Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
The fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that the Church ever practiced anything other than infant baptism. "Scholars" have theories to account for the writings they find later on. A favorite is to say that "NT scholars" universally agree now that there's no evidence of a theology of infant baptism in the New Testament and then trace backward from Tertullian and his writings to assert that it must be the case. That's not scholarship but guesswork.
Rich, it would seem that the soundest and most scholarly method to use for investigating baptismal practice between apostolic times and Tertullian is to consider the actual writings from that period which addressed baptism in some explanatory terms. Arguably, the four sources that best fit this bill are:
(1) The Didache (c.75–110 AD) [the oldest surviving manual of early, post-apostolic church belief and practice (probably Syrian)]: "After rehearsing all these things [i.e. the preceding teachings], baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. ...But before baptism let the baptizer fast, and the one baptized, and whoever else can; but you must order the baptized to fast one or two days before." (sec. 7)
(2) Epistle of Barnabas (c.90–120) ...“And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever.” [Apparently taken from a loose paraphrase of Psalm 1:3–6.] This means that we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the Spirit." (11:10b–11)
(3) Shepherd of Hermas (c.135–155) [a popular devotional work—even deemed to be canonical in some early churches]: "And I said to him ‘I should like to continue my questions.’ ‘Speak on,’ said he. And I said to him, ‘I heard, sir, from some teachers that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘That was sound doctrine you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity.’"(4.3.1f)
(4) Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165): "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we have been made new through Christ. ...As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting. They then are brought by us to where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the name of God the Father, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing [Greek: loutron—a washing; a bath;] with water." (Apology, 1.61)
Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).
Have you ever considered that there isn't a peep of complaint from any Patristics when infant baptism was supposedly introduced some time in the 2nd or 3rd Century according to these theories? Not a peep. These men fought against every aberrant theology of the time and we find no Church Father writing a single letter protesting the aberration of infant baptism as a widespread practice.
Everett Ferguson (Professor of Church History Emeritus at Abilene Christian University), a credobaptist who regardless is widely respected as one of the leading patristic scholars in the world, had a somewhat antithetical perspective with respect to Tertullian’s dialog about infant baptism:
"The first unambiguous reference [to infant baptism] is to be found in Tertullian, and he was opposed to the practice. Tertullian was not talking about a tendency or a hypothetical situation. The practice was present and had its defenders. On the other hand, Tertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance. He seems to be stating, as elsewhere in his treatise On Baptism (which has an anti-heretical thrust), the common position of the church. He does not sound like an innovator fighting an established custom. North Africa continued to be the place where infant baptism had its strongest support, and it may be that this was the region where it began." (Early Christians Speak, 58)
It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.
Best regards,
Phil D.
---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------
Sorry about the formatting mixups in my previous post. I'm nor sure what I did wrong...