The Ancient Church
John: ... As I see it, the history of the Christian church plainly shows that infant baptism is a late invention of the Catholic church.
Martin: A while ago we discussed the teachings of Jesus on baptism in the context of the historical situation during His public ministry. We saw that both this context and the direct teachings of our Lord point in the direction of infant baptism. Let us now turn to the testimony of church history after the Apostolic Age.
John: Tertullian is the first writer who mentions infant baptism in history, and he opposes it, although Neander supposes that the much disputed passage of Irenaeus has reference to this custom, a little earlier than Tertullian's mention of it. Tertullian opposed infant baptism at the close of the second century, or about A.D. 200. His opposition proves two things: first, that it was in occasional use, at least; second, that it was of recent origin and not generally prevalent. For it must have been in use to be discussed and opposed, and had it been long prevalent it would have been earlier mentioned.
Church historians who have studied the history of the post-Apostolic Age show that infant baptism was unknown until the first part of the third century after Christ. Had it existed earlier, some trace of, or allusion to, it would have been discovered.
It should be added that when the baptism of children did begin to be practiced, it was not the baptism of unconscious infants at all, but, as Bunsen says, of "little growing children, from six to ten years old." He declares that Tertullian, in his opposition to infant baptism, does not say a word about newborn babes.
Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the third century urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the regenerating efficacy which the ordinance was supposed to exert. He and his associates were the first to take this ground. It was believed that baptism conveyed saving grace to the soul. Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to receive baptism, and thus through "washing in the laver of regeneration" be secured against the perils of perdition. Such was one of the errors of a superstitious age. Hence arose infant baptism, as one of the many perversions which early corrupted the doctrines and ordinances of Christianity. [1]
Martin: You have an inconsistency in what you stated. First, you said that Tertullian opposed infant baptism at the close of the second century, and that it must have then been in use for some time. But a little later you said that there is no allusion to infant baptism before the first part of the third century, and that it was unknown before that. Did you forget what you stated before?
John: You are right. I was inconsistent. I admit that infant baptism was in use, at least to some extent, in the second half of the second century.
Martin: You also seem to have forgotten what you admitted a while ago, namely, that belief in the grace-conveying efficacy of baptism is no superstition of a later time but a clear and incontestable teaching of the New Testament. You can hardly mean that some teachings of the New Testament are superstitious?
John: Certainly not. But isn't it a historical fact that infant baptism wasn't known until the second half of the second century, or at least that it is not mentioned before that time in the writings of the post-Apostolic Age?
Martin: Let us see what Irenaeus says in the statement that you called "much disputed." This teacher of the church was born in A.D. 140 or about about forty years after the death of the apostle John. In his youth he was a disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who in turn had been a disciple of John. Irenaeus writes: "Christ came to save all people through Himself, I say all who through Him are born again to God, nursing babes, small children, children, young people, and older people; therefore He passed through all the different ages, becoming a nursing infant for the sake of nursing infants ..." [2]
John: Irenaeus does not mention baptism at all, and probably he only speaks of Christ as the Savior of all men in general.
Martin: He says that Christ saves those who are through Him born to God. Then he goes on to explain that even nursing babes are born to God through Christ. How can a nursing babe be born to God except through baptism?
John: True, that seems to be the only possible conclusion.
Martin: Irenaeus says in the same book that baptism is "a baptism of new birth to God." [3] These words show that he means baptism when he speaks of the new birth. This way of speaking originated with Christ Himself -- or already in the Synagogue -- and it was quite common in the second century. Justin the Martyr, who was born in the first years of the second century and suffered a martyr's death in A.D. 165, writes: "Then we lead them to a place where there is water and give them a new birth in the same manner as we were born again, for they are washed in water in the name of God, the Father and ruler of all, and Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost." [4]
Justin also wrote that many men and women had "been disciples already as children." Many of these men and women who had become disciples already as children must have been baptized in the apostolic age (if they were older than Justin), or soon after it (if they were of his age), for they became disciples of Christ in baptism. Justin does not, however, state how old these children were at the time of their baptism. Irenaeus says that even nursing babes were born again (by baptism). These words of Justin and Irenaeus imply that both in the first and second part of the second century the Church believed in baptismal regeneration and practiced baptism of children.
One of the best known examples of infant baptism in the second half of the second century is Origen, the greatest theologian of the Ancient Church. He was born in A.D. 185 or 186 and was baptized in his infancy. He writes: "Baptism is, according to the usages of the church, given also to infants." [5] "The Church has received from the apostles the tradition to give baptism even to infants. For those who were entrusted with the divine mysteries knew that all men have the natural pollution of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. No man is free from the defilement of sin, even if he is one day old. Since the inborn uncleanness is washed away through baptism, little children also come to be baptized. For unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." [6]
Some Baptists say that Origen doesn't speak of the baptism of infants but of older children. That is not true, for he speaks of one-day-old infants, and explains that infant baptism is a tradition received from the apostles.
Origen lived so close to the Apostolic Age that only one man's lifetime had passed between Apostle John's death and Origen's birth and baptism. You present-day Baptists live almost 1800 years after. Is it reasonable to think that you are in a better position to know what is an apostolic tradition than a man who lived less than a hundred years after the Apostolic Age?
Bishop Cyprian, a contemporary of Origen, declared that they were mistaken who held that infants should not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. [7] In A.D. 253 the Church Council of Carthage followed this view of Cyprian in its decision on infant baptism. There was no doubt about infant baptism itself.
Let us now turn to Tertullian, who was about a half century younger than Origen and Cyprian. In his famous statement against infant baptism he writes: "According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable, principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary ... that sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger -- who themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition in those for whom they stood ... Why should little babes, the innocent ones, haste to the forgiveness of sins? ... Unmarried people also have as much reason to postpone baptism because they are apt to be tempted, virgins because of their maturity and widows because of their loneliness, until they have either married or have become so strong that they are able to practice continence. If one really understands the value of baptism, he is more afraid of receiving it than of postponing it." [8]
You said a while ago, referring to Bunsen, that Tertullian in his opposition to infant baptism does not say a word about newborn infants. [9] That is not true, for Tertullian speaks of "little babes, the innocent ones," who obviously are newly born infants, in whom the evil tendencies of human flesh have not yet developed. Or do you, brother John, think that five-to-ten-year-old children can be called "little babes, the innocent ones," in whom no evil tendencies have developed?
John: Of course not. Children of that age are no longer innocent; neither can they be called little babes.
Martin: Then you admit that Tertullian speaks of infant baptism. Let's see what are his reasons for opposing it. He does not say that infant baptism is wrong, or that it is not of apostolic origin. He only thinks that it is preferable to postpone baptism because the sponsors may fail, because of death, to fulfill their promises, or because evil tendencies may develop in the baptized children when they grow up. For similar reasons unmarried young people and widows should postpone their baptism. Would you accept such reasons for postponing baptism?
John: No, certainly not. In our time hardly anyone would even think of such reasons.
Martin: We conclude that Tertullian opposed infant baptism for some reasons of expediency, not because of principle, and his reasons cannot be regarded as valid and acceptable. His words that little babes (parvuli) "haste" to the forgiveness of sins seem to indicate that infants were taken to baptism as early as possible. In his time some Christians (particularly the Montanists) held the view that in baptism all sins were forgiven and washed away, but sins after baptism were almost unforgivable. Tertullian was one of those who held this erroneous notion, and that was the reason why he recommended its postponement.
Our study of the testimony of the history of the post-Apostolic Church has led us to the result that infant baptism was practiced in the first half of the second century, that is, during the fifty years after the death of the apostle John, and that it was held to be a tradition received from the apostles. Tertullian was the only one who opposed it, and even his opposition was based on entirely wrong premises.
Antipedobaptists often say that infant baptism has always gone hand-in-hand with state churches. [10] That assertion is repeated even in America, which has no state churches, at least not in the United States and Canada.
In Europe many of the churches that practice infant baptism have never been state churches. Or have the Lutheran churches of Hungary, the Balkan states, Austria, Poland, Russia, France, and Holland, or the Reformed churches of the same countries and England ever been state churches?
John: I know that they have never been state churches.
Martin: They have been free churches which have frequently suffered persecution. Martyrdom is no "privilege" of antipedobaptists. An unprejudiced view of church history shows that usually there has been no direct or indirect connection between infant baptism and state churches. These churches use infant baptism simply because they regard it as Biblical.
[1] Edward T. Hiscox, The New Directory for Baptist Churches (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), pp. 477ff.
[2] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, II, 22.
[3] Ibid., I, 18.
[4] Justin, Apology.
[5] Origen, "Eight Homily on Lev. 3"; in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XIV, 496.
[6] Origen, "Commentary on Romans," V. 9; Migne, op. cit., 1047.
[7] Cyprian, Epistle 58, Ante-Nicene Fathers, V, 353f.
[8] Tertullian, De baptismo, 18.
[9] According to Hiscox, op. cit., p. 479.
[10] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), pp. 536.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]
[Return to the "Resources for Lutherans" web site]