Sprinkling and avoiding nudity

[Notthemama1984]

I heard once that early church baptisms were performed in the nude and that the mode of sprinkling became more popular in order to remove the nudity involved.

Is this true? If so, could you point me to an original source stating such?

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

My apologies for the misspelling. The letter "d" on my keyboard is only working periodically. I usually have to hit it a few times. I did not notice that it did not register.

 

[Phil D.]

Many descriptions of baptism from the 3rd to13th century indicate that baptism was frequently performed in the nude. Some of these, however, would appear to include the state of wearing one's undergarments or a light linen garment as constituting "nakedness." Some churches which definitely did perform baptism in the buff did it separately for each sex, with women attendants for the women and men for the men. Over time as infant baptism came to constitute a larger and larger percentage of all baptisms, the issue of nudity became somewhat moot.

I have never come across any historical references where sprinkling was advocated as a new mode for the purpose of increased modesty. However, when the English Baptists revived the practice of immersion in the mid 17th century, some of their opponents began to cite modesty as one reason why pouring and sprinkling were preferable modes for adult baptism. Early Baptists also recognized the need to ensure modesty in their practice. For instance, a marginal note on the article on baptism in the First London Confession stated that the "dipping" was to be done "with convenient garments both upon the administrator and subject, with all modesty."

 

[MightyManfred]

Boliver,

You may find some very interesting reading about baptism in the early church in this free book recounting the history of the Baptists: A History of the Baptists Volume I-John T. Christian-Table of Contents