Catholics aren't the only ones who practice infant baptism...Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians do too.
In the Old Testament, children were included in God's covenant. When a boy was eight days old, he was circumcised.
<B>Genesis 17:9-14</B> <B>9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. </B><B>10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. </B><B>12He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, </B><B>13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. </B><B>14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." </B>
The last verse strikes me. Any male who isn't circumcised has broken God's covenant. How can a baby be responsible for this? Leads me to believe it is the parents' responsibility to ensure this happens. The next verse I look at is this:
<B>Colossians 2:11-14</B> <B>11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; </B><B>12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. </B><B>13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses</B>
That verse seems to me that Paul is saying baptism replaces circumcision. And one was circumcised at a very young age. And then I look at:
<B>Matthew 18:2-5: </B><B>2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, 3 and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me. </B>
The last verse sways me. Whoever receives one child in my name receives me. While the Bible doesn't specifically say to baptize infants, it doesn't say not to either. The final verse that leads me to believe the baptism of infants is acceptable is this:
<B>Acts 16:15</B>
<B>"She was baptized, with her household"</B>
If one is against infant baptism, then they would have to argue that "household" does not include children.
So what did the Early Church do (before it was "paganized" by the Emperor Constantine)?
<I>"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."</I> <I>Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33</I> <B>AD 215</B>
<I>"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too."</I> <I>Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9(A.D. 244),in JER,65</I> <B>AD 244</B>
<I>"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."</I> <I>Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354</I> <B>AD 251</B>