Posted on 06/18/2026 7:00:41 AM PDT by Cronos
Canon 47
Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar.
But when these things had been begun, Honoratus and Urbanus, bishops of Mauritania Sitifensis, said: When some time ago we were sent to your holiness, we laid aside what things had been written on this account, that we might wait for the arrival of our brethren the legates from Numidia. But because not a few days have passed in which they have been looked for and as yet they are not arrived, it is not fitting that we should delay any longer the commands we received from our brother-bishops; and therefore, brethren, receive our story with alacrity of mind. We have heard concerning the faith of the Nicene tractate: True it is that sacrifices are to be forbidden after breakfast, so that they may be offered as is right by those who are fasting, and this has been confirmed then and now.
Canon 72
Of the baptism of infants when there is some doubt of their being already baptized
Item, it seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the barbarians.
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins
Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin has come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned," than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
Canon 47: regarding infants baptized by Donatists. It states that the "error of their parents" should not block these children from the priesthood later in life
Canon 57: Reaffirms that children baptized by Donatists before they could understand the error can be ordained in the Catholic Church. It notes they received the true sacraments of the Trinity in ignorance
Canon 72: Mandates the baptism of infants when there is doubt about their status. If no witnesses can confirm it and the children are too young to answer, they must be baptized without scruple so they are not deprived of the sacrament. This was often necessary for children redeemed from barbarians
Canon 110: Issues an anathema against anyone who denies that newborn infants should be baptized. It affirms infants are baptized for the remission of sins to cleanse original sin inherited from Adam
The historical consensus among scholars—and the primary source texts from the era—demonstrates that the Donatists fully accepted and practiced infant baptism. They were a schismatic group who held strong against the persecutions of Diocletian but then rejected anyone who had faltered
Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively against the Donatists for decades, detailing every single one of their theological errors and deviations — if they had rejected infant baptism, Augustine would have aggressively attacked them for it but he did not.
Instead, Augustine’s writings show that he and the Donatists agreed on the validity of infant baptism as a practice. His only argument with them was which church had the authority to administer it.
In they book, she wrote
'The controversy was not over the ritual of baptism itself, but over the identity of the true church and the validity of sacraments administered by ministers who had compromised with the state during the persecutions.'The Donatists did not rebaptize people because they had been baptized as infants. They rebaptized people who were baptized by traditores
During the brutal Diocletianic Persecution (303–305 AD), the Roman authorities issued edicts demanding that Christian clergy hand over their sacred scriptures and liturgical objects to be burned, and that they offer sacrifice to the pagan gods -- those cowards, namely clergy who complied with the Roman magistrates and surrendered the Bibles were labeled traditores by their stricter peers.
When the persecution ended, many of these traditores repented and returned to their leadership positions. In 311 AD, a man named Caecilian was consecrated as the Bishop of Carthage. However, one of the bishops who consecrated him (Felix of Aptungi) was accused of having been a traditor.
A rigorist faction of North African Christians refused to accept Caecilian's authority. Led later by a bishop named Donatus (hence "Donatists"), they claimed that a traditor priest or bishop was completely cut off from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, any sacrament they attempted to perform—whether a baptism, an ordination, or the Eucharist—was completely invalid and empty.
Furthermore, in her analysis of North African theology, Dr. Tilley continuously highlights that the Donatists viewed themselves as the hyper-literal, ultra-traditional continuers of St. Cyprian of Carthage.
Sixty years before the Donatist schism even began, St. Cyprian and 66 bishops gathered at the Council of Carthage (253 AD). In Letter 58 (To Fidus), Cyprian explicitly writes the collective decree of the North African Church regarding newborns: "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day... we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no born man." ===================================================
The core of Donatism was the belief that the validity of a sacrament depends entirely on the personal holiness and moral standing of the minister performing it.
The Church taught and teaches the opposite -- that the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God. - the clergy are merely instruments used by the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who baptizes, Christ who forgives, and Christ who consecrates.
19 years before Constantine was born, 60 years before the Edict of Milan enacted toleration, 72 years before the first Council of Nicaea, 127 years before the Edict of Thessalonika made Catholic Christianity the state religion of the Empire.
And you wrote "....127 years before the Edict of Thessalonika made Catholic Christianity the state religion of the Empire. "
Wait, so that makes 380 AD as when the Edict of Thessalonika made Catholic Christianity the state religion of the Empire.
b....b.. but, that was long after Emperor Constantine died, right?
And didn't he convert only on his deathbed?
There's also the problem that the "Constantine invented Catholicism" folks have to address of Julian the Apostate (Constantine's successor once-removed), who was so unimpressed by the (allegedly) paganized Christianity that Constantine had (allegedly) imposed that he spent his whole career trying to roll back the clock and Make Rome Pagan Again. (Spoiler: it didn't work.)
Sounds like the "Rabbinic Judaism isn't Biblical Judaism but a younger religion than chrstianity" crowd. Aren't they stupid?
Baptism in the name of Jesus (same as being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is one of several baptisms mentioned in the Bible. For example, Noah and his family were baptized in the flood. See 1 Peter 3:20-21. Moses and Israel were baptized in the Red Sea and in the cloud of God’s glory. See 1 Corinthians 10:2.
Believer’s baptism is a command that accompanies the Gospel:
Mark 16:15-16 NKJV
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Only 2 categories of hearers are given here:
1. Those who believe AND are baptized
2. Those who do not believe
It does not describe anyone who believes and is not baptized nor anyone who does not believe but is baptized.
There are 3 prerequisites to baptism in the name of Jesus:
1. repentance
2. faith
3. confession
Romans 10:9-10 NKJV
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Acts 2:38 NKJV
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 8:37 NKJV
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may” [be baptized]. And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Acts 19:5 & 18 NKJV
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus...
And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds.
Acts 22:16 NKJV
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
But this begs the question as to the salvation of children. There seems to be a natural state of faith in children that they lose when they become awakened to the knowledge of their own sinfulness (commonly called the “age of accountability”).
Christ described the initial salvation experience as being “born again”. But this rebirth is something He said was required of adults rather than children. It appears that He treated children, in their innoncence, differently.
Matthew 18:2-5 NKJV
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
A small child, especially a baby, may not be able to hear and understand the Gospel in order to believe it. Baptism, as Christ commanded, is for those who believe the Gospel. There is also an accompanying baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is the inward reality that matches the outward obedience. Water baptism signifies that we have received Jesus as Lord and Savior. Baptism of the Holy Spirit signifies that God has received us into His family as His children.
Romans 10:13-14 NKJV
For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
So, what is the Biblical standard on infant baptism? There is no command in the Bible to baptize babies born to believing parents after their conversion. But I’m also not aware that there is any command that forbids it either. The closest example that may have included children being baptized at the direction of their parents is in Acts:
Acts 16:31–33 NKJV
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Perhaps, as a symbolic dedication of a newborn baby to God, it represents the commitment to impart the Gospel and saving faith to one’s own children. There is biblical support for this:
2 Timothy 1:5-6 NKJV
I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
1 Corinthians 7:14 NKJV
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
But infant baptism is not the same as an adult being baptized after repenting of sin, believing in Jesus for salvation, and confessing these. So, it is important for those born into Christian families to get baptized after their personal understanding of the Gospel, in obedience to the commands to repent, believe, confess, and be baptized.
But I want to add one final point to my long post. At the inception of the early church, when the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the church was in one accord. There is a command for believers to be in one accord and agree.
Acts 2:1 NKJV
When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
1 Corinthians 1:10 NKJV
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
This agreement and unity in the early church was miraculous. I have never witnessed it before. I’ve seen miracles, but not this. Catholics argue that unanimity of doctrine is proof that the Roman Caotholic Church is the one true church. But the truth is that most Catholics do not fully agree with their own church teaching. It seems even the Pope is not fully catholic either. But the same can be said of all of the Protestant churches that I am aware of.
There is no greater amount of disagreement on any subject on Free Republic than a religious viewpoint discussed by professing followers of Christ. And that’s a shame.
Perhaps we will see this miracle again among true believers in these last days. Or maybe it is happening for many already, and I have not had the privilege to see it or experience it. I hope and pray that changes.
And then you have Origen ("the church received even from the Apostles the custom of administering baptism to infants"), and Tertullian, and the aforementioned Cyprian of Carthage, all saying well before Christianity became legal, that infant baptism was the norm.
Shall I go with your opinion and that of John Smyth and Huldreich Zwingli, or shall I go with the opinion of Origen and Cyprian of Carthage? For me, the choice is an easy one.
Yes. I cited that passage from Acts in the post to which you are replying. It does not tell us whether any of the jailer's household were small children. My point is that the scriptures do not specifically address infant baptism.
“Peter says the promise is ‘to you and to your children’.”
The Greek word used for children (tekna) means “descendants” rather than infants. Peter is saying that the Gospel is rooted in promises God made in the Hebrew scriptures that we call the “Old Testament” today. At the time Peter said this, even he was not aware that God's plan was for the Gospel to go not only to the Jews “near and far” but also to the Samaritans and then the rest of the Gentile world.
Here is the full verse:
Acts 2:39 NKJV
For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.
So, the way he identifies who the promise of salvation is for is narrowed down to those who are “called”. Not everyone who heard his message that day believed and was baptized. But those who God called were.
Now, perhaps that did include the small children and even babies of those who believed. I do not oppose anyone who believes they should baptize their infant children. I just suggest that no adult who comes to understand their need for repentance and to make the faith of their parents their own should rely on what was done to them as a baby or at a time before they understood the Gospel. And my basis for asserting this is that there were those who had been baptized by John the Baptist but not in Jesus’ name in Acts, and the apostles required them to be baptized in water again upon professing faith in Christ:
Acts 19:3-5 NKJV
And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John's baptism.” Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
“Paul compares baptism to circumcision, which was always administered on the 8th day of life.”
This is definitely a compare and contrast essay kind of statement. Circumcision was not universal. Baptism is universal. Circumcision was for descendants of Abraham, but baptism is for all believers. Circumcision was done in private. Baptism is done in public.
But does circumcision make someone a Jew? Half of all Jews are not circumcised but are still Jews. Whether someone is a Jew or Gentile, God wants us to be “circumcised in heart”. A Jew who is circumcised but strayed from the faith of his forefathers does not need to get circumcised over again. But he does need to become circumcised in heart.
But the examples of baptism in the Old Testament I gave are better than circumcision for addressing infant baptism, because Paul's comparison is NOT to physical circumcision but heart circumcision. And in two of the three cases I gave as examples, babies and small children were baptized. So, that does give some support to the idea of infant baptism. I think as a way to identify who is part of the visible church, baptism is an important outward demonstration of obedience.
The promise of salvation that Peter spoke of in this passage is more specifically the new outpouring of the Holy Spirit for EVERYONE who believes the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 NKJV
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Isaiah 44:3 NKJV
For I will pour water on him who is thirsty,
And floods on the dry ground;
I will pour My Spirit on your descendants,
And My blessing on your offspring.
Ezekiel 36:27 NKJV
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
Joel 2:28-32 NKJV
And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
Zechariah 12:10 NKJV
And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
“That's nice, but that's all just your digested opinion about what the Bible means... Shall I go with your opinion and that of John Smyth and Huldreich Zwingli, or shall I go with the opinion of Origen and Cyprian of Carthage?”
Is the Bible so ambiguous as to be able to pick and choose what it means that literally EVERYTHING becomes my opinion versus someone else’s opinion?
Shall we, for example, follow your interpretation of Origen? What if your interpretation of Origin is just your opinion? What if your spiritual leader's interpretation of your church's tradition is just his opinion? And what if your interpretation of what he says is really just an opinion?
The reality is that people can twist and misinterpret the scriptures and Christ's own words. They can even walk with Him while He is on earth and then fail to understand the most basic things He taught and commanded.
At the end of the day, I cannot fix you and you cannot fix me. We can first seek to not be deceived by studying the scriptures diligently, and praying for the Holy Spirit to enlighten us with spiritual understanding.
If you do this, and if I do this, and God answers both of our prayers, then we will agree. Otherwise, one or both of us is wrong. Plain and simple.
The thing about being deceived is no one who is deceived knows he or she is deceived. If we knew it then we wouldn't be deceived.
Study diligently. Pray fervently. Listen obediently. God speaks, and we can KNOW the truth.
John 10:27-28 NKJV
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
The most important thing here is not to win an argument over infant baptism. Such matters are resolved if we have the Holy Spirit and are listeneing to Him. God's command for us ALL is to “examine yourself”:
1 Corinthians 11:28-29 NKJV
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
2 Corinthians 13:5 NKJV
Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.
Both of these passages are talking about the experiential evidence that every believer needs in order to know they have eternal life and are part of the true church (the spiritual body of Christ).
I was wrongly taught growing up that we know we have the Holy Spirit by doctrinal knowledge. But all of the scriptures show that having the Holy Spirit is experiential. It IS consistent with doctrine, but if we have the Holy Spirit we should be aware of it. And if not, we must seek God on the basis of His promises that you cited in Acts. This promise (the Holy Spirit) is to you and your children. This is the only way followers of Christ can experience the miracle of unity and agreement over doctrine. If we are taught by God, He will teach us the correct answers and we will be in agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.