GENERAL ASSEMBLY 2001

Panel onDoctrine Report

Baptism

It is necessary before considering this evidence to say something about the nature of extra-biblical evidence. Extrabiblical 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 bythe Special Commission on Baptism of the Church of Scotland (Convener, ProfTF 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 ofthe 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 considerationis 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

1. Evidence fromthe post-apostolic period

The evidence with respect to infantbaptist in the post-apostolic period, from the New Testament era up to thetime of Tertullian (c150/160-215 AD), is meagre and inconclusive. It can beand 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 perioddealt with here takes us up to Origen.

1. The Didache

1. Pliny (c112)

1. Justin Martyr(early Christian Apologist who taught in Rome; c100-165)

1. Polycarp (BishopofSmyrna (Asia Minor] c70-155/168)

The relevant question for our discussion is  this. what did Polycarp mean by, "Eighty-six years I have served him…"?Thereare several possibilities.

(1) Polycarp had served Christ as a believer and as a baptised person for eighty-sixyears,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 hismartyrdom. Such a reading of the evidence is very difficult. Not only were centenariansr are in those days we know that Polycarp travelled from Smyrnato Rome shortly before his martyrdom, when Anicetus was Bishop of Rome (c155-c166).^{Against Heresies III, ii-iii, see H Bettenson (Ed), TheEarly Christian Fathers, OUP 1969, p 91.} Allowing for the differentdatings of his martyrdom between 155 and 168^{Infant Baptism in theFirst Four Centuries , SCM 1960, pp60-64; also J Stevenson,       A New Eusebius , SPCK 1975,  p 60. The date most  commonly acceptedfor Polycarp's martyrdom is AD167-8. A later date of 177 has received littlesupport.} Polycarp must, according to this understanding of Polycarp's'eighty-six years', have been somewhere between ninety and one hundred yearswhen he made that journey – not wholly impossible, but very unlikely.      

(2) He had served Christ as a believerfor eighty-six years, becoming a believer as a child and being baptised ata later age, say fourteen. In which case he was eighty-six years plus at thetime of his death. This may encounter a similar difficulty as under (1). Theolder 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 serviceto 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)

1. Irenaeus (c130/140– c200; Bishop of Lyons, writing c190)

1. Polycrates (Bishopof Ephesus, writing c190)

1. Hippolytus (c160-235;presbyter in the Church at Rome)

1. Tertullian (c160/70-c215/20)

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 andperverters of the Christian faith, however, he was uncompromising to professingChristians who failed to maintain the high ethical demands of the Christianfaith 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 andsubsequently". ^{The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church  (EdJD Douglas), Paternoster 1974 p 674.} The sect was known for itsenthusiasm 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 formersins." 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 holycalling,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, forscarcely shall he live."^{A New Eusebius, SPCK 19675,pp52f.}  It is helpful to know that Hermas had lost his propertyand 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 affectthe  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 thepresentation of their case was an appeal to the apostolic tradition. It wasthe authority in Tertullian's day. If Tertullian had known that infant baptismwas a recent innovation and if he was arguing against it as such, the mostpowerful 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 traditionin his times, than the opposite."

1. Clement of Alexandria(c155-220; Head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School from 190)

1. Origen (c185-c254;Head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School from c203)

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 itcan hardly be claimed that baptism was a comparatively new development inthe 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 littlechildren(third century)^{InfantBaptismin the First Four Centuries, SCM 1960, pp 41, 76-78,85.}

     Jeremias lists a numberof  inscriptions from which baptism is inferred. (a) One year old Eutychianusis "a slave of God". (b) Kyriakos, a 'holy infant', is "a slave of Christ'.(c) An 'innocentinfant' Dionysios 'lies here with the holy ones'. (d) Two-yearold 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 birdwith a twig in its beak and bears the word in take . (g) Nine year oldArisus died"in peace".              

A number of inscriptions are includedwhere baptism is implied (h) or actually stated (i) and (j). (h) From  the Priscilla Catacomb in Rome we have an inscription to Apronianus who diedaged "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 sameCatacomb is to Tyche, one year ten months and fifteen days. Tyche  wasbaptised(accepit) the same day as her death.  (j) Irene was baptised(acc[epit])six days before her death.

1. Conclusion

1. Introduction

2. Institution of Baptism

3. Origins of Water Baptism

4. The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence

5. The Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence

6. The Baptism of Children: Extra Biblical Evidence

7. The Proper Subjects of Baptism

8. The Mode of Baptism

9. The Way Forward