Tertullian and Infant Baptism

This concludes my three part (four post) series on infant baptism. First, we considered how the belief resonates with a general Christian ethos. Then, as an important qualifier, we considered what baptism does in general. Second, we looked at infant baptism in the scriptures. Last but not least, we will now look to Church history and consider the almost universal Christian practice of infant baptism.

I want to think through this issue with two ideas in mind:

1. Only one theologian challenged infant baptism for 1,500 years

2. If you want some evidence for infant baptism in Church history you can have a field day reading St. Polycarp, Origen, St. Augustine, early Church Councils, writings in the catacombs...

You might ask, "Who was the knuckle-headed theologian who opposed infant baptism?"

Tertullian was the object of my intense study during my undergraduate thesis work. That being said, it is not surprising at all that he would want to keep baptism from children. To understand why, let's consider some of the background.

First, Tertullian was not a trained theologian. He was a trained lawyer and rhetorician. In Carthage, he would be heavily influenced by Stoic philosophy, particularly in how the soul is related to the body (see De Anima). It is this anthropology that informs his understanding of the sacrament of baptism and is the likely cause for both his dualism and his insistence on the simplicity of faith (he was also a physicalist).

Tertullian taught the orthodox belief that confessio, satisfacto, and contritio to be the essential components of any forgiveness granted for post-baptismal sins. However, these concepts for Tertullian functioned within a legal systematic context. Let's focus on the words "satisfacto" and "contritio" which correspond to a series of actions prescribed by a priest that would clear the conscious of a believer and the penance paid by the penitent (see De Paenitentia). Tertullian viewed baptism as the focal point of grace and the means by which complete holiness could be obtained, and even more, that satisfacto and contritio were long legal processes (lex tingendi), therefore, he encouraged Christians to postpone baptism as long as possible in an effort to limit the opportunity for losing grace upon the potential commitment of future sin. 

As such, Tertullian can be understood as a fearful rigorist. A rigorist is basically anyone who holds that absolute extremes are necessary for salvation--meaning only those who obtain to that (extreme/rigorous) level of practice/belief will be saved. For example, Tertullian condemned women who married pagans, used makeup, hair dye, fancy clothes or jewelry. St. Augustine noticed this when studying Tertullian and was critical of the World--Church dualism prevalent in his writings.

The Take Away...

Tertullian shows us the dangers of rigorism. He would not only prescribe the delay of infant baptism, he would likely discourage you or I from being baptized! Yikes!

Even more, he does not make a compelling case for the Anabaptists. Imagine a baptismal line at a geriatrics facility--the Tertullian ideal. And may they all pray for an expedient and timely death!

That aside, what Tertullian does evidence is the basic Patristic notion that baptism is salvific. In addition, we must remember that the infusion of grace is as much an empowerment to a Godly life as it is a cleansing from sin--an idea less emphasized in Tertullian. In short, we can take away from Tertullian the basic assumption that baptism is salvific without getting caught up in his rigorist errors.

(Next up: Confession--Is It Against Christian Sensibilities?)

Secondary Literature:
Phillip S. Watson, Concept of Grace, London: Epworth Press, 75.
Chalres Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture, NY: Oxford University Press, 223.
B.J. Kidd, A History of the Church, NY: Oxford University Press, 372.
Edward Fortman, The Theology of Man and Grace, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co, 107.
Arthur McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, v.2, London: University of London Press, 20.
R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, London: Cambridge University Press, p.106.

Purgatory in Church History

When I was studying the doctrine of purgatory, one of the most interesting facts that astounded me was just how explicit this notion was in the early Church Fathers. More than infant baptism or original sin, the notion of a coming purgation for the elect was eminent in their writings both East and West. 

In my previous post I explored whether or not this doctrine made sense generally as a Christian. Despite what I will convey here and my growing conviction of the apostolicity and orthodoxy of the doctrine during my studies, I still couldn't make the heart movement which I explained in my previous post. Before that movement, I had given assent to the doctrine per my understanding of (a) the authority of the Catholic Church to teach it and (b) the witness I noticed in Church history and Scripture that attested to it. 

In the The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity we are introduced to a "place of punishment". St. Clement of Alexandria in the dawning of the third century describes this place saying:

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."-Stromata

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century about five hundred miles away from Alexandria writes:

"For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offense, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.”-Catechetical Lectures 23:9,10

St. Augustine of Hippo a few decades after St. Cyril writes:

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then"-City of God 21:13

 At the Twenty Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, the Church affirmed:

"The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses..."

The Catholic Church continues to proclaim this doctrine of purgation that affirms the dignity of the individuality of the human person and that is copiously present in the writings of the Church Fathers. What I found is that a lot of the historical and theological objections to purgatory had to do with the "difficult and subtle questions, which tend not to edification (or)...increase of piety." The Church certainly had in mind some of the late medieval nominalism that was marked by the most peculiar and subtle questions regarding theology. For example, "If the Eucharist falls on the ground and a mouse picks it up, does the mouse consume the Sacramental species of Christ?" The answers did little more than satiate the inordinate obsession of nominalists with the unending possibility of making language a game. Nevertheless, when the doctrine is understood in its Biblical, historical, and sensible context, it is quite manageable to understand.

Moreover, as the Council of Trent illumines, the doctrine of Purgatory compels us to a life of holiness and penance here on earth. When we sin we not only injure our relationship with God but also our relationship with ourselves and others. Purgation is the process whereby we make right the later two and will make it right either in this world or the next (Matt 12:32).

(Next: Purgatory in Scripture)

My First Mass

After my first Mass, I'll never forget sitting in the coffee shop with my friend. I was staring out a window, sipping some coffee and thinking about what I had just experienced. Tears welled up in my eyes and I asked in bewilderment, "Why are we separated? That was the most Christ centered 'service' I have ever been to."

I remember thinking that this whole Protestant/Catholic thing was a big sham. I grew up my entire life thinking that Catholics were unbiblical, disregarding Jesus, and instead worshiped idols, Mary, and worked their way to heaven. I was expecting something foreign at Mass. But what I got went something like this:

• Prayer and repentance (to Jesus)
• Old testament reading
• Psalm
• New Testament Reading 
• Gospel (we stand up because Jesus is talking)
• Prayer
• Partake of Jesus in the Eucharist
• Prayer

In 155 A.D., St. Justin Martyr describes something eerily similar here. I had read that before, but it didn't click; but it would make sense when I would read it later. In Luke 24, after the Resurrection, Jesus does something very similar to this with his disciples.

A question that emerged for me on my journey was "Why do all of the ancient churches practice a somewhat similar liturgy?" Was this a novelty or was it something that Christ taught them? I think the logistical limitations of early Christians make it being a novelty quite impossible. Rather, what makes a lot more sense, is that Jesus taught his disciples how to worship and that they went out and established communities who worshiped within those liturgical frameworks. I think we get more than a shadow of it in Luke 24. What this conclusion also bears is the reality of extra biblical tradition. I will talk about that on another day.

When I considered the Mass, I also noticed a beautiful narrative that unfolds. The story of salvation history. As I started to understand the Mass as heavenly worship brought to earth and as the priest operating in persona Christi (because there is only One High Priest), the procession into the Church of the priest only made sense. When we stood we were acknowledging Father Neff not qua John Neff, we were acknowledging Father Neff qua Jesus Christ. This was his time. And, what the brief run-down above shows is that all of us must enter into the historic unfolding of salvation in time and space to understand the The Good News: The Gospel. However, that is not enough. 

Like the disciples our hearts are "burning for him" (Luke 24:32), but even when Christ himself preached the Gospel to them, their eyes were not truly open until he "took the bread, blessed it ("this is my body"), and gave it to them" (Luke 24:31). At their realizing he vanished from their sight. That morning I will admit that I did not see Jesus in the flesh kind of like the disciples who in receiving the Blessed Sacrament looked up to find their Lord disappeared. However, I was certain that He was there. Somehow, Christ was with us that morning. To the side of the altar was a place where they put the communion that was not consumed after the consecration. Because Catholics believe that it is truly Jesus and no longer bread, they could never disgard it like a common piece of trash. Instead, left over "hosts" are put in a tabernacle. As I peered over in the direction of the tabernacle, I asked myself, "Jesus, could it be YOU?"

If it was, I knew how this story would go.