The
Baptism of Children
Extra-biblical
evidence
It is necessary before considering this evidence to say
something about the nature of extra-biblical evidence. Extra-biblical
evidence, whether it be for or against the baptism of children, does not
and should not carry the weight of biblical evidence. It is a timely
reminder that the United Free Church "acknowledges as her supreme
standard the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments". All else is subordinate to that supreme standard. We
concur with a statement which appears in the Introductory Note of the
Church of Scotland's The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism: "The
Doctrine of Baptism must be founded on the Teaching of Holy Scripture". The
Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, a study document
issued by the Special Commission on Baptism of the Church of Scotland
(Convener, Prof T F Torrance), The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p 5 The
supremacy of Scripture does not mean, however, that extra-biblical
evidence is of no value. In our interpretation of Scripture it may have
a supportive, corroborative or guiding role to play. There are lessons
to be learned from the geography, religion and culture of the New
Testament era, just as there are lessons to be learned from the history
and developing theology of the church. So, for example, our
understanding of the Trinity is assisted by the insights of those who
had to combat the heresy of Arianism, and our understanding of
justification by faith is assisted by the insights of the Reformers. It
is on this basis that consideration is given to proselyte baptisms and to
some writings of the Early Church Fathers. Their relevance is not
assumed in advance. The evidence has to be assessed. But they may serve
a purpose. In any case, in view of the fact that both are frequently
quoted either in support of or in opposition to infant baptism, some
attention to them will be helpful.1. Proselyte baptisms Reference has
already been made to proselyte baptisms under the heading Jewish
antecedents . It is not without significance that when converts to the
Jewish faith were baptised their children were included in the act of
baptism. Whether proselyte baptism came before Christian baptism or
Christian baptism came before proselyte baptism makes little difference.
The practice of including children shows how deeply embedded into the
Jewish psyche was the importance of children in God's covenant purposes.
The inclusion of children in proselyte baptisms adds weight to the
argument that Jewish converts to Christ would take it for granted that
their children were to be included in the act of baptism. The Biblical
Doctrine of Baptism, a study document issued by the Special Commission on
Baptism of the Church of Scotland (Convener, Prof T F Torrance), The Saint
Andrew Press 1958, pp 45f. 1. Evidence from the post-apostolic period The
evidence with respect to infant baptist in the post-apostolic period,
from the New Testament era up to the time of Tertullian (c150/160-215
AD), is meagre and inconclusive. It can be and has been used by both
sides in the debate. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, J
Jeremias, SCM 1960, and the response by Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church
Baptise Infants? These two developed the debate and stimulated much
further argument and counter-argument. The period dealt with here takes
us up to Origen.1. The Didache The Didache A New Eusebius (Ed J
Stevenson), SPCK 1975, p 126 claims to present the teaching of the
Twelve Apostles on a number of issues, including Baptism. It informs us
that instruction preceded baptism and that baptism was in the name of
the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is flexible with
respect to the mode of baptism, leading the Brethren scholar, FF Bruce,
to observe, ""There is a spirit of eminent reasonableness here.
The meaning of baptism is much more important than the form. Running
water is best. (Why? Because Jesus was baptised in Jordan?) But 'static
water' will do instead; and if there is not enough of either,affusion is
as valid as dipping. "The Spreading Flame, Paternoster 1961,p193.
On the question of child baptism, however, the Didache is silent, neither
affirming nor denying it. How we interpret the silence will be determined
by our interpretation of the biblical data and our theological
presuppositions. Over and above the Didache's silence we are faced with
some uncertainty over dating. Discovered in 1875 initial enthusiasm for
an early dating has given way to considerable scepticism. Datesf rom the
first to the fourth century have been suggested. H Bettenson says that it
was "admittedly 'pseudepigraphical 'in claiming to be the 'teaching
of
the Apostles'" and dates it late second century. The Early
Christian Fathers, OUP 1969, p 6. In any case evidence foror against
child baptism is non-existent. 1. Pliny (c112) Sent by the Emperor
Trajan to reorganise the affairs of the province of Bithynia, Pliny wrote
to the Emperor with information on the activities of Christians and asked
for guidance as to how he should treat them. His letter, datedc112,
comments on the number of people affected by the Christian error,
"many of all ages" A New Eusebius (Ed J Stevenson), SPCK 1975,
p 14. including the young (teneri). It is difficult to see any
significance for infant baptism, either for or against, in Pliny's
letter. 1. Justin Martyr (early Christian Apologist who taught in Rome;
c100-165) In his First Apology (c150) Justin mentions "many men and
women of the age of sixty and seventy years who have been disciples (or
'who were made disciples') of Christ from childhood" .Infant Baptism
in the First Four Centuries, SCM 1960, p 72. Jeremias and Buchanan
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries , SCM 1960, p 72; C Buchanan,
A Case for Infant Baptism Grove Books1973, p23. point out that the word
translated "have been disciples"is in the passive and is used
elsewhere by Justin to refer to baptism. Dialogue with Trypho, 39.2. WF
Flemington observes that: (a) the verb mathçteuô used by Justin in the
passive is the same verb that is used in the active in Matthew 28.19,
"make disciples of all nations, baptising them…"; (b)
Justin's use of the aorist tense suggests a particular moment when these
men and women entered into discipleship as infants. The New Testament
Doctrine of Baptism ,SPCK 1948, p132.Aland argues that Justin's
description of baptism excludes the possibility that he knew about infant
baptism, but this again is an argument from silence. 1. Polycarp (Bishop
of Smyrna
(Asia Minor] c70-155/168) According to Irenaeus, Polycarp had been
"instructed by the Apostles and acquainted with many who had seen
the Lord (and) was also appointed for Asia by the Apostles as bishop in
the churchin Smyrna". Against Heresies III, ii-iii, see H Bettenson
(Ed), The Early Christian Fathers , OUP1969, p 91. Certainly Polycarp's
link with the apostolic era gives added weight to his words.
He is best knownfor his testimony to Christ immediately prior to his
martyrdom, "Eighty-six years have I served him, and he has done me
no wrong: how then can I blaspheme my King who saved me. "A New
Eusebius (Ed J Stevenson), SPCK 1975, p 21. The relevant question for our
discussion is this. what did Polycarp mean by, "Eighty-six years I
have served him…"?There are several possibilities.(1) Polycarp had
served Christ as a believer and as a baptised person for eighty-six
years,i.e.
his baptism followed immediately after his conversion. In which case,
allowing for his conversion and baptism at (say) fourteen years of age,
he would have been approximately one hundred years old at the time of
his martyrdom. Such a reading of the evidence is very difficult. Not only
were centenarians rare in those days we know that Polycarp travelled
from Smyrna to Rome shortly before his martyrdom, when Anicetus was
Bishop of Rome (c155-c166).Against Heresies III, ii-iii, see H Bettenson
(Ed), The Early Christian Fathers, OUP 1969, p 91. Allowing for the
different datings of his martyrdom between 155 and 168Infant Baptism in
the First Four Centuries , SCM 1960, pp60-64; also J Stevenson, A New
Eusebius , SPCK 1975, p 60. The date most commonly accepted for
Polycarp's martyrdom is AD167-8. A later date of 177 has received little
support. Polycarp must, according to this understanding of Polycarp's
'eighty-six years', have been somewhere between ninety and one
hundred years when he made that journey - not wholly impossible, but very
unlikely. (2) He had served Christ as a believer for eighty-six years,
becoming a believer as a child and being baptised at a later age, say
fourteen. In which case he was eighty-six years plus at the time of his
death. This may encounter a similar difficulty as under (1). The older he
was when he became a believer the greater the difficulty.(3) He had
served Christ from the moment of his baptism as a child for eighty-six
years, i.e. he dates his service to Christ from the moment of his baptism
as a child in a Christian household. In which case he was eighty-six
years old at the time of his martyrdom. Should this reading of the
evidence be correct Polycarp would have been baptised as a child between
69 and 82.The discussion that centres on Polycarp is fascinating but
also inconclusive, though the last interpretation is the one with least
problems.1. Testimony of the martyrs (martyred probably under Marcus
Aurelius, 161-80) Various records relate the testimonyof Christians on
trial who testified to being Christians from an early age.In the Acts of
the Martyrs Papylus stated,"I have served God from my youth up, and
I have never sacrificed to idols, but am a
Christian. "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries , SCM 1960, p
64. In the Acts of Justin and his Companions we have similar testimony.
A
New Eusebius, SPCK 1975, pp 28ff. In this latterrecord the Prefect is
trying to establish whether those on trial became Christians through
Justin (Martyr). In response to the prefect's, "Did Justin make you
a Christian," Hierax stated, "I was, and ever shall be a
Christian." in response to the prefect's, "Who taught
you?" Paeon answered, "I received from my parents this good
confession." Before being asked, Euelpistus volunteered the
information" I listened gladly to the words of Justin, but I too
received Christianity from parents." It is possible that what they
received from their parents included their baptism, but that is not
clear. The men being questioned are essentially making the point that
Justin was not responsible for their becoming Christians. 1. Irenaeus
(c130/140- c200; Bishop of Lyons, writing c190) Irenaeusis important as
a third generation Christian. As a boy he had listened to Polycarp, who
in turn had listened to John. Bettenson describes him as "the first
biblical theologian".The Early Christian Fathers , OUP 1969, p 13.
In his Against Heresies Irenaeus wrote, "For he (Jesus) has come to
save all of them by himself: all those, I say, who through him are
reborn into God, infants, young children, boys, the mature and older
people." The suggestion is that "Jesus sanctifies and saves
every age, babies and little children as well as boys, youths and older
men, in short, 'all who through him are reborn into God.' "Infant
Baptism in the First Four Centuries, SCM 1960, pp 72f. Whether Irenaeus'
words may or may not be used in support of child baptism they may
certainly be used in support of child salvation and as such they are a
reminder that human beings are not at liberty to place limits on God's
saving grace. 1. Polycrates (Bishop of Ephesus, writing c190) In a letter
to the Bishop of Rome in connection with the date of Easter, Polycrates
supplies the information that he was "sixty-five years in the Lord
." Jeremias assumes that this means he was baptised as a child
sixty-five years previously, cAD 125.InfantBaptism in the First Four
Centuries, SCM 1960, p 63. Aland points out that there is no reference
to baptism and argues that Polycrates "intends to indicate nothing
more than his age (what a Christian possesses, he has en
kuriô)."Did the Early Church Baptise Infants , SCM 1961, pp 72f.
While it is true that there is no explicit statement here either for or
against child baptism it hardly does justice to Polycrates' "in the
Lord" to reduce it to a statement about his age. That is even more
the case when Aland argues that Polycarp's eighty-six years are also to
be understood as a statement of his age. "Served Christ" is
not so easily emptied of its content. 1. Hippolytus (c160-235;presbyter
in the Church at Rome) Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition provides us with
a picture of Roman church order and worship at the end ofthe second
century. Our knowledge of this particular work comes from a varietyof
books which use it as a source. Its rule for infant baptism is
preservedin the Coptic Egyptian Church Order , the Arabic Egyptian
Church Order, the Ethiopic Egyptian Church Order, and the Syriac (Testamentum
Domini nostri Jesu Christi). Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries,
SCM 1960, pp 13f. Although the Apostolic Tradition is dated c215
Hippolytus' purpose was to record the tradition of the Church as he knew
it. The passage dealing with baptism tells us: "First you should
baptise the little ones. All who can speak for themselves should speak.
But for those who cannot speak, their parents should speak or another
who belongs to their family." Apostolic Tradition (Coptic text),
According to Hippolytus adults were to be baptised after the little
ones. He also prescribes a probationary period of three years before
baptism, a period omitted in the case of children. Aland seeks to
counter this with an affirmation that "it is at least possible that
the section relating to the baptism of children is an interpolation from
a later age" (his italics).Did the Early Church Baptise Infants ,
SCM 1961, p 49f. Of course, many things are possible, but this does seem
to be a case of special pleading on the part of Aland. What we have here
is a clear statement re the baptism of children, i.e. "little ones…
those who cannot speak". 1. Tertullian (c160/70-c215/20) It is
indisputable that in his De Baptismo (c200 AD) Tertullian argued for a
"postponement" of baptism, "particularly…in the case of
children". The word "particularly" should be noted. What
is often not mentioned is that Tertullian advocated a general
postponement of baptism: "Consequently in view of the
circumstances and will,even the age of each person, a postponement of
baptism is most advantageous…."After giving his reasons as to why
baptism should be postponed for children he states, "For no less
reason the baptism of the unmarried should also be postponed", and
for Tertullian the "unmarried" included "the
widowed". A New Eusebius , SPCK 19675, p185. There are a number of
factors that should be born in mind regarding Tertullian:He was the son
of a pagan centurion, converted to Christianity in 193 by witnessing the
courage of Christians facing torture and death for the Faith". The
Early Christian Fathers , OUP 1969, p 14. He lived and wrote against a
background of vicious persecution. Soon after his conversion he wrote
his Apology of the Christian faith arguing that the persecution of
Christians was illegal and immoral. By nature Tertullian was
uncompromising. The Early Christian Fathers, OUP 1969, p 14. That is
clear from his wholly unyielding opposition to anything which might
contaminate the faith. We see it, for example, in his opposition to
philosophy: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What harmony can
there be between the Academy and the Church?" A New Eusebius, SPCK
19675, p178. Tony Lane comments, "Tertullian wrote always as an
advocate - defending his own position and attacking all rivals. This he
did with the full range of rhetorical skills at his disposal. He has
been described as 'an apologist who never apologised'! His aim was the
total annihilation of his opponents. They had to be shown to be totally
wrong - and morally suspect to boot. Tertullian was not being vindictive
or dishonest. He was completely convinced about the rightness of his
cause and sincerely sought to argue it as best he could. "The Lion
Concise Book of Christian Thought, Lion 1984, p 18. He was not only
uncompromising to opponents and perverters of the Christian faith,
however, he was uncompromising to professing Christians who failed to
maintain the high ethical demands of the Christian faith and to
Christians who apostatised. It tells us something about Tertullianthat
around 203 he left the catholic church to join the Montanists. HD
McDonald says of the Montanists that "the movement bears
resemblance to the many illuminist and millenarian sects that flourished
at the time of the Reformation and subsequently". The New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church (EdJD Douglas),
Paternoster 1974 p 674. The sect was known for its enthusiasm but also
for its asceticism. FJA Hort listed as one of the characteristics of the
Montanist movement, "an inculcation of a specially stern and
exacting standard of Christian morality and discipline". The
Spreading Flame , Paternoster 1958, p 219. According to W Walker it was
Tertullian's "native Puritanism" that "brought him into
sympathy with Montanism". A History of the Christian Church, T
& T Clark 1959, p 64. JWC Wand describes him as "this first
great Puritan of the West" ( A History of the early Church, Methuen
1963, p 80). The Montanist movement expected and lived for the end of
the age and inevitably invited persecution. It was intolerant of those
who apostatised in the face of persecution. There is a reference in
Augustine to Tertullianists who rejoined the catholic Church in Carthage
during his lifetime. Some have concluded from this reference that
Tertullian left the Montanists to form his own movement, but it maybe
that "Tertullianist" was simply another name for Montanist.
Tertullian's rigorous and uncompromising approach with respect to
baptism is seen in a scathing reference he makes to Hermas'The Shepherd,
a work dated somewhere betweenc90-140/150. With Hebrews 6.4-8 in mind,
Hermas had written, "I have heard, sir, from some teachers that
there is no second repentance beyond the one given when we went down
into the water and received remission of our former sins." In his
response the Shepherd tells Hermas, "You have heard correctly…
For he who has received remission of sin ought never to sin again, but
to live in purity." The Shepherd seems then in his subsequent
guidance to allow for one further repentance after his baptism:
"after that great and holy calling, if a man be tempted by the devil
and sin, he has one repentance, but if he sin and repent repeatedly it is
unprofitable for such a man, for scarcely shall he live." A New
Eusebius, SPCK 19675,pp52f. It is helpful to know that Hermas had lost
his property and seen his sons apostatise during persecution. Because
Hermas permitted one post-baptismal sin Tertullian describes him as
"the apocryphal shepherd of the adulterers"! Tertullian was
driven in part to maintain the purity of the Church. It was this concern
that had led to long preparatory and probationary periods between
conversion and baptism in the case of adults. According to Tertullian
the Ethiopian in Acts 7 was a special case, as was Saul of Tarsus. It
was the same concern that urged a postponement or delay in baptism for
adults as well as children: "Those who understand the importance of
baptism will rather fear its attainment than its delay; unimpaired faith
is certain of salvation. "The Early Christian Fathers , OUP 1969, p
146.One thing is clear. The baptism of children was the norm in
Tertullian's day and, presumably, at the time of his conversion (AD
193). It is the move against the baptism of children that seems to be
the innovation rather than the practice of it. Given the circumstances
and Tertullian's opposition to all hasty baptisms and his advocacy of a
delay for several categories of people it is inevitable that this would
affect the baptism of children. It could hardly have been otherwise.
Thereis one other interesting factor in Tertullian's approach which is
worth noting. A powerful argument among the early Christian writers of
that period in the presentation of their case was an appeal to the
apostolic tradition. It was the authority in Tertullian's day. If
Tertullian had known that infant baptism was a recent innovation and if
he was arguing against it as such, the most powerful weapon in this
lawyer's weaponry would have been the apostolic tradition. The fact that
he didn't use it may be significant. It is at least possible that he
didn't use it because the apostolic tradition supported the baptism of
children. In the light of all this it is not unreasonable to conclude
with Colin Buchanan, "that Tertullian is on balance more of a
witness for the probability of infant baptism being a received tradition
in his times, than the opposite."1. Clement of
Alexandria(c155-220; Head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School from
190) In his Paedagogus, and in typical allegorical style, Clement speaks
of "children who are drawn from the water" by the fisher. But,
as Jeremias himself comments, "We shall do well to disregard
Clement… it is indeed possible that he is thinking of child baptism,
but he might be thinking of children in the faith (cf. 1 Pet 2.1f) whom
the missionary brings to baptism." Infant Baptism in the First Four
Centuries, SCM 1960, pp 64f. 1. Origen (c185-c254;Head of the
Alexandrian Catechetical School from c203) Three times Origen refers
explicitly to the baptism of children as a custom of the church: (1)
"therefore children also are baptised"; (2) "(baptism is
given) according to the custom of the Church, to infants also"; (3)
"the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptising
infants too". Moreover in each of the three instances, and quoting
from Job 14.4, he affirms, "No one is pure from stain, yea
though he be but one day old, "Homilies on Luke XIV; Homilies on
Leviticus VIII 3;Commentaryon Romans V 9. (italics added). Not only was
Origen's father a Christian, martyred in 202, Eusebius tells us that
Origen's family had been Christian for several generations. Presumably
it is, in part, Origen's personal knowledge of his own family's
experience that leads him to assert that infant baptism was the custom
of the Church. As Jeremias observes, "He could hardly have
expressed himself thus if he had not himself been baptised as a paidion/parvulus
… he could hardly have spoken of a 'tradition handed down from the
apostles' had he not known that at least his father and probably his
grandfather has been baptised as paidia." Infant Baptism in the
First Four Centuries, SCM 1960, p 66. In which case Origen's personal
knowledge can be traced back to the first half of the second century. In
the light of Origen's statements it can hardly be claimed that baptism
was a comparatively new development in the early part of the third
century. It seems more in keeping with the evidence that he was
defending a practice well established rather than defending a practice
that was new. Tombstone inscriptions of little children (third century)
Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, SCM 1960, pp 41,
76-78,85. Jeremias lists a number of inscriptions from which baptism is
inferred. (a) One year old Eutychianus is "a slave of God". (b)
Kyriakos, a 'holy infant', is "a slave of Christ'.(c) An 'innocent
infant'
Dionysios 'lies here with the holy ones'. (d) Two-year old
PomponiaFortunata 'died in peace' and her inscription bears the symbolof
the fish.(e) Three year old Innocens is designated spirito sancto. (f)
The inscription of eleven months Theodora has the symbol of a bird with a
twig in its beak and bears the word in take . (g) Nine year old Arisus
died" in peace". A number of inscriptions are included where
baptism is implied (h) or actually stated (i) and (j). (h) From the
Priscilla Catacomb in Rome we have an inscription to Apronianus who died
aged "one year and nine months and five days". We are
informed that his grandmother" asked the church that he might depart
from the world as a believer" -an early case of an emergency
baptism. (i) Another inscription from the same Catacomb is to Tyche, one
year ten months and fifteen days. Tyche was baptised (accepit) the same
day as her death. (j) Irene was baptised (acc[epit])six days before her
death.1. Conclusion Overall, the evidence from the post-apostolic period
is inconclusive. There is little reference to the baptism of children
and
where there is reference it is ambiguous. Some have concluded from this
that children were not baptised. Others have concluded that the
baptism of children was simply taken for granted. It is certainly the
case that the baptism of children was the norm at the time of Tertullian,
i.e. by the end of the second century. According to Origen, whose family
had been Christian for several generations - going back to the middle of
the second century, the practice of baptising children was received from
the apostles. Interestingly Origen appeals to the apostolic tradition
whereas Tertullian does not. While the meaning of Polycarp's
"eighty-six years have I served him" has not been finally determined, that which dates his service to Christ from the
moment of his
baptism is the one which carries with it least problems. Polycarp was born
around 70 AD. What we can say with confidence is that there is nothing in
the evidence from the post apostolic which contradicts our
conclusions with respect to the baptism of children from the biblical
data.
Other
Sections of the Report an be reached by clicking on the following Chapter
headings
:
Institution
of Baptism
Origins of Water Baptism
The
Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: Extra-Biblical Evidence
The
Proper Subjects for Baptism
The
Mode of Baptism
The
Way Forward
