This is a longer post. I’ve tried to hyper-link to as many resources as I can so you can follow them up at your leisure if you would like.
The practise of baptism is one of the defining marks of the Christian church. It unites almost every orthodox Christian group. Beyond the observation that new Christians should be baptised, however, the practise of baptism can be a cause for division. In particular: is it legitimate to baptise babies (“paedo-baptism”) or should baptism mark the start of a conscious, chosen faith in Christ (“credo-baptism”)? If it is valid (in a minimal sense) is it a good idea?
These discussions and debates often generate more heat than light. Moreover they can end up hiding presuppositions that tend to determine our conclusions in advance. In order to mitigate that problem here, I want to set out my own perspectives in advance.
- The fact that a particular form of Christian practise isn’t explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, and wasn’t (as I shall argue) practised in that way for a couple of centuries, doesn’t by itself mean the practise is illegitimate. Christian worship has been enormously varied throughout the church’s history (and around the world today). It is perfectly possible for a rite or practise to develop over time in a way that wasn’t practised by the earliest church. Holding otherwise can lead us to building significant theological systems on tenuous readings of certain texts. Alternatively it can cause us to reject developments that have been almost universally accepted and are theologically coherent because we do not find them mentioned in the New Testament.
- It is possible for a practise (or a form of that practise) to be valid but not advisable (or proper). We might recognise, for example, that people baptised in a particular way are really baptised even while believing that it would be better if their church practised baptism in a different form. In fact, I would argue, that kind of generosity in interpretation is the only way that Christians can relate to one another in a world in which the church is so divided.
Throughout this paper we will argue that infant baptism developed in the mid-second century as a modification of the church’s practice of permitting emergency baptism for infants. It continued to be a minority practice throughout the third century and was understood as a deviation from the accepted norm of baptism following personal repentance.
This does not mean that paedo-baptism is not valid; it feels intuitively absurd to hold that Anselm, Luther, Wesley, Ratzinger et al were not baptized. Credo-baptists should not continue to argue for that position (and in England at least it has largely been abandoned in credo-baptist theological ). But it does allow space for the wider church to hear the credo-baptist critique of their baptismal practice.
In particular, given that the baptism of babies was a later development it cannot be essential for churches to practise baptism in that form. We can go further, however. Given that paedo-baptism wasn’t practised in the earliest churches, and that there are plainly negative consequences to the largely indiscriminate practice of infant baptism that has held in Christendom, paedo-baptists should seriously consider whether it is a development that should continue to be practised. Perhaps, as credo-baptists argue, it would be better to return to the earlier practice. [This paragraph was updated for clarity]
In the rest of this essay, early Christian baptismal practice will be examined under two headings. First we will examine direct evidence including baptismal accounts, liturgy, and burial inscriptions. Second we will examine early theological writing. We will conclude by drawing together our two streams and exploring their implications for our view of baptism.
Direct Evidence
In this section we will examine the direct evidence of Christian baptismal practice including baptismal accounts, liturgy and burial inscriptions. It will be argued that, considered together, they show that infant baptism did not begin until the mid-second century and remained a minority practice throughout the third century.
New Testament
The New Testament references to household baptism are potentially the first direct evidence of infant baptism.[1] In order to assess the significance of these texts for infant baptism, however, we need to be precise about exactly what they are said to evidence.
Modern scholars seem to agree that a first century household could include infants,[2] although this was not always the case.[3] It is also agreed both that a ‘household’ included ‘relatives, slaves, client freedmen, and other dependents’,[4] and that those present in a household who had themselves repented would have been baptised.
The only issue, therefore, is whether a ‘household baptism’ included the baptism of individuals in the household irrespective of whether they themselves believed. A paedo-baptist reading claims that this is indeed the case for infants. But, we may ask, if it is claimed that the whole house followed the religion of the head in an act of ‘family solidarity’, what is the justification for treating infants differently from slaves, spouses or adult children? [5] If the whole household is to be baptised for reasons other than personal repentance, that must surely extend to the whole house, including unrepentant adults.
The only alternative to this position is to create a new category of ‘whole house’ including infants and repentant, but not unrepentant, children, spouses, and slaves. Once a distinction is made within the household between believers and non-believers, however, it has been conceded that such ‘household baptisms’ were not an act of ‘family solidarity’ but of personal choice and the paedo-baptist reading has lost its underlying rationale. It is difficult to see what is left to recommend it.
In any event, it is possible to examine the attitude of the first-century church to those within a believer’s household who did not repent.
In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Paul addresses the position of an unbelieving spouse.[6] His answer does not directly address baptism but is nevertheless instructive for our understanding of his baptismal practice.[7]
Paul argues that a believer’s child is ‘holy’ by virtue of her parentage. In the same way, a believer’s unbelieving spouse is ‘holy’ by virtue of her marriage. As Ferguson notes, the implications for infant baptism are negative: ‘If the child were already baptized, Paul’s argument was meaningless, for then s/he was obviously “holy”.’[8]
Similarly Wright observes that ‘it follows that if the children of a single Christian parent in a mixed marriage are holy, so a fortiori are the children of two Christian parents, and in both cases without baptism, on the basis of their Christian parentage.’[9]
The implications of the verse could extend even further. Wright notes Jeremias’ contention that this relates to children born after the conversion of the believing spouse but asks, ‘[w]hy should the statement about children not apply to children born before the parent’s conversion and baptism?’[10] In any event Paul’s theology of family relations provides strong prima facie evidence that he did not baptise the children of Christians. This pattern continued past the turn of the second century.
The liturgy recorded in the Didache says ‘nothing about [Christians] bringing their children for baptism (4.9), and instructions for masters and slaves indicate the latter were not required to follow the faith of their owners (4.10-11).’[11] By the late first century, therefore, the liturgy of conversion baptism did not provide for baptism as an act of ‘family solidarity’ unless the individuals themselves believed.
Similarly, Aristides described how conversion and baptism operated within established Christian families, noting that ‘if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction.’[12] Although the proper interpretation of this passage is disputed, it is submitted that, as Wright and Aland conclude, the phrase ‘or children’ indicates that these are not the children of the slaves but of the Christians.[13] This situation is not directly parallel to the household baptisms in Acts since they concern the households of converts rather than those of established Christians.[14] Nevertheless, it reveals the attitude of the late first and early second-century church to those who had not yet believed. Their baptism was based upon their own repentance and faith.
Justin Martyr describes baptism in the mid-second century. Strikingly Justin’s description does not include any place for infants or for others who have not themselves repented.[15] As Ferguson comments, for Justin, ‘[b]aptism was for those who were persuaded about Christian teaching and placed their trust in it and who promised to live the Christian life (6.1.2), those who chose to be regenerated and repented of their sins (6.1.10).’[16]
A further passage of Justin has caused some debate. In 1 Apology, 15.6 Justin mentions ‘many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood’.[17] Jeremias states that this must mean that they were baptized as infants ‘in the time between A.D. 80 and 95.’[18] Ferguson, however, notes that in context Justin’s emphasis is on their faithfulness in remaining sexually pure from childhood while Wright notes that the phrase ‘ek padwn may well denote ‘from childhood’ rather than ‘from babyhood’ or ‘from birth’, and this would accord better with the force of maqhteuin.’[19] Jeremias’ conclusion is not, therefore, borne out by the broader context of Justin’s remarks.[20]
Taken together with Aristides and the Didache it is submitted that Justin’s testimony agrees that before the mid-second century, baptism followed personal repentance.
The Apostolic Tradition
The dating and authorship of the Apostolic Tradition is problematic. Bradshaw’s portion of the text relating to infant baptism[21] ‘may well go back to the mid-second century.’[22] Wright gives a slightly more conservative estimate of about 215 but concedes that the material reflects Roman practice going back to about 180.[23] We will proceed on the basis that the document reflects practice in the late second century. [24]
A number of points arise from this document. First, it is prima facie evidence for the provision of baptism for those who, by reason of age, could not speak for themselves. Second, the role of the sponsors echoes Roman contract law and suggests that the ‘infants’ could have been as old as seven.[25] This interpretation would accord with Jerome and Augustine’s later belief that seven was the age of Christian responsibility particularly in connection with baptism.[26] Third, taken as a whole the Apostolic Tradition reveals a liturgy that ‘makes sense only of those of persons of responsible years.’[27] This fits with the generally recognised temporal priority of believer’s baptism in the liturgical sources.[28]
We need to be careful to note what the Apostolic Tradition does not show. It does not show how many were baptised as it describes, merely the order in which they could be baptised. Nor does it show the occasion upon which they were baptised. Lane’s comment that ‘[t]his is an account of a regular baptismal service and so does not refer to the emergency baptism of dying babies’[29] is therefore overstated. Further, as we have noted, it provides no information about the exact age of those involved.
Despite these caveats the Apostolic Tradition is our first evidence of credo-baptist liturgy being adapted to include those who could not profess their own faith. It comes from the late second century and is found in Rome using a form commonly associated with Roman contract law.
Burial Inscriptions
The final piece of direct evidence we shall consider is the inscriptions on the tombs of Christians. Ferguson notes that ‘[t]he earliest surviving Christian inscriptions come from the end of the second or beginning of the third century.’[30] These inscriptions rarely used the word ‘baptism’ but frequently indicate the date of baptism by use of a common euphemism.[31] Almost all of the surviving inscriptions relay a date of baptism close to or immediately preceding the death of the baptizand.[32] They are, therefore, best understood as cases of emergency baptism.
It is striking that, besides the proximity of death, there is no pattern to the baptismal ages recorded in the inscriptions. As Ferguson notes, ‘there was no common age at which baptism was administered’ and ‘there is no evidence that infants were routinely baptized shortly after birth, and indeed the evidence shows the opposite.’[33]
Jeremias attempts to explain this by suggesting that these are the children of catechumens who themselves had not yet been baptised and by appealing to the emergency baptism of pagan children.[34] Yet as Ferguson notes, the first of these explanations does not arise from the texts themselves.[35] Further, as Aland observes, the concept of pagan parents securing baptism of their dying children, ranging from eleven months to twelve years, is out of place in the centuries before 313.[36]
The inscriptions are good evidence that in the late second and third centuries some infants were baptised but that this was not the common or regular pattern of the church. There is no justification in the inscriptions for the assertion that infant baptism had by this stage become the norm from which some deviated.[37]
Conclusion
We have considered the direct evidence of early Christian baptismal practice and argued that it demonstrates very little support for infant baptism before the mid to late second century and little evidence of it thereafter save in cases of necessity. We will now consider the theological material available from this period. It will be argued that the development of baptismal theology closely witnesses with the direct evidence of baptism considered above.
Baptismal Theology
New Testament
There is a close relationship between repentance and baptism in the theology of both Peter and Paul. We shall examine the expression of that theology in Acts 2 and Colossians 2.
Peter’s Pentecost sermon is occasionally cited in the context of infant baptism.[38] Peter does mention children but it is unlikely that he was mandating infant baptism.[39] First, the promise to which Peter refers is not baptism but forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism, together with repentance, is the means by which that promise is received. Further, ‘[o]n this occasion, at any rate, those who were baptized were “those who received his word” … and could repent … in larger context the “sons and daughters” … were old enough to prophesy.’[40]
Peter’s sermon is not, however, irrelevant to our discussion. The apostle commands repentance followed by baptism. This is indicative of the remainder of the New Testament reading. As Wright comments, there is no consistent procedure for baptism in the New Testament, ‘but the intimate association between being a believer and being baptized is inescapable’.[41]
The language of Colossians 2 led Jeremias to claim that Paul ‘describes [circumcision] thereby as the Christian sacrament which corresponds to Jewish circumcision and replaces it.’[42] There are, however, significant problems with this reading.
First, as Ferguson notes, Colossians makes explicit the connection of baptism with faith, ‘specifically faith in the resurrection of Christ.’[43] Second, as Wright notes, ‘[t]he correspondence is not between the two rites, of circumcision and baptism, but between the Jewish rite and the divine work of spiritual circumcision accomplished by Christ.’[44] Third, the early church appears to have continued to circumcise the children of Jewish believers until at least the time of the events in Acts 21:21.[45] Fourth, it is striking that ‘no writer in the first two centuries used Colossians 2:11-12 to relate circumcision positively to baptism.’[46]
For these reasons, it is submitted that there is very little in Colossians 2 to suggest that the practice of circumcision had been replaced by infant baptism.
The next text to be considered is Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, 2.22.4.[47] Wright, following Jeremias, argues that this reference ‘presupposes the practice of infant baptism (including baby baptism), which must therefore go back at least a couple of decades before Irenaeus wrote, i.e. to c. 150.’[48]
There are, however, significant difficulties with the reading proposed by Wright and Jeremias. First, as Ferguson notes, the verb used in this passage[49] is different from that used by Irenaeus when dealing with baptism.[50] Second, the concept of regeneration ‘is used by Irenaeus for Jesus’ work of renewal and rejuvenation effected by his birth and resurrection without any reference to baptism.’[51] This reading fits better with the broader context of this passage in which Irenaeus explains that every age of man, including death, was sanctified by Christ’s passing through them. Strictly speaking, therefore, if this passage is taken to be a rationale for infant baptism it should also be taken as a rationale for the baptism of the dead. It is better to take Irenaeus at his word and understand him to be referring to the supremacy of Christ over every age of humanity.
‘[T]he first certain literary reference to infant baptism’ is in Tertullian’s treatise On Baptism.’[52] This text shows that some form of infant baptism was practised on some occasions by the turn of the third century in Carthage, although its further significance is disputed. It is, therefore, necessary to be precise about Tertullian’s doctrine and method.
In common with other early writers Tertullian holds that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins.[53] It is his defence of the necessity and proper mode of baptism that form the bulk of On Baptism, the purpose of which is to refute heresy.[54] This doctrine presupposes that repentance precedes baptism; for Tertullian, ‘Repentance comes first, and remission follows’.[55]
Tertullian derives his teaching from both tradition and Scripture. In On the Crown he explains that either Scripture or custom can validate a practice, including baptismal practice.[56] It is a mistake, therefore, to see Tertullian as a reformer rejecting un-Scriptural traditions.
We can now examine Tertullian’s specific comments concerning infant baptism. Tertullian actively discourages the baptism of infants on the basis that it does not properly engage with repentance and supports this by an appeal to the secular law in which infants are not ‘trusted with earthly substance.’ He does, however, acknowledge that infant baptism may be granted in case of necessity.[57]
From this we may make several observations. First, Tertullian does not approve of infant baptism save in emergency cases. Second, while Tertullian declines to argue against the practice of infant baptism on grounds of novelty, Lane is wrong to conclude that this is evidence of its longevity.[58] Tertullian’s argument in On the Crown shows that he did not reject well-established baptismal practices.[59] Further, the advancement of a Scriptural and practical rationale for baptising infants is itself evidence of the novelty of the practice.[60] Tertullian’s argument is good evidence, therefore, that infant baptism in non-emergency cases had recently begun in North Africa. Third, infant baptism was accepted in some circumstances. This appears likely to indicate a compromise between Tertullian’s theology of the role of baptism in salvation and his emphasis on the need for repentance. This text is not good evidence for the widespread practice of infant baptism and Jeremias’ assertion that it evidences ‘a universally observed practice’ should not be accepted.[61]
Finally, Tertullian’s argument by analogy with secular property holding and reference to the role of sponsors parallel similar references in the Apostolic Tradition and could point to the influence of Roman contract law on North African baptismal practice as well as that in Rome. This also raises the prospect that the ‘little children’ referred to in On Baptism could be as old as seven, although this point is unclear.
We have considered Christian theological writing from the first two centuries and argued that it supports the emergence of infant baptism in cases of necessity in the late-second century. We will now consider the third century.
Origen and Cyprian
Origen described infant baptism as ‘a tradition from the apostles’ and defended it on the basis of the removal of ‘the natural stains of sin’. [62] The nature of Origen’s argument is instructive. For a significant number of Christians baptism of believers was the norm by which baptism was understood and the basis for infant baptism was questioned.[63] In parallel with this a new theological justification for infant baptism had developed. As Ferguson notes, ‘Origen’s statements indicate that infant baptism preceded this justification for the practice. As has often been true in Christian history, the practice preceded its doctrinal defence.’[64]
It should be notice that, while Origen claimed that infant baptism was a tradition from the apostles ‘[h]e offers no further evidence for this claim.’[65]
In the years following Origen, Cyprian’s letter to Fidus provides a further opportunity to examine how the North African church regarded infant baptism.[66] Ferguson notes that ‘Fidus’s inquiry did not question infant baptism itself, only the appropriateness of giving it to a baby two or three days old.’ By this stage Tertullian’s principled objections seem to have disappeared and his premise of the innocence of infants does not enter into the discussion.’[67] Further, the nature of Cyprian’s verdict ‘indicates a well-established practice.’[68] Beyond this, however, both Fidus’s inquiry and Cyprian’s response give no information as to the prevalence or circumstances of infant baptism. Lane criticises the suggestion that Fidus’ inquiry could relate to emergency baptism since ‘surely the appropriate time in such cases is when the emergency strikes.’[69] It might be responded, however, that Fidus’ letter presupposes sufficient urgency to make a week’s wait inappropriate, which is particularly remarkable given his distaste for new-borns.
Conclusion
We have considered the principal direct and indirect historical evidence of Christian baptismal practice and argued that infant baptism did not begin until the mid to late-second century. It seems likely to have originated as a compromise between a doctrine of repentance and of baptismal salvation, forged in pastoral concern for those who were dying. Further, the parallels between Tertullian and the Apostolic Tradition suggest that this development may have been facilitated by the adaptation of Roman contract law concerning those who could not speak for themselves.
If correct, our study should have implications for the present. For paedo-baptists the early history of baptism presents a challenge to reappraise the indiscriminate baptism of infants that would have been alien to even the third century fathers. For credo-baptists the challenge is, perhaps, deeper. [70] Our practice may have been authentic but too often our theology has remained a shadow of the early church, dominated by an unwillingness to view baptism as anything more than a symbol and an opportunity for testimony.[71] Historical study presents both camps with an opportunity for reflection and change.
Finally, we may ask if those who originally allowed the baptism of infants realised that within five hundred years infant baptism would have become near ubiquitous or that there would one day be so many who had been baptised without ever professing a sincere personal faith. Small decisions can, it seems, have big consequences. The story of baptism therefore presents a caution to everyone presently undertaking pastoral and theological work to think through what the consequences of our ideas might be; it may be that a particular compromise does not seem quite so reasonable after all.
[1] See Acts 10:48; 11:14; 16:15 16:31; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16. Save where the context dictates otherwise, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version, (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001).
[2] See, for example, Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (London: SCM, 1960), p. 20 and Ferguson, p. 178.
[3] See, for example, the household of Stephanas in 1 Cor. 1:16 and 16:5 and Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptise Infants? (London: SCM, 1963), p. 88-89. It should be noted that there is some evidence that where children were present it was customary to distinguish the children from the households: see, for example, Ignatius, ‘Smymaeans’, 13.1 quoted in E. Ferguson, Baptism in the early church: history, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publ., 2009), p. 178.
[4] Ferguson, p. 178 and cp. Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 20. Jeremias states that it is unlikely that the Acts households would have contained ‘a considerable number of slaves’: Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 20. Irrespective of how justifiable this assertion is (and Aland undermines it persuasively in Lydia’s case: Aland, p. 88-89), Jeremias has conceded that there would have been at least some slaves present.
[5] Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 20-22.
[6] 1 Cor. 7:12.
[7] As Wright notes, ‘no other material in the New Testament enables us to be so confident that any child or children were or were not baptized.’D.F. Wright, Infant baptism in historical perspective: collected studies (Studies in Christian history and thought; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007),p. 15, original emphasis.
[8] Ferguson, p. 151.
[9] Wright also notes that ‘[t]his exegesis has the broad support of the Fathers, as well as generally of exegetes today including both Jeremias and Aland.’ Wright, Infants, p. 14 citing Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 45-46, Aland, p. 80-84 and Tertullian, ‘De Anima’, 39.
[10] Wright, Infants, p. 17, original emphasis.
[11] Ferguson, p. 203-204.
[12] Aristides, ‘Apology, 15’ in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), p. 521 <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf Accessed 25 October 2013>)
[13] Wright, Infant, p. 11; Aland, p. 57.
[14] See Aland, p. 57, although Jeremias did not share this view: Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism (London: SCM, 1963), p. 43-48.
[15] Justin Martyr, ‘1 Apology, 62’, in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), p. 489 <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf Accessed 25 October 2013>.
[16] Ferguson, p. 237-238.
[17] Justin, p. 438.
[18] Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 72
[19] Ferguson, p. 363; Wright, Infant, p. 9.
[20] A similar point may be made about Polycarp’s alleged declaration that “Eighty-six years I have served my King and Saviour”: Ferguson, p. 363.
[21] Apostolic Tradition, 20.1-2, in Bradshaw, p. 112.
[22] Bradshaw, Paul F., Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, by Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson and L. Edward Phillips; ed. by Harold W. Attridge, ed. by Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), p. 124.
[23] Wright, Infant, p. 6.
[24] If this is correct then the document is an important insight into the development of baptismal practice in Rome although, as Ferguson notes, ‘if the document is separated from Hippolytus and Rome, its testimony to infant baptism, as reflecting a later practice, loses some significance.’ Ferguson, p, 366.
[25] Ferguson, p. 366-367; Bradshaw, p. 130.
[26] D.F. Wright, What has Infant Baptism done to Baptism? (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), p. 40.
[27] Ferguson, p. 367, a point recognised even by Jeremias: Jeremias, Origins, p. 40.
[28] Ferguson, p. 367, fn. 13.
[29] Tony Lane, ‘Did the Apostolic Church Baptise Babies? A Seismological Approach’, Tyndale Bulletin 55.1 (May 2004), 109-130, p. 113, original emphasis.
[30] Ferguson, p. 372. Translations of inscriptions are found in Ferguson and are cited using the numbers of the Latin inscriptions from E. Diehle, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, 2nd edn. (Berlin, 1961).
[31] Ferguson, p. 372-373.
[32] See the examples cited at Ferguson, p. 372–377.
[33] Ferguson, p. 377.
[34] Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 40-41, 80, 90.
[35] Ferguson, p. 377, with the possible exception of ILCV 1343 cited in both Jeremias and Ferguson where it is possible that the father was not a Christian but the grandmother was.
[36] Aland, p. 75-79; Wright, Infants, p. 13.
[37] The question, posed by Lane, as to why some were not baptised as babies, is exactly the opposite question that appears to have been asked during the third century: Lane, p. 119.
[38] Acts 2:14-41.
[39] Acts 2:38-39.
[40] Ferguson, p. 169.
[41] Wright, Infant, p.36.
[42] Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 40.
[43] Ferguson, p. 159.
[44] Wright, Infant, p. 18-19.
[45] Wright, Infant, p. 18.
[46] Wright, Infant, p. 18.
[47] Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies’,2.22.4 in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), p. 1007-1008 <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf Accessed 25 October 2013>).
[48] Wright, Infant, p. 10.
[49] renascuntur.
[50] Regenero.
[51] Ferguson, p. 308.
[52] Ferguson, p. 362.
[53] See, for example, On Baptism, 10 in Schaff, Volume 3, p. 1502.
[54] On Baptism, 1 in Schaffe, Volume 3, p. 1487.
[55] Tertullian, ‘On Baptism’, 10 in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1885), p. 1502 <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.pdf Accessed 29 October 2013>) and compare Tertullian, ‘On Repentance’, 6 in Schaff, Volume 3, p. 1472-1473.
[56] Tertullian, ‘On the Crown’, 3 in Schaff, Volume 3, p. 195.
[57] On Baptism, 10 in Schaff, Volume 3, p. 1502.
[58] Lane, p. 114, and compare Wright, Infants, p. 8.
[59] Ferguson, p. 363-364.
[60] Ferguson, p. 363.
[61] Jeremias, Infant Baptism, p. 82.
[62] Origen, ‘Homilies on Romans’, 5.9.11 in Ferguson, p. 368.
[63] Origen, ‘Homilies on Luke’, 14.5 in Ferguson, p. 367.
[64] Ferguson, p. 369.
[65] Ferguson, p. 369. But compare Lane, p. 118.
[66] Cyprian, Letters, 64 in Ferguson, p. 371.
[67] Ferguson, p. 371.
[68] Ferguson, p. 372.
[69] Lane, p. 116.
[70] I’m an accredited Baptist pastor.
[71] Wright, What, p. 28.
Deep Church 
Wow! What a study Phil. Congratulations on this study. X
LikeLike