Didn’t the early church baptize infants? A website I visited claimed it did. It is well evidenced in the later second century, and probably was practiced from the very beginning. [My friend then includes numerous patristic quotes, along with some of the reasons he believes in infant baptism. In the interest of space, this Q&A has been highly condensed.] — G. M.
As I reply to this question, I have solicited the help of early church expert David Berçot. He has clearly thought through the issue, striving not to misrepresent those early writers who touch on the topic. My answers come first, then David’s, in italics.
There is indeed that some were immersing their babies sometime in the late second century, yet this doesn’t become common until the fifth century. That’s the short answer. Further:
In the writings of the 2nd century Christians, there is no clear evidence of infant baptism being practiced on any large scale. The earliest passage we have that may be pertinent to the subject is the following passage from Justin Martyr's First Apology. It dates to c. AD 160:
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, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
I had that quote before me when I was compiling the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. I debated long and hard on whether I should include it under the heading about infant baptism. What Justin says makes a strong argument against infant baptism. However, that isn't the topic he is addressing. In compiling the Dictionary, I was trying to be as intellectually honest and theologically neutral as possible. So, in the end, I didn’t include Justin's quote under the heading of “Infant Baptism.” I did, however, include it under the heading of the “Meaning of Baptism.” In retrospect, if I were compiling the Dictionary right now (or were going with a different publisher), I would include Justin's quotation under “Infant Baptism.” That's because it is highly relevant to the subject. I find it hard to believe that Justin would say what he did if infant baptism were the normal practice in the churches of his day. He assumes that the person being baptized has made their own decision, rather than the decision having been made by his parents.
Households come to faith, as in Acts 16 (the jailer’s family). Strictly speaking, “household” language may or may not include infants. True, anyone in the household could come to faith—though not without some level of understanding, faith, and repentance. In addition to what you say about households, I have noticed from reading both the early Christians and the Roman writers from the 1st century that the term “household” referred as much to servants as it does to children. In fact, I’ve come across passages where the term applies only to servants, where no family members are mentioned at all.
Often circumcision—which under the Old Covenant was performed on eight-day-olds—is taken as an exact parallel to baptism. Yet the analogy of circumcision is overdone. Paul compares baptism to circumcision in Col 2—the “flesh” being removed. The passage (2:12) says we are saved through faith in the power of God. We can certainly look at the scriptures, but we search in vain for babies being baptized. Further, there are no “sponsors” or godparents in the NT. The website you directed me to claimed that the early church uniformly accepted the baptism of infants, citing such respected church fathers as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Origen. I don’t see that. I do see it becomes accepted, at least in many parts, in the 3rd century, and much more common by the 4th, though still not normative for a while longer.
The following quote from Irenaeus is a rather tenuous one. I also debated on it as to whether or not to include it under “Infant Baptism.” The reason is that the subject of the passage is not baptism. Rather, Irenaeus is arguing his doctrine of recapitulation—pointing out that Jesus passed through and sanctified every stage of life—infants to old men. Here is what he says:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.
If Irenaeus hadn't used the phrase “born again,” this passage wouldn't have anything to do with baptism. When he lists all of the stages of a person's life, is he really talking about baptism? Perhaps so. But it's a brief, fleeting reference. Irenaeus may simply be saying that Jesus died for humans of all ages and sanctifies and saves all humans of whatever age. After all, how many people were getting baptized as old men? If Irenaeus is really talking about baptism (I have my doubts), his remarks make it clear that infant baptism wasn’t universal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have listed all the ages of human life—up to and including old men.
Tertullian (c. AD 200) does not encourage the baptism of babies. Apparently some are pushing to baptism younger children (whatever age that will be). He encourages them tohold them off till they are older. No hint of original sin here! But I agree with you, as I have taught for some time, that infant baptism first appears in the historical record in the late 2nd century. Yes, the first unambiguous discussion of infant baptism in the early church is the passage from Tertullian, which dates to the beginning of the third century. And Tertullian demonstrates why infant baptism is a bad idea. If it constitutes a valid baptism (which he assumes it does), then the person cannot receive a second baptism. Yet, the entire period of his teen years are ahead of him, where he is prone to fall into sin. I have seen so, so many people who have lived a life of sin and unbelief—yet they were baptized as infants. It is actually an act of kindness and mercy to regard infant baptism as invalid.
The other writers—250-500 AD, give or take—are reshaping the apostolic teaching.As you point out, most of the quotations furnished by Catholic Answers are from the fourth century—when lots of changes were happening in the church. Even the two quotations from Origen are from the 4th century Latin translations of Rufinus, who often made changes to Origen’s works. So the endorsement of infant baptism may or may not actually be from Origen.
We all agree that infant baptism makes its appearance, in at least some part of the Christian world, in the late 2nd It was becoming more widespread by the 5th. But Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian do not help the your case. Not until Cyprian (c.250) and later (300s) is the immersion of babies more strongly attested.Yet it is Augustine, with his new-fangled doctrine of Original Sin, that adds impetus to the practice—which itself lacks biblical attestation.
For more on the subject:
