Replies

I believe it was in the book The Mass of the early Christians by Mike Aquilina, but I would have to look it up. Another one is this document http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/infantbapt.doc, which logically argues that, since Christianity evolved from Judaism and since the early Church looked at baptism as a new circumcision, early Christians baptized their infants the way Jews circumcise them on the 7th day.

There is also this testament to ancient Christian infant baptism

"In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter: [editor's note- the referenced epitaph is in the original document].

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."

Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:

Dedicated to the departed. Florentius made this inscription for his worthy son Apronianus who lived one year and nine months and five days. As he was truly loved by his grandmother and she knew that his death was imminent, she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.

the fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.

A very compelling case can be made by the fact that even heretical Christians did not object to infant baptism and this was apparently the Christian practice no matter which Chrisotlogical or Triniatrian twist a particular Church took.

Thus, it can safely be concluded that infant baptism was and is part of the early Church and that there was no outwardly opposition to it by anyone except one recorded instance by Tertullian (160 - 215) because he believed that one is better off being baptized later on in life when they could avoid sinning (emphasis added):

In the early Church, there is only one sole record of opposition to infant baptism, that of Tertullian (160 - 215), of Carthage, Africa, not because he thought that infant baptism itself invalid or that intellectual assent to faith was required first, but because he felt it was so bad to sin afterwards that one shouldn’t get baptized unless they were certain they could avoid sinning later. His view was unorthodox and he later became a Monatist.

No other record of opposition is found for another 1000 years.

Apparently, either apostles themselves approved of the practice or did not censure their (apostolic) successors for doing it. There is simply no record, no indication that any of the Apostles or Apostolic or Church Father or any Christian apologetic criticized infant baptism as contrary to what the Church believed everywhere and always.