Okay, now we're going to move into the third and fourth centuries. However, before going there, I need to acquaint you with three practices that completely change how you would otherwise look at the quotes that we're going to be reading in a few minutes. Now, unfortunately, Pedo Baptists almost never bring up these three things, and it skews the entire picture if you don't understand them. So let's go through them. The first that has to be taken into account is the practice of emergency baptisms.
Emergency baptisms are something we rarely see today, except in the case maybe of adults who've never been baptized, but now they're facing death. We rarely see emergency baptisms for infants and young children today. That's because churches that practice infant baptism, well, they've already baptized those children as newborn infants. And churches that practice believers ' baptism would believe that children under the age of accountability don't need to be baptized.
But in the third and fourth centuries, people of all ages were being baptized on their deathbeds, from infants to young children, to teenagers to adults. Well, what's the significance of this as far as our discussion? Well, first, just because an infant was baptized in a pre-Nicene congregation, doesn't mean that that congregation normally baptized every newborn infant who was born.
The congregation may have mainly practiced believer's baptism, but they allowed emergency baptism for infants and children if they were on their deathbed. Furthermore, there wasn't necessarily any particular theology connected with these emergency baptisms of infants and small children. Often, the parents simply wanted their child to pass into eternity, having been sealed as a Christian, you know, through baptism.
The other thing that is significant about these emergency baptisms is that they prove beyond a doubt that even in the third and fourth centuries, many, if not most churches, did not practice infant baptism as a normal or universal practice. If they did, you would not have had all these emergency baptisms of children who were about to die because they would have already been baptized as newborn infants. As we're about to see, these infants and children ranged in age from a few weeks old to their teen years.
Now, our primary evidence for these emergency infant and child baptisms are the tombstones that have been uncovered in Rome and other places. And I want to read to you some of the inscriptions found on these grave markers because they really change the entire scenario that is often presented to us. But before I read these, I should explain to you two terms you're going to be hearing. One is the word " kalends ", which refers to the first day of the month of a Roman calendar.
The other term is ides, which refers to the 15th day of the month. So the Romans tended to count days from either the Kalends, which was the first day of the month, or the ides of the month, which was the 15th. Now, another expression you're going to hear that is common on these tombstones is received grace. That this person was ill and it says they received grace on a certain day. This meant they received baptism. Now, all scholars, pedo Baptists or not, they agree on that point. That's not controversial.
Finally, often the tombstone will say that a person was a neophyte, and that meant that they had just been baptized. Okay, so with those explanations, let me read to you some of these inscriptions. Most of these come from the Roman catacombs, actually. The first one says, " Sweet Tyche, lived one year, 10 months, 15 days. Received grace, that is baptism, on the eighth day before the Kalends, gave up her soul on the same day.
" So she wasn't baptized until the day of her death, and she was one year and ten months old. So obviously, she wasn't baptized as a newborn. In fact, she wouldn't have been baptized as an infant at all, except for the fact that she was facing death. Okay, let's go to another one. It says, " Postumius Yutin, a believer who obtained holy grace the day before his birthday at a very late hour and died. He lived six years and was buried on the 5th of the Ides of July on the day of Jupiter on which he was born.
His soul is with the saints in peace. So this young boy was baptized on the day of his death. It says he was six years old. It was on his very birthday that he died six years later. All right, let's go to another one. Irene, who lived with her parents ten months and six days, received grace seven days before the Ides of April and gave up her soul on the Ides of April. So again, we have a young child, this time an infant, only 10 months old and got baptized on the day of her death.
And it's interesting because again, if everyone was practicing infant baptism, then she would have been baptized you know a few days after she was born. But no, it was ten months after she was born and only because she was on her deathbed. Okay, I'll read another one. Florentius made this monument to his worthy son, Apronianus, who lived one year, nine months, and five days. And in this case, the grandmother requested the baptism.
Another one: " To the well-deserving neophyte " that means he had just been baptized, Ronianus, who lived 8 years and 15 days, he rests in peace. So there's a pattern here. It doesn't seem to matter what age it is that these children, whether it's 10 months old, five years old, eight years old, they would have no doubt received baptism, either as an adult or a late juvenile, except that they had a mortal disease. And that's when they received baptism.
These are from the third, and some of these are from the fourth century, showing that infant baptism was obviously not the norm. Okay, one more. This is from the Roman catacombs. Pastor Titiana, Marciana, and Creste made this for Marcianus, their worthy son in Christ, who lived 12 years, 2 months, and 10 days, who received grace on the 12th day before the Kalends. Live among the saints in eternity, and that dates to AD 268.
A lot of the tombstones you may be wondering, they have dates on them, not the way that we date things, but the dates are they state who the different Roman officials who were in office at that time, and that enables us to date it to a precise year. Now, there are literally thousands of these kinds of inscriptions. I've only read to you a handful, and these date all from the 3rd century on. As I said, many of them give the names of the consuls in office so that we can gauge the specific year of their death.
These tombstones reveal that infant baptism was often practiced in the 3rd and 4th centuries only because the infant was facing imminent death. They had not been baptized as a newborn infant. So, yeah, that's one of the things that's very important to remember when we read all these quotes is this existence, very common practice, at least in the 3rd century on, of emergency baptisms. Okay, the second phenomenon that doesn't exist today is the baptism of small children.
Now, today, we think in terms of just two categories when it comes to baptism. There's newborn infants, and then there's adults and juveniles. But what we see in the third and fourth century is a third category, the baptism of small children. Now, this is often mistaken by people reading the early Christian writings. It's mistaken for infant baptism, but it's considerably different.
The churches that practiced child baptism saw it as a form of believers ' baptism, not as a form of infant baptism as we know it today. Now, to demonstrate this, I want to read to you a passage from Gregory of Nazianzus Concerning the Age of Baptism. This work is important in giving us a snapshot of practices in the late 4th century. Now, the context is that Gregory is encouraging the adults in his congregation to get baptized.
It seems that most of them were putting off baptism until they were near the time of their deaths. And this way, they wouldn't have to worry about falling into serious post-baptismal sin. And Gregory is preaching against this practice of, it sounds like, maybe most of his congregation putting off baptism until way late in life. So this demonstrates just the fact he's having to preach on this. It demonstrates that they're in Constantinople.
I don't know if I mentioned, he was the bishop of Constantinople, which was the capital of the Roman Empire in his day, that obviously infant baptism was not the norm, because otherwise he wouldn't have to be preaching to all these people saying, " Look, you know, you need to get baptized. Don't put it off until your deathbed. " Now, Gregory does go on to talk about emergency baptisms for infants. He approves of it, but he doesn't approve of just normally baptizing your infant children.
And again, this would demonstrate that the baptism of infant children was not the norm in Constantinople, even towards the end of the fourth century. He was bishop there, you know, around the year 380 or 390. Okay, so this is what he says about the age of baptism that he recommends. Now, I'm not endorsing his recommendation. I'm reading it to help you understand how people were thinking back then.
He says this: " But in respect of others, I give my advice to wait until the end of the third year, " that means age four, in other words, or a little more or less, when they may be able, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the sacrament. He's talking about the sacrament of baptism, so that even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate, they may know the outlines, and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration.
He continues, " For this is how the matter stands. At the time they begin to be responsible for their lives when reason is matured and they learn the mystery of life, for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years, they have no account to give, and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the baptismal font because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us stronger than our helpers.
" So, most people who read the early Christian writings and read about the baptism of small children, they automatically assume that this is equivalent to the modern-day practice of infant baptism, which it is not. It is believer's baptism. Gregory is saying that a four-year-old is old enough to believe, to understand the basic outline of what baptism is about. Not all the details, but the basic aspects of it.
He's understanding this child to have reached an age where they are able to make this decision for themselves to make it with a degree of understanding. So, yeah, a lot of my life, certainly when I was an Anglican priest, I read all of these passages about the baptism of children, of little children, and assumed that was infant baptism, and it is not. Now, like I say, it's believer's baptism. It may be misguided believer's baptism, but it is believer's baptism nevertheless.
A four-year-old can definitely believe in Christ with a childlike faith. They can request baptism, and they will probably remember their baptism if they're baptized from four or later on. Now, in saying this, it doesn't mean that I personally support the baptism of children at such a young age. I'm only saying that Christians of the 3rd and 4th centuries viewed it as believers ' baptism.
And so it shouldn't be confused with infant baptism or used in support of infant baptism, particularly mandated infant baptism, which is what's being done today. Now, you may be saying, so what's the difference between child baptism and infant baptism? I mean, it's just a matter of a few years. Let me explain why child baptism is significantly different from infant baptism. Child baptism is based on the faith of the child. Infant baptism is based on the faith of another, normally the parent.
Infant baptism is more akin to the vicarious baptisms of the Mormons, and I hate to use this illustration because obviously there's a big difference between infant baptism and the Mormon vicarious baptisms. But yeah, there is an element that's the same. The Mormons believe that a living Mormon can be baptized for a dead relative and that the living Mormon's faith can make that baptism valid for his relative.
Now, the only difference in infant baptism is that the infant himself receives the baptism and he's still living. Other than that, the principle is the same. It is vicarious salvation. I'm saved through the faith of somebody else, totally apart from my own will or my own knowledge. The other thing that is different about infant baptism is that Catholics and some other churches hold to the doctrine of ex opere operato. That's a Latin term.
And what this means is that the sacrament is automatically effective, regardless of the merits of the minister who performs it, or the person receiving the sacrament, or the parent who is standing in place of the infant child. So according to Catholics, as long as the baptism is properly performed by a duly ordained Catholic priest, it is automatically effective. It's effective if neither the infant nor the parent have the proper faith. Now, this isn't magic, but it's getting uncomfortably close to it.
In contrast, those of us who hold to believers ' baptism would believe that a baptism is not valid if the recipient did not have personal faith in Christ. We are reborn through faith. We're reborn in the water or after the water, but it's based on faith. We're not automatically reborn just by being baptized if personal faith is lacking. So there is a great chasm of difference between infant baptism and child baptism. Child baptism is based upon the faith of the child.
Infant baptism is dependent either on this opera operato theory or is based on the vicarious faith of somebody else. Okay, so those are two things that most people aren't aware of. We've talked about. One is emergency baptisms, the second is child baptism, separate from infant baptism. Okay, there's a third thing, a surprising phenomena of the third and fourth centuries that most people do not take into account when they're discussing that.
And that is the coexistence of both infant and believers ' baptism in those centuries without either side condemning the other as being heretics. Now, today, regardless of what side of the fence you're on, nearly all churches practice either infant baptism or believer's baptism, but not both. They condemn the other practice as either heretical or misguided. Now, after Augustine for over a thousand years, Pedo Baptist churches imprisoned parents for not baptizing their children.
In fact, they often put them to death. Today, churches divide over this issue. But what we clearly see in the 3rd and 4th centuries is that neither the Church as a whole, nor any individual congregation split over the issue of infant baptism versus believer's baptism. So we've got to keep this in mind when we see a quotation in the 3rd or 4th century supporting infant baptism or supporting believers ' baptism, we have to realize that the other kind of baptism was existing side by side with it.
It's quite different from the situation, you know, we have today. But I've noticed that a lot of Pedo Baptists, and it's usually the Pedo Baptists who are quoting the early church, if there's a reference there to infant baptism, they act like, see, they were all practicing infant baptism. No, they weren't all practicing it, and it wasn't even necessarily the majority practice until you get to Augustine.
So, it's important that we don't read the present strife over the issue of infant baptism back into the third and fourth centuries when it didn't exist. Now, I'm not saying that the third and fourth century churches handled this matter correctly. I'm just saying that when we see a quote in the third century showing a church was practicing infant baptism, we shouldn't imagine that everyone in that church was practicing it, nor should we imagine that every church throughout the world was practicing it.
Okay, so those were the three phenomena I mentioned that we've got to understand if we're going to correctly understand the quotes from the third century. And I'll just repeat them again. The first was emergency baptisms of infants and small children and others. Number two was the practice of baptizing small children who were no longer infants, but weren't juveniles or adults. And then third was this peaceful coexistence between the two branches.
Okay, with those three points in mind, now let's get into the quotations from the third century. The first one is going to be a quote from Tertullian. The passage I'm about to read comes from his work entitled On Baptism. Most scholars date it to around maybe AD 205, so it's the very beginning of the third century. And here Tertullian says this: " 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 where 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 ask.
If any understands the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation. Now, for many years, I thought this passage was referring to infant baptism. And so often I've said in the past that this is our first clear reference to infant baptism. That's because I knew of only two categories, as I've talked about before. There was infant baptism and there's baptism of juvenile and adult believers.
Of course, as we've seen, there's that third category, the baptism of small children. That's what Tertullian is talking about here. Here, Tertullian only mentions little children. He does not mention infants. The Latin word he uses is parvuli, young children. He does not use the word infantily, which is infant. The fact that he mentioned sponsors doesn't change matters. Now, today, the word " sponsor " sounds like the modern-day practice of Godparents for newly baptized infants.
But Tertullian is talking about sponsors who promised to faithfully raise these young children in the faith. So instead of this being the first concrete witness to infant baptism, it is our earliest concrete witness to the baptism of little children. Now, we don't know what age of child Tertullian is addressing. The things he says in the passage indicate that he is talking about children maybe around four or five years old.
Such children might have been old enough to believe in Jesus or would have been old enough to believe in Jesus with a childlike faith. But that's about all. These children were still too young to make a full surrender of their lives to Christ. That's why they needed a sponsor, no doubt a parent, to continue guiding them. Now, Tertullian points to the fact that these children are still in the innocent period of life. He argues that at that age, baptism is not essential.
So in weighing the significance of this quotation, there are several things we should keep in mind. Number one, Tertullian was a traditionalist. In arguing for believers ' baptism, as he does here, Tertullian was not arguing for some new, innovative practice. Nobody criticized him for the arguments he made or the position that he took here. He was never labeled a heretic because of this.
From the evidence we have from tomb inscriptions and from various third and fourth-century writings and sermons, it would seem that Tertullian's view was probably the majority view at the time he gave it. It may have been the majority view even nearly 200 years later. At the same time, Tertullian does not claim that the baptism of small children is a new and innovative practice. Nevertheless, to put this matter in perspective, we have to recognize that Tertullian was not raised in a Christian home.
He had probably been a Christian less than 10 years when he wrote this work. So I think it's safe to conclude that baptism of small children existed when Tertullian came to the faith in the last decade of the second century. Before that, we simply don't know. It may have been a fairly new practice just as he was coming into the faith, or it may have been around longer. If it had been around longer, there's no evidence for it. Okay, let's move on to Hippolytus.
Our next piece of evidence describes a similar situation to that of Tertullian. It's from a work that is known today as the apostolic tradition of Hippolytus. It's generally dated from around AD 215 to AD 235. It's a work that has been heavily acclaimed today by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches. That is, they heavily acclaim it when it fits their beliefs. But I've noticed that they brush it aside when it contradicts their beliefs.
Because in fact, a lot of the practices in this work better fit modern Anabaptists than they do fit Catholics or Orthodox or Anglicans. Now, the apostolic tradition contains an extensive section on baptism. Interestingly, it calls for a period of pre-baptismal instruction of three years. So obviously, it considers the baptism of believers as the normative practice, the fact that they need three years of instruction before they get baptized.
If they're infants, obviously that's a little bit late to get three years of instruction and they could hardly get it. The apostolic tradition directs the leaders to divide the baptismal candidates into three groups. This is on the day of baptism. You have the children, and they get baptized first, and then the men, and then the women. The passage so often quoted by Pedo Baptist reads as follows. It says, " And they shall baptize 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. Now, although this passage is pushed forward by advocates of infant baptism, once again, as in Tertullian, Hippolytus is talking about the baptism of little children, not infants. Interestingly, it specifically talks about the ones being baptized as descending or going down into the water. And this would not fit infants. The infant certainly does not descend into the water.
So what does it mean when Hippolytus says if they cannot answer for themselves? Well, the person being baptized is supposed to say, according to what Hippolytus lays out, is supposed to say, " I renounce you Satan and all your service and all your works. " Now, a child who is even six or seven years old might get a bit shy trying to say such a long sentence out loud, particularly in front of grown-ups away from his parents.
Not only that, the person being baptized also had to answer a whole series of questions while they were standing in the water right before the baptism. You know, do you believe in the Father? You know, do you believe in Jesus Christ? You know, a pretty long list. So the phrase, if they cannot answer for themselves, doesn't mean they can't talk. It means they're too young to speak out loud for themselves in such a formal situation. In short, Hippolytus adds nothing that we didn't already learn from Tertullian.
The only difference is that Hippolytus seems to be comfortable with young children being baptized, and Tertullian argues against it. The next witness we have is Origen. And these several statements, they come from the period around AD 235. And once again, his statements are a witness to child baptism, not infant baptism. And his interest in child baptism concerns its theological implications.
In fact, he points to the existence of child baptisms in various churches in order to argue that humans inherit a fallen nature or a stain on their souls, as he puts it, from Adam. Now, the three quotations from Origen that pertain to this are as follows, and I'll read them to you. The first one, he says, " Christian brethren often ask a question: Why are little children baptized for the remission of sins? Whose sins are they? When did they sin?
Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier. And that is, no man is clean of stain not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day. Through the mystery of baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. Now, the Greek word Origen uses here is paidia, which means little children, not infants. This is a Greek writing.
Now here for the first time, we have a clear theology behind the practice of baptizing little children. Now, Tertullian had argued that there was no strong reason for it since little children are innocent. Now, Origen doesn't dispute the innocence of children, but he argues that they receive a stain from Adam, as I've mentioned, and that this stain needs to be washed away, which happens in baptism. Now, please note, Origen never teaches that children inherit the guilt of Adam.
Nor does he teach that unbaptized infants are eternally damned. In fact, he doesn't even argue for the baptism of infants. He only addresses the baptisms of little children. He speaks approvingly of it, but he never insists on it in any of his writings. So let me read to you the next quote from him. It's from his sermon on no, yeah, his group of sermons on Romans. He says, " David said what we recorded above, that is, in sin, my mother conceived me.
" For according to the historical narrative, no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well as that the church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. Because here we're actually reading a Latin translation of Origen's Greek word, the translation done by Rufinus. And Rufinus uses parvulus, the same word that Tertullian uses in the discussion that we read just a little while ago. So we're still dealing with the baptism of little children in AD 235.
There's no mention yet of the baptism of actual infants, okay? And now he mentions there we read, Origen says, " Oh, the church has received this tradition to baptize little children from the apostles. " Now, of course, he's writing this 135 years after the last apostle died, and there's no chain of other people saying this in the second century. So that's, yeah, his guess, his understanding. His statement of that doesn't carry a lot of weight just because he's too far removed from the apostles.
All right, let's read his final one. He says, " Here David speaking, " or in other words, " listen to David speaking. " He says, " In iniquity, I was conceived, and in sin my mother brought me forth, showing that every soul which is born in flesh is polluted by the filth of iniquity and sin, and for this reason, we can say what we already have recalled above: " No one is pure from uncleanness, even if his life is only one day long.
" Now, I'm not repeating myself in case you're wondering, I'm just reading several quotes, and he says the same thing just about in each one of these quotes.
" To these things can be added the reason why it is required, since the baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sins, that according to the observance of the Church, that baptism also be given to little children, since certainly if there were nothing in little children that ought to pertain to forgiveness and indulgence, then the grace of baptism would appear superfluous.
" So he's using the fact that little children are being baptized in the church, and it might have been somewhat common by the year 235. We're still not, you know, clear on that. The evidence is very mixed. But he's saying the fact that they're getting baptized would indicate that they carry with them some kind of stain from Adam. Okay, so here again, in this third quote, the word being used is parvulus. The translator Rufinus never uses the word infantily, which is the Latin word for infants.
Interestingly, in this last one, the English translator of this work that I had been looking at, he uses the word " infant " in his English translation. And the correct translation is " little children. " I mean, I looked up the Latin just to be sure what's being said here. And it translators taking liberties like that, which lead to a lot of the present-day misunderstandings about the early church and infant baptism. You know, to take the word " little children " and translate it as infants.
You know, if you're going to translate something, particularly for, you know, an important subject like this, translate it accurately. Don't insert your theological biases into your translation. All right, now we come to Cyprian, who wrote in the year 250. He's the bishop of the city of Carthage, the same city in which Tertullian had resided several decades earlier. Now, in the following passage, we have the first definite reference to infant baptism in the early Christian writings, in contrast to child baptism.
Now, Cyprian writes this. This is a letter to the leaders of some other congregations. He says, " In respect of the case of the infants, you say that they should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded. " But instead, rather we all believe that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. As far as we can, we must strive that no soul be lost, if at all possible.
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, he contracted the infection of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches them more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins, that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another. Okay, so here we are clearly not talking about emergency baptisms.
Rather, Cyprian indicates that these infant baptisms are being done at that time as a regular practice in Carthage and in the region surrounding Carthage. Now, at the same time, there may have been an emergency motive behind these infant baptism that he's talking about here. When Cyprian wrote this letter in 250, a terrible pandemic was spreading throughout the Roman Empire. It had first broken out in North Africa in the year 249, and it horribly devastated the population.
One historian has calculated that the population of Alexandria, Egypt, dropped from 500,000 to 190,000 during this plague that lasted, I don't know what it was, about five years. This plague is generally known today as the Plague of Cyprian, because he talks about it in considerable detail. Now, Cyprian's biographer, his name was Pontius of Carthage, he writes about this plague at Carthage, and this is what he says.
He says, " Afterwards, there broke out a dreadful plague, an excessive destruction of a hateful disease invaded every house in succession of the trembling populace, carrying off day by day with abrupt attack numerous people, everyone from his own house. All were shuddering, fleeing, shunning the infection, impiously abandoning their own friends, as if with the exclusion of the person who was sure to die of the plague, one could exclude death itself also.
There lay about, meanwhile, over the whole city, no longer bodies, but mere carcasses of many. So the sudden burst of infant baptism in Carthage in the year 250 may have had something to do with the devastating plague that was going on in the city at that time. We don't know that for sure. At the same time, as we can see, Cyprian justified infant baptism based on the doctrine of original sin. He says that the infant has no sins of his own, but has an infection from Adam, and this Adamic sin needs to be remitted.
Now, Cyprian's views had a significant impact on Augustine 150 years later. Augustine was bishop of the nearby North African city of Hippo, not very far from Carthage. So North Africa seems to be the center from which infant baptism spread. Carthage seems to be the center of it.
Now, at the same time, in talking about all of this, it's important to recognize that although the baptism of infants and small children was happening in the 3rd century, as I've already mentioned, the practice of believers ' baptism continued right alongside of them. We shouldn't imagine that the apostolic practice of believers ' baptism just suddenly stopped.
No materials available for this lesson.