there was something in the rite of baptism to which the latter did not correspond. (4.) The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to very early times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and were obviously never intended for that use.”
1907 · Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology Chapter II. The Ordinances Of The Church
The prevailing usage of any word determines the sense it bears, when found in a command of Christ. We have seen, not only that the prevailing usage of the Greek language determines the meaning of the word “baptize” to be “immerse,” but that this is its fundamental, constant, and only meaning. The original command to baptize is therefore a command to immerse.
1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 5.2.4
Where is the evidence to prove that they followed any other method than the Old Testament mode of baptisms? Does Acts 9:18 indicate in any way that Paul left the place where Ananias found him, to be immersed in some pool or river? Does not the account of the baptism of Cornelius create the impression that water was to be brought and that those present were baptized right in the house?
1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 5.2.4
Even the account of the baptism of the eunuch, Acts 8:36,38, which is often regarded as the strongest Scriptural proof for baptism by immersion, cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence. A careful study of Luke's use of the preposition eis shows that he used it not only in the sense of into but also in the sense of to so that it is entirely possible to read the relevant statement in verse 38 as follows: "and they both went down to the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Each morning, a few short passages on one topic from different writers, with sources. Free.