{"id":23685,"date":"2014-01-17T07:00:03","date_gmt":"2014-01-17T14:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/?p=23685"},"modified":"2025-06-14T20:22:55","modified_gmt":"2025-06-15T01:22:55","slug":"baptism-matters-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/restlesspilgrim.net\/blog\/2014\/01\/17\/baptism-matters-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Baptism Matters: Part 4 (History)"},"content":{"rendered":"

For the past few days (Day 1<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Day 2<\/a>\u00a0| Day 3<\/a>)\u00a0we’ve been looking at the case for infant baptism. Today I would like to conclude the series.<\/p>\n

So far in our study, we’ve looked at the implicit inclusion of infants in household baptism. We’ve examined how baptism actually affects<\/em> the soul of the one being baptized. Yesterday, we also briefly looked at how baptism parallels, and is the fulfillment of, the circumcision of the Old Covenant.<\/p>\n

Up until this point, I have tried to address the question of infant Baptism as though I were a Protestant<\/a>, restricting myself to the testimony of Scripture. However, as a Catholic, I do not hold to the\u00a0Bible alone<\/a>, but also to Sacred Tradition<\/a>, the oral teaching of the Church passed down through the generations.<\/p>\n

\"Church-Fathers\"<\/p>\n

Even for a Protestant, who doesn’t hold to belief in Sacred Tradition, the witness of the Early Church in the centuries following the Apostles is a significant, albeit less important, consideration.\u00a0So, today I would like to ask a simple question:\u00a0Did the Early Church baptize babies?<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Testimony from the 2nd Century<\/h2>\n

There are some indirect references to infant baptism in the Second Century. For example, at his martyrdom in AD 156, St. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that he has served Christ for \u201ceighty-six years\u201d<\/span>, a strong indication that he regarded himself as a Christian from infancy (Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 9). Likewise, Justin Martyr, writing around AD 155 spoke of men and women having \u201cbeen Christ\u2019s disciples from childhood\u201d<\/span> (First Apology,15:6). Such statements do seem to suggest the practice of infant baptism.<\/p>\n

However, neither of these references are conclusive indications. Fortunately, things start to get clearer with St. Irenaeus. Here’s what he wrote about salvation:<\/p>\n

For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again<\/span><\/strong> to God, <\/em>infants, and children<\/span>, and boys, and youths, and old men<\/em><\/span>
\n – St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. AD 189)<\/span><\/p>\n

So, in this quotation, Irenaeus says that infants can be “born again to God”<\/em><\/span> . But what does it mean to be “born again”<\/em><\/span>? Thankfully, in another extract, Irenaeus tells us what he means by the phrase:<\/p>\n

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean<\/span>, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord<\/span>\u2026 being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes<\/span>, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again<\/strong> through water and the Spirit<\/span>, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”<\/em><\/span>
\n – St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment #34<\/span><\/p>\n

This second quotation shows us that Irenaeus understood that one is born again through Baptism (“by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord”<\/em><\/span>). So, from these extracts of Irenaeus we conclude two facts:<\/p>\n

(1) Infants can be born again
\n(2) We are born again through Baptism<\/p>\n

Isn’t it therefore logical to conclude that infants are born again through Baptism?<\/p>\n

Testimony from 3rd Century<\/h2>\n

By the time we reach the Third Century, the\u00a0Early Church Fathers<\/a>\u00a0of that era furnish us with\u00a0explicit<\/em> references to infant baptism. Here are three such examples:<\/p>\n

The children shall be baptized first<\/span>. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them<\/span>, or someone else from the family.<\/em><\/span>
\n – St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. AD 215)<\/span><\/p>\n

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants<\/span>. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit<\/em><\/span>
\n – Origen,\u00a0Commentaries on Romans\u00a05:9 (c. AD 248)<\/span><\/p>\n

…you [Fidus] say [infants] ought not to be baptized within the second or third day…but that the law of ancient circumcision should be followed [on the eighth day]…but we all thought very differently in our council…we judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man<\/span><\/em><\/span>
\n – \u00a0St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 58:2 (c. AD 253)<\/span><\/p>\n

Not all our evidence comes from theologians, however. Here are\u00a0some inscriptions found by archaeologists on the tombs of two small children, one named “Tyche”<\/em><\/span> and the other\u00a0“Appronianus”<\/em><\/span>:<\/p>\n

Sweet Tyche lived\u00a0one year<\/span>, ten months, and twenty-five days.\u00a0Received [the grace of baptism] on the eighth day before the Kalends\u00a0[the first day of the month]. Gave up her soul on the same day.<\/em><\/span>
\n – Christian Inscriptions #27 (c. AD 250)<\/span><\/p>\n

Florentius erected this monument to his well-deserving son Appronianus, who lived\u00a0one year<\/span>, nine months, and five days. Since he was dearly loved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was going to die, she asked of the Church that\u00a0he should depart from the world a believer<\/em><\/span>
\n – Christian Inscriptions #40 (c. AD 250)<\/span><\/p>\n

Both of these inscriptions speak about children under the age of two, an age that is clearly below what most people would call “the age of reason”<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Testimony from 4th\/5th Century<\/h2>\n

The references to infant Baptism continue into the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Although many more could be added, here are a selection of quotations from some of the greatest theological minds of the Early Church:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do Baptize infants<\/span>, although they are not guilty of any [personal] sins.\u201d<\/em>
\n– \u00a0St. John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (c. AD 388)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cUnless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant<\/span>, not the one prevented by some necessity.\u201d<\/em>
\n– \u00a0St. Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2:11:84 (c. AD 387)<\/span><\/p>\n

Do you have an infant child<\/span>? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood<\/span>. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit<\/span>.\u00a0<\/em><\/span>
\n – St. Gregory of Nazianzus,\u00a0Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 (c. AD 388)<\/span><\/p>\n

The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned<\/span>, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic<\/span><\/em><\/span>
\n – St. Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis\u00a010:23:39 \u00a0(c. AD 408)\"\"\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

What about Bob?<\/del>\u00a0What about Tertullian?<\/h2>\n

The only early Christian writer I know of who wrote against<\/em> infant Baptism was the Second Century lawyer and apologist, Tertullian, in his work entitled\u00a0“On Baptism”<\/em>. However, he is the only<\/em> discordant note on this issue in the Christian symphony of the early centuries.<\/p>\n

Even in music, though, an occasional discordant note can enhance the overall effect of the piece.\u00a0In this case, Tertullian speaks about delaying baptism for fear that the Christian would later fall back into sin, thus demonstrating the argument put forth on\u00a0Day 2<\/a>, that Baptism actually washes away sin. Also, in arguing against infant baptism, Tertullian inadvertently provides us with evidence that the practice was present in his day!<\/p>\n

For more information concerning Tertullian’s objection, I would invite you to read Joe’s article<\/a>\u00a0on this particular issue over\u00a0at Shameless Popery.<\/p>\n

Closing thoughts…<\/h2>\n

There’s much more that could be said concerning the related topics such as the Fall, salvation,\u00a0sin and redemption, but hopefully this series has given those considering the question of infant Baptism a basic sketch as to the arguments in favour of it.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, I would assert that infants should be baptized. This is in accord with the testimony of both Scripture and Tradition.\u00a0Personally, I think the case is pretty watertight<\/a>. If I’ve convinced you, please remember that you’ll need a Godfather at the baptism…*cough* \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n

If you are a parent, you have been charged with a very special responsibility, the care of little souls and the charge to teach them the Faith and to do all you can to lead them to Heaven…<\/p>\n

And Jesus came and said to them, \u201c…Go therefore and make disciples<\/span> of all<\/span> nations, baptizing them<\/span> in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them<\/span> to observe all that I have commanded you…\u201d<\/em> – Matthew 28:18<\/span><\/p>\n

Part 1<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part 2<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a0Part 3<\/a>\u00a0| Part 4<\/p>\n\n\n

Update 14-June-12025: Here’s a pretty even-handed assessment of the data, which also draws in archeology:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n