The simple answer is yes, but it is important to know when and where this unfortunate practice developed. The quotes you mention help establish this.
The Hyppolytus quite is not about infants, but about children–of what age I cannot say, whether 6 or 10 or 14 years old. It is not relevant for infant baptism, yet it shows that the church by the third century was baptizing ever-younger children. This is not surprising. As the church settled in, and as the children of families who were disciples of Jesus began to grow up, there is a natural tendency that I have seen for families, perhaps out of sentimentality, gradually lowering the age when they baptize their children.
The Origen quote is interesting and it is important as well. However, I strongly disagree with Origen in his characterization of the apostles. There is no evidence of the apostles or primitive first and second century church fathers suggesting the baptism of infants. Also, here Origen is arguing for a false doctrine of “Original Sin.” We do not have “innate sin” when we are born. We are born with a sinful nature, but not guilty of sin of others. Infants are innocent! Origen is simply wrong on this issue, both biblically, and from church history. However, the quote is quite significant, as it implies that there were at least some already talking about the false doctrine of Original Sin as early as the mid-third century, and that, at least in some circles, infant baptism was also practiced as early as the mid-third century AD. This is a sad fact about the early church, showing the drift toward what eventually became the broad practice of infant baptism, as well as the idea that faith is irrelevant to salvation–which is heresy.
Thankfully, we have Tertullian pushing back against this unbiblical innovation in the very early third century. Thank-you Tertullian!
I cannot tell you what the motivations of the earliest disciples to baptize infants was. It requires speculation. But, since you ask, I will do some speculating here. My thought is that, over time, the church emphasized the need of repentance and baptism for salvation somewhat less. They relied more and more of sacrament and on “the church” to impart holiness over time. Because of this trend, and because of sentimentality, gradually Christian parents had their children baptized younger and younger, to the point that fairly small children were being baptized. For good reason, Tertullian opposed this, because it completely undermines the teaching of salvation by faith!!! However, I speculate that by the early or mid-third century, traumatized, sentimental parents began to baptize even infants who came into contact with deadly infectious diseases “just in case.” When they did so, they were were not thinking of the doctrinal or theological implications, but were normal parents–concerned about the final destination of their children. Remember that in Roman times, infant mortality was very high.
You are wondering why they baptized without a doctrinal justification of the practice. This is a great question. But this is my response. It was about emotion and sentimentality rather than about a doctrinal justification. However, a growing trend to downplay faith and repentance for salvation–a move toward sacramentalism, may also have been a factor in this tragic error of baptizing infants by the mid-third century. The Origen quote shows what happened, which is that false theological thinking supported a practice which was already in place by that time.
John Oakes
