Basic HTML Version
617
p. 746.] Naturally, even if this did happen, it would prove nothing so far as Christian baptism is
concerned, but it would go to show that there was nothing strange in such a procedure. The
earliest historical reference to infant baptism is found in writings of the last half of the second
century. The Didache speaks of adult, but not of infant baptism; and while Justin makes
mention of women who became disciples of Christ from childhood (ek paidon), this passage
does not mention baptism, and ek paidon does not necessarily mean infancy. Irenæus, speaking
of Christ, says: “He came to save through means of Himself all who through Him are born again
unto God, infants, and little children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”[Adv. Haereses II,
22,4.] This passage, though it does not explicitly mention baptism, is generally regarded as the
earliest reference to infant baptism, since the early Fathers so closely associated baptism with
regeneration that they used the term “regeneration” for “baptism.” That infant baptism was
quite generally practiced in the latter part of the second century, is evident from the writings of
Tertullian, though he himself considered it safer and more profitable to delay baptism.[De
Baptismo, c. XVIII.] Origen speaks of it as a tradition of the apostles. Says he: “For this also it
was, that the Church had from the apostles a tradition (or, order) to give baptism even to
infants.”[Comm. in Epist. ad Romanos, lib. V.] The Council of Carthage (A.D. 253) takes infant
baptism for granted and discusses simply the question, whether they may be baptized before
the eighth day. From the second century on, infant baptism is regularly recognized, though it
was sometimes neglected in practice. Augustine inferred from the fact that it was generally
practiced by the Church throughout the world in spite of the fact that it was not instituted in
Councils, that it was in all probability settled by the authority of the apostles. Its legitimacy was
not denied until the days of the Reformation, when the Anabaptists opposed it.
b. Objections to infant baptism.
A few of the more important objections to infant baptism call
for brief consideration.
(1) Circumcision was merely a carnal and typical ordinance, and as such was destined to pass
away. To put baptism in the place of circumcision, is simply to continue the carnal ordinance.
Such carnal ordinances have no legitimate place in the New Testament Church. In our day this
objection is raised by some dispensationalists, such as Bullinger and O’Hair, who claim that the
baptism instituted by Jesus is connected with the Kingdom, and that only the baptism of the
Spirit has a proper place in the Church. The book of Acts marks the transition from water-
baptism to Spirit-baptism. Naturally, this argument would prove all baptism, adult as well as
infant, illegitimate. In this representation of the matter the Jewish and Christian dispensations
are placed over against each other as carnal and spiritual, and circumcision is said to belong to
the former. But this argument is fallacious. There is no warrant for placing circumcision
altogether on a level with the carnal ordinances of the Mosaic law. Says Bannerman:
“Circumcision was independent either of the introduction or abolition of the law of Moses; and