Phil D.
Puritan Board Senior
As part of one of my ongoing intellectual hobbies, over the last several years I have been looking into the history of the mode of baptism as practiced amongst various church traditions. At this point I probably enjoy doing the research itself as much as anything that comes of it. Still, it has produced some interesting results (at least for me…) that I thought I’d share. If there is any interest I’ll probably post a periodic series of synoptic installments, organized along the lines of various Protestant traditions, particularly in locations having the greatest historical influence.
A year later Luther released one of his signature works, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), which was written in Latin to accommodate its wider dissemination. As it revolved around his belief that rather than the seven sacraments claimed by Rome, there were only two (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper)—or, as he wondered at this time, perhaps three (Penance)—the issue of baptismal mode again received considerable attention:
In early 1523, Luther published the first Protestant baptismal liturgy, which appears to have been largely adapted from the Latin liturgy then in use by the nearby Roman Catholic diocese of Magdeburg*, the latter of which stated:
In line with this inherited modal practice, Luther’s inaugural liturgy issued a simplified prescription for immersion.
Yet even with the substantial reasons Luther gave for preferring immersion, there is clear evidence that in actual practice he was amenable and even inclined toward the use of pouring. Just months later, in 1523, Luther issued this reply to a cleric who had asked how baptism should be performed:
In a letter addressed to a minister from Ichtershausen (dated July 9th, 1530), who had asked how a female Jewish convert should be baptized, Luther responded:
One wonders if in this particular prescription Luther may have taken into account that the convert was Jewish, and as such would likely have been familiar with Jewish proselyte baptism, which was always by immersion.
A basic principle underlying Luther’s ultimate leniency concerning the mode of baptism is perhaps revealed in an appendix that he had attached to his early baptismal liturgy (1523):
Luther’s close friend and colleague Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558) was active in helping organize early Lutheranism throughout northern Germany and Scandinavia. In carrying out his duties Bugenhagen oversaw the implementation of a number of regional liturgies. This included one for the church in Hamburg (1528), which had recently committed to Protestantism, wherein he attached these informative comments:
There is evidence that Luther did draw a line when it came to sprinkling. In Wittenberg’s revised church constitution of 1542—in which Luther would surely have had a hand—one reads:
This same issue had apparently been an impetus for Bugenhagen’s initiation of the revised liturgy in Hamburg (as noted above), where he had observed a baptism only on the head of a clothed infant (thought to have been by sprinkling), instead of having the water poured three times over its head and naked torso. Bugenhagen likewise deemed this procedure an “abuse” (misbrauch), and upon consultation Luther is said to have agreed. However, Luther also cautioned that while the practice should be changed, the matter needed to be handled with discretion so as not to create undue doubt concerning those who had received baptism in the former manner.**
** See: Johannem Bugenhagen Pomern, D., Von den ungeborn kindern, und von den kindern, die wir nicht teuffen können, (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1551), in section entitled, Von dem, das die tauff; also: Moritz Meurer, Johann Bugenhagen's Leben, (Leipzig: Naumann, 1862), 48ff; Susan C. Karant-Nunn, The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany, (London: Routledge, 1997), 57.
_______________________________________________________________
Lutheran: Wittenberg
Martin Luther (1483–1546) is of course widely known as the father of the Protestant Reformation. Just two years after posting his revolutionary 95 Theses in Wittenberg, the legendary former monk wrote a Treatise on Baptism (first published in November, 1519), in the vernacular German, which opened with these forthright statements:Lutheran: Wittenberg
To begin, baptism is called in the Greek language baptismos, in Latin mersio, which means to plunge [tauchet] something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. And although in many places it is the custom no longer to thrust and plunge [stossen und tauchen] children into the font of baptism, but only to pour [getaufft] the baptismal water upon them out of the font, nevertheless the former is what should be done;
And it would be right, according to the meaning of the word Tauffe, that the child, or whoever is baptized, should be sunk entirely into the water, and then drawn out again; for even in the German tongue the word Tauffe comes undoubtedly from the word tyeff, and means that what is baptized is sunk deep into the water.
This usage is also demanded by the significance of baptism, for baptism signifies that the old man and the sinful birth of flesh and blood are to be wholly drowned by the grace of God, as we shall hear. We should, therefore, do justice to its meaning and make baptism a true and complete sign of the thing it signifies.
[Henry Eyster Jacobs, Adolph Spaeth, eds., Works of Martin Luther with Introductions and Notes, (Philadelphia: Holman Company, 1915), 1:56f]
A year later Luther released one of his signature works, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), which was written in Latin to accommodate its wider dissemination. As it revolved around his belief that rather than the seven sacraments claimed by Rome, there were only two (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper)—or, as he wondered at this time, perhaps three (Penance)—the issue of baptismal mode again received considerable attention:
The second part of baptism is the sign, the sacrament, which is that immersion in water [mersio in aquam] from which it derives its name, for the Greek baptizo means ‘I immerse,’ and baptisma means ‘immersion.’ For, as has been said, along with the divine promises signs have also been given to picture that which the words signify, or as they now say, that which the sacrament ‘effectively signifies.’
...Baptism, then, signifies two things—death and resurrection; that is, full and complete justification. The minister's immersing [immergit] the child in the water signifies death; his drawing it forth again signifies life. Thus Paul expounds it in Romans 6, ‘We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.’
...Hence it is indeed correct to say that baptism is a washing from sins, but that expression is too weak and mild to bring out the full significance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism completely immersed in the water [in aquam immergi], as the word says and as the sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it were well to give to so perfect and complete a thing a perfect and complete sign; thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ.
[Ibid., 2:26]
In early 1523, Luther published the first Protestant baptismal liturgy, which appears to have been largely adapted from the Latin liturgy then in use by the nearby Roman Catholic diocese of Magdeburg*, the latter of which stated:
Then for the dipping [intingat], the priest shall first immerse [mergendo] the males and then the females, with their head turned toward the east, saying, “(Name), I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
[Liturgie-wissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuch, 1968), 47:114]
In line with this inherited modal practice, Luther’s inaugural liturgy issued a simplified prescription for immersion.
The priest takes the child, and dips [tauche] him for the baptism...
[Johann Konrad Irmischer, ed., Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke, (Erlangen: Verlag von Carl Heyder, 1833), 22–23:163]
Yet even with the substantial reasons Luther gave for preferring immersion, there is clear evidence that in actual practice he was amenable and even inclined toward the use of pouring. Just months later, in 1523, Luther issued this reply to a cleric who had asked how baptism should be performed:
The baptizer pours [geusst] the water, and says, ‘Ego baptizo te in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.’ In German that is: Ich tauf dich im Namen des Vaters und des Sohns und des heiligen Geistes.
[Ibid., 22-23, 168]
In a letter addressed to a minister from Ichtershausen (dated July 9th, 1530), who had asked how a female Jewish convert should be baptized, Luther responded:
I think it would be appropriate if she were to stand in a large vat full of water, modestly covered in a bathing gown, and then have the water poured over her [perfunderetur]; or, she might sit in the water up to her neck (again, clothed in a gown), and then have her head immersed in three submersions [trina immersione immergeretur].
[Wilhelm M. L. De Wette, Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, (Berlin: B. Reimer, 1827), 4:81]
One wonders if in this particular prescription Luther may have taken into account that the convert was Jewish, and as such would likely have been familiar with Jewish proselyte baptism, which was always by immersion.
A basic principle underlying Luther’s ultimate leniency concerning the mode of baptism is perhaps revealed in an appendix that he had attached to his early baptismal liturgy (1523):
I have not yet wanted to change anything in particular in the little book of baptism. ...To spare weak consciences, I let it stay almost as it is, so that they do not complain that I want to bring in a new baptism and find fault with those who have been baptized up to now, as though they were not properly baptized.
[Irmischer, Luther's sämmtliche Werke, 22–23:166]
Luther’s close friend and colleague Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558) was active in helping organize early Lutheranism throughout northern Germany and Scandinavia. In carrying out his duties Bugenhagen oversaw the implementation of a number of regional liturgies. This included one for the church in Hamburg (1528), which had recently committed to Protestantism, wherein he attached these informative comments:
In some places the children are dipped [getauft] in baptism, which in the Decretal [Decretum Gratiani – the version of canon law then in effect for the Roman Catholic Church] is called immersio, from which it is clear that it used to be normal, when not an emergency, to baptize in that manner. In some cases the submersion [untertauchen] is done once in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in other cases, three times in the same name.
All this is good and suitable, as stated in the Decretal (Part 3, On Consecration; distinction 4). But in virtually all of Germany, as here in our own region, in Lübeck and elsewhere, the children are baptized naked by three times pouring from above [übergiesst] handfuls of water over the head and back...
[Carl Mönckeberg, ed., Bugenhagens Hamburgische Kirchenordnung, (Hamburg: Gustav Eduard Nolte, 1861), 46f.]
There is evidence that Luther did draw a line when it came to sprinkling. In Wittenberg’s revised church constitution of 1542—in which Luther would surely have had a hand—one reads:
And the abuse [misbrauch] wherein some children are not dipped in the water [ins wasser tauchen], nor have it poured over them [noch sie damit begiessen], but merely have droplets [tröpflein] put on the body or the forehead, should be done away with.
[Constitution und artikel des geistlichen consistorii zu Wittembergk [etc.]...Anno Domini M.D.XLII; (Berlin: Georgius Buchholzer Prepositus, 1563), in section entitled, Von der tauffe.]
This same issue had apparently been an impetus for Bugenhagen’s initiation of the revised liturgy in Hamburg (as noted above), where he had observed a baptism only on the head of a clothed infant (thought to have been by sprinkling), instead of having the water poured three times over its head and naked torso. Bugenhagen likewise deemed this procedure an “abuse” (misbrauch), and upon consultation Luther is said to have agreed. However, Luther also cautioned that while the practice should be changed, the matter needed to be handled with discretion so as not to create undue doubt concerning those who had received baptism in the former manner.**
* For further reading on the connection between these liturgies, see: Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 322; J. D. C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: The Reformation Period: Some Early Reformed Rites of Baptism and Confirmation and Other Contemporary Documents, (Chicago: Hillenbrand, 2007), 8ff; Bryan D. Spinks, Reformation and Modern Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From Luther to Contemporary Practices, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), 10.** See: Johannem Bugenhagen Pomern, D., Von den ungeborn kindern, und von den kindern, die wir nicht teuffen können, (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1551), in section entitled, Von dem, das die tauff; also: Moritz Meurer, Johann Bugenhagen's Leben, (Leipzig: Naumann, 1862), 48ff; Susan C. Karant-Nunn, The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany, (London: Routledge, 1997), 57.
Last edited:
