Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?

Note to the reader: I am not completely satisfied with this paper. Some time has passed since I wrote it. I did not do justice to Part II. In fact I think the heading should be renamed to something like Baptismal Regeneration. I will re do this paper along the lines of I. The the method or mode of baptism II.The recipients of baptism (infants and adults) III. The theology of baptism
I may have been misleading in the idea of a debate between infant and believers baptism. The debate was not should we baptize infants or not, but is it expedient considering the regenerative effect of baptism? Both sprinkling and immersion were used and both infants and adults were baptized.
Here is a paper written at Reformed Theological Seminary. The paper explores the early church's (not the bible's) teaching on baptism. Issues such as infant baptism, the baptism of blood, and how baptism was administered are discussed. And just for laughs, did you know that the early church baptized in the nude? Before one forms a dogmatic opinion on baptism an understanding of baptism through the eyes of the early church is very helpful.


The Teachings of the Early Church on Baptism
by
Robert N. Landrum
The History of Christianity
Professor Frank A. James III
The Teachings of the Early Church on Baptism
Table of Contents
I. Baptism Traditions
Hippolytus
Didache
II. Infant Baptism versus Believers Baptism
Cyprian
Tertullian
Introduction
The debate over baptism continues to rage. Since the time of the early church there has not been universal agreement on the particulars of baptism, whether that be in relation to the way it is administered or to those that it is administered to. Much controversy (both then and now) is over who the recipients of baptism should be. On the one hand there are those that believe baptism should be reserved only for professing believers, while others contend that baptism should be extended to infants, who are obviously not able to make a profession of faith.
This paper will explore how the early church perceived baptism practically, i.e. how baptism was administered and to whom it was administered. In exploring the early church’s views on baptism, we will discover that there is not a consensus of agreement on baptism in either of these areas. There are some basic fundamentals such as the need for baptism and the use of water, but overall there is disagreement on the details. Having said this, I will not be arguing for any one particular approach to baptism, nor is there an emphasis on what the scripture says regarding baptism; rather, my argument is basically that there was no unanimity on the specifics of baptism in the early church.[1]
Due to the diversity of disagreement in the writings of the early church it would really be impossible to formulate any one argument. In other words, I cannot argue for infant baptism because I would have to be selective as to who I used as a source. For example, if I favored infant baptism, I would have to do so by narrowly selecting those sources that support it, to the exclusion of those that do not. (There are, however, more sources on infant baptism.) Even in regards to the New Testament one has to build an argument from silence due to the fact that there is no direct reference to infant baptism (of course covenant theology is not to be taken exception to). The same is true when looking at the sources of the early church. However, there is one difference; infant baptism is explicitly mentioned. There is no argument from silence in this regard. But the arguments that are made in the affirmative as well as in the negative have to be based on choice as to who was right and who was wrong. There is really no way of knowing.
Furthermore, we cannot construct an argument grounded in a genetic fallacy (i.e. we cannot say that because the early church baptized infants it must be right. This is tantamount to saying that because a previous generation believed the world was flat it must be flat, or that because baptism was believed to be regenerative it should be so believed now). Thus, in this respect, this paper is probably more informative as opposed to argumentative for one position or another, namely, as concerning infant baptism.

General Definitions
Baptism in water is not a Christian rite alone. Many different sects practiced it in the times of Jesus, and by the Jews when receiving proselytes (Hamman107). Baptism is considered to be that act, ceremony, or ritual which initiates one into the Christian church. The word baptism itself is a transliteration of one (or both) of two Greek nouns that are from the same verb stem. One means the action of immersing or dipping. The other is the result of that action. These words are esoterically related to Jewish/Christian use. The pagan Greek world had words that were related and denoted “to sink” or “to drown,” but these words were not used in reference to Jewish or Christian Baptism, whether it was the practice of ritual cleansing found in Judaism or cleansing proselytes (Brauer 82). Baptism regards the cleansing from sin. Some took baptism to be symbolic to having been raised to new life in Christ while others believed that baptism had actual regenerative power.[2]
I. Baptism Traditions
There were two classifications of people in relation to baptism in the early church, those preparing for baptism and the already baptized. Those that were preparing for baptism were called the catechumens. These two groups were separated from one another. The catechumen had to go through a waiting procedure while they prepared for baptism. This process could take as long as two to three years. There was also another separation of a kind in that there was both a private and public part to baptism. The deacons and deaconesses prepared the men and women for that part that was private due to the fact that it was done in the nude. The Eucharist was also private, allowing only the baptized to participate in it.
During the first two centuries of the church, it seems as though adult baptism was normative (but apparently not exclusively). The evidence for or against infant baptism in the apostolic and post apostolic eras is both indirect and ambiguous. There was, however, a conflict that arose during the latter part of the 2nd century related to infant baptism (see Tertullian). By the middle of the 3rd century infant baptism had become common practice (Cyprian) though not universally observed (Gregory of Nazianzus) (Brauer 83). The theological significance behind adult baptism would be an antecedent profession of faith. In regards to infant baptism such a profession of faith is obviously excluded. In the place of a profession of faith, emphasis was placed on what was done to and for the one being baptized (Brauer 83,84).
There are four main initiatory traditions. First, in East Syria there was the sequence of a messianic anointing with olive oil; water-bath; then the Eucharist. As a latter addition, there was a second anointing with chrism. This was added between the water-bath and the Eucharist.[3] Secondly, the more Hellenistic churches of West Syria had a water-bath; anointing with chrism; and the Eucharist.[4] Thirdly, there is a hybrid of East and west Syrian modes where there was a renouncing of Satan and acceptance of Christ that preceded the messianic anointing; water-bath; anointing with chrism; then the Eucharist.[5] The fourth tradition is characterized by, an exorcistic anointing; water-bath; anointing with chrism; presentation of the newly baptized to the assembled faithful[6] including laying on of hands, prayer for the grace of the Spirit, and a second anointing with chrism; then the Eucharist.[7] (Kavanagh 299). The east is marked by an emphasis on baptism as an incorporation into the divine Logos, while the west stressed forgiveness of sin and redemption from the devil (Brauer 83).
There was much diversity in the details of ceremonies that accompanied baptism in the early church before the end of the fourth century. For adults some of what was involved included fasting and prayer before the rite. A vigil was held the preceding night followed by a renunciation of the devil at dawn. The body was anointed against the devil. There was the actual immersion and baptismal confession recital. They were clothed in white. Hands were laid on them. There was a signing of the cross in chrism oil; an acceptance by the bishop for the community; first participation in the Eucharist; and a partaking of milk and honey. For infants, there was an emphasis on exorcism, which replaced the confession of sin. (Brauer 83).

Hippolytus on Baptism
Hippolytus was a second/third century (198-236 A.D.) western Greek writing church (Rome) theologian. He mentions having heard discourses by Irenaeus and Eusebius, the early church historian, referred to him as a bishop and contemporary of Origin. It is believed that he died a martyr in the mines of Sardinia during the time of Apollonius a Roman senator (Schaff vol. 2, 758-9). In Hippolytus’ Apostolic Traditions, he gives us a glimpse into the early church’s administration of baptism.
The process begins with the catechumen (applicant for baptism). Catechumens spend three years as hearers of the word. The process could take less time depending on the character of the catechumen. After this time of instruction, the catechumens pray by themselves apart from the other believers. The women had to stand by themselves in a separate part of the church during this time. When the catechumens finish their prayers, they are not allowed to give a kiss of peace because their kiss is not yet pure. This is reserved for the already baptized and even then this salutation was between men and men, women and women. After the time of prayer, the instructor that trained the catechumens would lay his hands on them, pray and dismiss them (Hippolytus 43).
Hippolytus goes on to give us insight into the “baptism in blood.”[8] In explaining what a catechumen should do in the case of being arrested for his faith Hippolytus says, “If a catechumen should be arrested for the name of the Lord, let him not hesitate about bearing his testimony; for if it should happen that they treat him shamefully and kill him, he will be justified, for he has been baptized in his own blood” (Hippolytus 44).
The ones that are set apart and chosen for baptism are the ones who’s lives have been examined and met certain standards. Their lives have been examined to see whether or not they have lived soberly, honored the widows, visited the sick, and have been active in well doing. These are set apart from the other catechumens and hands are laid on them daily in exorcism. When the day of their baptism draws near the bishop himself exorcises them so he can be personally sure that they are pure. If any are found not to be good and pure, they are put aside as not having heard the word in faith, “for it is never possible for the alien to be concealed” (Hippolytus 44).
Those set apart for baptism are then required to bathe on Thursday, freeing themselves of any impurities. Women that are menstruating have to be set aside and baptized on another day. On Friday the candidates are to fast. On Saturday, the bishop assembles them and commands them to kneel in prayer. The bishop then lays hands on them and exorcises all the evil spirits to flee and never to return. After doing this he breathes in their faces, seals their foreheads, ears and noses, then raises them up. The candidates then spend all night in vigil as they listen to reading and instruction.
At the crowing of the cock the next morning, prayer is made over the water, and the stage is set so that the stream either flows through the baptismal tank or pours into it from above. If there is a scarcity of water, whatever water that can be found should be used (Hippolytus 44,45).[9]
They are then to remove their clothing for the actual baptism. The little ones are to be baptized first.[10] If they can speak for themselves, they should do so. If not their parents, other relatives are to speak for them. The men are baptized next. The women are baptized last having let their hair loose and put aside any gold or silver ornaments that they may have been wearing (Hippolytus 45).
At the set hour of baptism, the bishop gives thanks over the oil and places it in a vessel, (the anointing is preformed by a presbyter). This is called the oil of thanksgiving. Other oil is then taken and exorcised. This oil is called the oil of exorcism. Two deacons then stand at the side of the presbyter. The deacon with the oil of exorcism stands to the presbyter’s left and the deacon with the oil of thanksgiving stands on his right. Then the presbyter takes hold of those that are to be baptized and commands him to renounce Satan. He is to say these words: “I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy servants and all thy works” (Hippolytus 45).
After this is done, the presbyter anoints him with the oil of exorcism saying, “Let all spirits depart from thee” (Hippolytus 46). Having done this, he is given over to the presbyter who baptizes. The presbyter, candidate, and a deacon all go down into the water.

Then, after these things, let him give him over to the presbyter who baptizes, and let the candidates stand in the water, naked, a deacon going with them likewise. And when he who is being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe (Hippolytus 46).

There are three final phases left in the formula of the baptismal ceremony.

Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the quick and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time. And afterward, when he has come up out of the water, he is anointed by the presbyter with the oil of thanksgiving, the presbyter saying: I anoint thee with the holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ. And so each one, after drying himself, is immediately clothed, and then is brought into the church (Hippolytus 46,47).[11]

Having done this there was then a confirmation and commission to service which included another anointing, and signing on the forehead. At this point, the baptized are allowed to join in prayer with the faithful (previously they were not allowed to do this or give the kiss of peace), and give the kiss of peace (Hippolytus 47,48). The Eucharist followed all this.

The Didache on Baptism
The Didache (also called “The Doctrine/Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) is an early church document of church practices that gives some insight into how baptisms were performed in the church. The Didache says,

As for baptism, baptize this way. …baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized—and others who are able—fast; tell the one being baptized to fast one or two days before. …Let no one eat or drink of your thanksgiving [meal; i.e., the eucharistic meal] save those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, since the Lord has said, ‘Do not give to dogs what is holy’ (Didache 9,10).

Like Hippolytus, the Didache is concerned with how the water is to be used, but making an exception (to what was apparently immersion) in the case that there was a lack of water. In such an instance water could be poured on the head of the baptized. We also see that the Didache required fasting, and the Eucharist was not to be partaken of apart from having been baptized.

II. Infant Baptism versus Believers Baptism
Hippolytus and the Didache are only two examples of the mode of baptism in the early church. As mentioned above, there are variations as to the details of how baptism was administered. The debates that surround the mode or method of baptism are somewhat minimal in contrast to the intensity of the debate on the issue of the recipients of baptism, i.e. adult versus infant baptism. Not only was there disagreement on this in the early church, but also this is one of the most enduring and hotly debated topics in the church today.
This part of the baptism debate is different from the current debate among Protestants that primarily agree that there is no regenerative presence in baptism. Today some Protestants argue that we should not baptize infants because of the need for regeneration and after such regeneration has taken place, baptism is then administered as a sign of the new birth. Others argue that the sign should be administered to infants in anticipation to a time of future generation, baptism being the sign of the covenant and having taken the place of circumcision.
The believer’s baptism in the early church, however, had plenty to do with regeneration. Baptismal regeneration was popularly taught in the early church, Tertullian being the most popular proponent of it. He discouraged infant baptism believing that one should wait until later in life to receive the cleansing of baptism. Baptismal regeneration is contrary to the scriptures, but one of the problems that the early church faced was that they did not have the completed cannot of the New Testament. Some times only fragments were available. Others did not even have this, but had to depend on memorized portions of scripture. It is no wonder then that there were some unorthodox beliefs in the early church.

Cyprian
Cyprian (ca. 200-258 AD) who is famous for his saying, “there is no salvation outside the church” was an early church theologian and martyr. In The Epistles of Cyprian LVIII, we find that Cyprian argued that an infant could be baptized as soon as it was born, rather than having to wait, as some contended, until the eighth day after birth.

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 that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, ‘the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them, ‘ as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost….But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed , remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace—how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam (Cyprian in Roberts vol. V 353,354).

It is clear that infant baptism was very much a part of the early church. There was some disagreement as relates to this though. This disagreement starts with Tertullian and expands into the area of those that did not baptize infants. Cyprian was not as concerned about the ultimate effects that baptism would have on the infant as his teacher Tertullian was.

Tertullian
Tertullian (ca. 160-230 AD) the greatest early church theologian (called the master theologian by Cyprian), and is known for his saying, “What has the academy to do with the Church? What has Christ to do with Plato—Jerusalem with Athens?” believed that, because baptism had regenerative powers, one should wait until the end of one’s life before being baptized. That way one could enter heaven freshly cleansed. This is obviously very risky business! One can see though, why Tertullian would be opposed to infant baptism.
Tertullian has a somewhat different take on infant baptism then does Cyprian. In his work On Baptism XVIII, he argues that the delay of baptism is preferable. Tertullian, however, is not arguing that one should delay to the eighth day as the opponents of Cyprian argued. He argues for something more drastic.

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 is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both 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? The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; 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?’ More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ‘ask’ for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given ‘to him that asketh.’…If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay… (Tertullian in Roberts vol. 3 678).

There are no documents in the early church that attack infant[12] baptism as false or heretical in anyway. Tertullian is the best source for support that infant baptism should not be administered. His reason for dissention, however, are not as strong as some would like. In a sense he seems to simply express the notion that baptism should be deferred but it would not be completely unlawful to baptize infants.
However, due to the limited information given by Tertullian on this topic, interpreting him may not be so easy. Tertullian does not seem to have a serious problem with infant baptism from one point of view, but one could also infer that infant baptism should be deferred altogether if we take Tertullian to a logical conclusion. Schaff says,

Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism…. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. He meets it not as an innovation, but as a prevalent custom; and he meets it not with exegetical nor historical arguments, but only with considerations of religious prudence. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception (Schaff 259,261 vol. II).

Deathbed baptisms were popular throughout the early church, which meant that there were a number of people that did not get baptized as infants. There was a significant amount of freedom during the early church in this respect. Schaff points out prominent figures such as Constantine, Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augstine (cf. Augustine’s Confessions Bk. I). Constantine sat among the fathers at the Council of Nicaea, giving legal status to its decrees, but put off his baptism to his deathbed. The others had pious mothers but they were not baptized until they were adults (Schaff 258 vol. II).
In conclusion we see that there was disagreement in the early church on the details of the way baptism was administered. We also see that there was disagreement on whether or not infants should be baptized.

Bibliography

Augustine. Confessions. Henry Chadwick, Trans., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Brauer, Jerald C., Ed. “Baptism”. The Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Hamman, A. “Baptism”. Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Vol. I. Angelo Di Berardino, Ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Hippolytus. Apostolic Traditions

Jefford, Clayton N., Ed. The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Kavanagh, Aidan. “Christian Initiation”. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Alan Richardson and John Bowden, Eds. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983.

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, Eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. III, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 1973.

---. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Vol. V, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdsmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church. Vol. II, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.


[1] I do have personal (yet growing) convictions in regard to baptism but they are not relevant here.
[2] I mention a distinction between those that believed baptism to be regenerative and those that did not. The early church for the most part believed in baptismal regeneration. The apostles clearly did not. One would assume that their teaching on this would be transmitted and received to some degree. I do not at this time have sources on this, and so my distinction in this part of the debate may be more related to latter and contemporary times in the Christian church as opposed to the era of the early church. Assumptions are not always good.
[3] The acts of Thomas, Didascalia Apostolorum, and the Armenian Ordo attest to this.
[4] Found in the post-baptismal catecheses of Cyril. Apparently this was a mark of the non-Roman churches of Gaul and Spain as well.
[5] According to Apostolic Constitutions
[6] Here we have an account of a public affirmation of the initiate’s baptism. This was previously private (Richardson 300).
[7] Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition
[8] There were two types of baptism in the early church, water baptism and the baptism in blood, reserved only for martyrs.
[9] It is interesting to note that there was the use of some sort of baptismal tank. It is not clear to me what exactly this was and I hate to speculate. It is also interesting to note that baptism was flexible in accordance to the availability of water, cf. also what the Didache has to say in regards to this.
[10] Again it is interesting to not that Hippolytus included the “little ones.” It is not clear whether or not they were infants, but he does mention that some were so young that they could not speak for themselves.
[11] In this paper I have tried to minimize long quotes by paraphrasing, however, I have included some more than usual lengthy quotes in order to bring in a portion of the voice of the primary sources.
[12] I think that it is safe to say that Tertullian includes infants in regards to “little children” given the context of what was happening with Cyprian.