Infant Baptism - Early Church Fathers

[Second Coming]

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).



Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).



Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. 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" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).



Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).



John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).



Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).



Council of Carthage V

"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).



Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

 

[TuxAme]

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

This quote from Hippolytus is the most substantial, in my opinion. It reflects the "Jewishness" of baptism and calls to mind circumcision, when one's parents had to speak for them.

 

[Just Another User]

Infant Baptism became widespread by the early 3rd century and eventually became near universal in the early church. It eventually became a matter of when not if for infant baptism. Nevertheless, I doubt this was the case in the 2nd century.

Interestingly, the earliest quote talking about Infant Baptism (or can be very easily be interpreted as such) is actually against it.

Justin Martyr ( c 150 AD)

"And for this rite we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed."

Justin Martyr was writing in Rome and speaking about the church of Rome that he was apart of too. We can thus infer that at Justin's time, children of the Roman church certainly weren't baptised.

Tertullian speaks against it too. (c 205 AD)

"And so, 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 it is necessary … The Lord does indeed say, "Do not forbid them to come to me." Let them come, then, while they are growing up! Let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning where to come to! Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?"

Don't quote me on this but I believe Tertullian was the first person to actually write a book directly on baptism.


Even more interestingly. Despite being the first recorded person to support Infant Baptism, Irenaeus was against the idea of babies being sinful.

"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb of Jephunneh and Joshua of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil. But who are they that are saved now, and receive life eternal? Is it not those who love God, and who believe His promises, and who in malice have become as little children?"


I'll like to end by saying that those quotes are directly from the Catholic Answers website (referring to the OP). I'd trust their integrity as much as I trust Got Questions.

 

[Second Coming]

Infant Baptism became widespread by the early 3rd century and eventually became near universal in the early church.

What proof do you have that infant baptism was not widespread prior to the 3rd century?

 

[Second Coming]

Interestingly, the earliest quote talking about Infant Baptism (or can be very easily be interpreted as such) is actually against it.

Justin Martyr ( c 150 AD)

"And for this rite we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed."

Justin Martyr was writing in Rome and speaking about the church of Rome that he was apart of too. We can thus infer that at Justin's time, children of the Roman church certainly weren't baptised.

Tertullian speaks against it too. (c 205 AD)

"And so, 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 it is necessary … The Lord does indeed say, "Do not forbid them to come to me." Let them come, then, while they are growing up! Let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning where to come to! Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?"

Don't quote me on this but I believe Tertullian was the first person to actually write a book directly on baptism.

Those quotes are weak at best.

 

[Second Coming]

I'll like to end by saying that those quotes are directly from the Catholic Answers website (referring to the OP). I'd trust their integrity as much as I trust Got Questions.

Yes, they are from the Catholic Answers website. I will provide the link and I’m sure that they are accurate quotes:

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers

 

[Second Coming]

We can thus infer that at Justin's time, children of the Roman church certainly weren't baptised.

You have no proof of that.

 

[Just Another User]

What proof do you have that infant baptism was not widespread prior to the 3rd century?

I have no "proof" but some strong evidence from deductive reasoning. We have limited and contradictory accounts on baptism in the 2nd and very, very early 3rd century whereas by the mid 3rd century it would appear that the discussion has moved from if we should baptise infants to when. Thus it's safe to assume that by the 3rd century the practice had become widespread and before then it was still a wide range of opinion.

Furthermore, when you begin to look at mid to late 3rd century Christians talking about Baptism, they do sometimes bring up the concept of babies already sinning and thus need to be baptised whereas the earlier pro-infant baptisers either failed to mention it or in the case of Irenaeus directly contradict it.

Therefore we can assume either a development of doctrine on the issue or a more modest claim that a certain view won out over several similar ideas.

Those quotes are weak at best.

We could certainly have a respectful discussion on the first quote by Justin Martyr; though I would say it's very obvious what he means; but Tertullian's quote is undeniable and it's crazy to say otherwise. He outright says that children shouldn't be baptised which directly contradicts the infant baptism but primarily Catholic account that all the early church baptised infants.

Yes, they are from the Catholic Answers website. I will provide the link and I’m sure that they are accurate quotes:

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers

I don't doubt they are but I will respectfully say that they're very intellectually dishonest when it comes to quotes (this doesn't come from a Protestant,Eastern Orthodox or any denomination for that matter for the record so I have no horse in the race). A prime example of this would be using Cyprian to support Papal Primacy despite all African Bishop present during the Council of Carthage; which Cyprian headed; in the mid 250s all objected with Pope Stephen's claim of being "bishop of bishops" and going against his command to the African bishops (which they objected to being commanded to do anything) to lead the heretic sect of Novatians to not be rebaptised if they came back to the Orthodox church. Despite Rome being an important and Apostolic church, it never had authority to command anyone to do anything in the sense of a hierarchy (Rome certainly did advise churches due to it's important location/history).

You have no proof of that.

I don't have proof is sense that Justin Martyr never directly said that the church of Rome baptised childern but based by the quote I provided I think it's great evidence to at least put some food for thought for those who advocate the infant baptism position. I would like to dissect the quote and see if I can provide an argument against the infant baptism position.

"And for this rite we have learned from the apostles this reason."

Whenever someone evoked the claim from the apostles it was always a good reason. Beliefs like book of the Bible were doubtful to be from the Apostles directly because no one claimed so and it took until the 5th century to get a majority consensus.

Whatever claim Justin makes now is from the Apostles from an incredibly trustworthy source, writing on behalf of the Roman church and shouldn't be taken lightly. Thus, his writing were approved of his Roman church and therefore, the bishop of Rome.

"Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training"

He is therefore making the claim that from the moment of birth on wards that we are without knowledge or choice and this is correct. Infants lack choice and are brought up in wicked ways with nothing to say or do about such an issue

"in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed."

When we're baptised, we are now children of choice and knowledge. This means that we know have reached an ability to make choices and therefore it's appropriate to then be baptised for the remission of sins. Since the concept of babies sinning was a later one (and as I showed Irenaeus was contrary to that position) why would children need remission of sins? Babies cannot decide to be of choice if this choice is already chosen for them can they?

If we presuppose that Justin Martyr was talking in the context of Infant baptism, his claim does not make sense. Christian or non-Christian, infants can not be of choice and cannot choose to accept or reject their parent's teachings. It doesn't make grammatical sense either. If Infant baptism was practiced, the "since at our birth" wouldn't make sense it the context.

 

[Not David]

The people who didn't baptized infants believe that baptism should happen when one is older in order for it to allow more sins to be forgiven, not because they thought baptism was a profession of faith.

 

[Just Another User]

The people who didn't baptized infants believe that baptism should happen when one is older in order for it to allow more sins to be forgiven, not because they thought baptism was a profession of faith.

I would agree partly with that but luckily, I'm not under the belief that baptism is just for the profession of faith since such a claim only originated 400 years ago and it's probably the most historically inaccurate claim in Christian history. Clearly baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and not just a proclamation of you joining the Christian faith by itself.

I would have to disagree for that being the sole reason why they rejected infants from being baptised but it I would say it's a part of the reason.

 

[Not David]

I would agree partly with that but luckily, I'm not under the belief that baptism is just for the profession of faith since such a claim only originated 400 years ago and it's probably the most historically inaccurate claim in Christian history. Clearly baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and not just a proclamation of you joining the Christian faith by itself.

I would have to disagree for that being the sole reason why they rejected infants from being baptised but it I would say it's a part of the reason.

What do you think it is the reason?

 

[Just Another User]

What do you think it is the reason?

There's several reasons for baptism. First would of course be a proclamation to your fellow brothers and sisters that you are now part of the body of Christ. I would also feel appropriate to say a profession of faith at your baptism to show you agreeing with the tenets of the faith. It might also be appropriate to fast before the baptism too. It signifies that we have been buried and raised again with our King and that death scares us no longer. The water has been purified by Christ's suffering. I believe baptism regenerates us into becoming slaves for God rather than slaves for the Devil. In baptism we have been born again and should bare good fruit instead of bad. I would also say that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins that we have committed in the past and making us as clean as a baby. Baptism is also the place where the Holy Spirit may enter our hearts and help change us into righteousness children of the Father.

I would say that there are exceptions to every single point in there and a perfect example of someone being saved is the thief on the cross but I would take the stance that if you are an adult who believes in the faith and has the ability in be baptised, you should definitely do it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Some of the problem with quotes from the past (not all of these are considered Church Fathers - and we don't consider that any individual person is infallible anyway - even the saintliest person can be mistaken about something) ... but the problems stem from the question some asked about whether sins after baptism could be forgiven.

Because some had the idea that baptism alone washed away sin, some taught that it was better to delay baptism until one was old (better yet, dying) in order to avoid unforgiven sin.

Of course we know that to be an error. Potentially a spiritually dangerous one, since such a person deliberately chooses to remain outside the Body of Christ (because baptism is the normal entry into the Body), and would also deny themselves the grace of God they might have received through the various Sacraments - especially that they might willingly never receive the Eucharist (and at that point in history, would have been denied fully participating in the Church services).

But because of that mistaken idea, we see a few odd quotes and speculations. The Church as a whole instead affirmed the teachings of St. John the evangelist in saying instead that God forgives us our sins when we repent of them and confess them, even sins committed as baptized Christians (thankfully, because while we are regenerated by becoming Christian, we are not instantly perfected, and continue to struggle against the flesh in the process of being truly transformed into the likeness of Christ).