Polycarp and Harris Fragment
As late as the 1950's catholics used a statement from Polycarp in debates over infant baptism, with great success I must add. A recently discovered fragment from Egypt called the "Harris Fragment" has shed light upon the catholic argument. Before I address Polycarp let me first set forth some 2nd century opposition.
It is common to hear Catholics claim there was no opposition to infant baptism until the reformation, 1400-1800. I have read this statement often on catholic web sites. This is false since Tertullian a BHelvidian ishop(ishop in the 2nd-3rd century refused to accept it and wrote refusing to use it. Donatus another 2nd century Bishop also spoke against infant baptism. One teacher accepted infant baptism if the child was at "great risk". He did not believe such a baptism had the same force as believers baptism. There was early opposition. We can build a solid list of those practicing believer baptism only. I do not refer to it as adult baptism since one can believe before becoming an adult. I know of many, for instance, who were baptized before age 12. They would not be considered adults but are believers. Here are some in favor of believers baptism.
Irenaeus
Donatists
Tertullian
Pelagius
HelvidianJovianHelviHelvidian
Jovian
Yet, they try to balance the weight of these early teachers, all at one point Presbyters, with the claim of early support of infant baptism through Polycarp, a man who knew the apostle John. The weight added because Polycarp was an acquaintance with the one who is believed to have leaned upon Christ at the last supper. Without Polycarp's statement it is doubtful anyone would have practiced infant baptism in a sustained doctrine.
Polycarp has been used by Catholics and protestants who practice infant baptism for centuries, yet new discoveries now refute their usage. There were other arguments against Polycarp's baptism, but they were suppressed over the years, with new evidence we can revisit those arguments as well. The argument goes like this.
Polycarp was a disciple of John and was supposedly baptized as an infant, they believe the time spent serving Christ matched his living age, saying,
"86 years have I served Christ"
If he died at 86 he may have been baptized as an infant, though the statement wouldn't make it certain, it states how long he served Christ and doesn't reveal his actual age at baptism. Catholics used it presumptuously.
Yet the Harris fragment now punches holes in their argument. The Harris fragment reveals Polycarp's age at death as 104. 104 minus 86 would mean he was 18 at baptism.
There is proof of opposition to infant baptism and the supposed proof of support seems to fail upon examination. There are three main arguments we can now use to counter Catholic claims.
1. The Harris fragment.
2. Early writings that state Polycarp was converted after his infancy, by apostles.
3. Early writing showing opposition was being given to infant baptism.
After or close to concurrent with the teachers above we find further evidence against infant baptism. In 388 AD there were several oppositions alone as Catholic writers defended the practice openly. By writing in support they admitted the opposition.
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
Notice Gregory used baptism as a seal which is the purpose of the holy spirit and not baptism. Baptism is not called a seal in the new testament. Also he uses the term initiated, which was the use of washings in the Roman mystery religions. Baptism is not called an initiation in the New Testament. Gregory clearly used extra biblical ideas.
Gregory only baptized infants if they were in danger. He did not baptize most, he held off until they could be instructed. Plus, he mentions childhood, so it is unclear if he mentions infants or just small children. The word infant in Greek could go up to age 8.
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
John Chrysostem admitted infant baptism would not be for the remission of sins, but would have other benefits. Thus he did not view it as having the same force as believers baptism. The infants he baptized would not be baptized for the remission of sins in his view. This is the purpose expressed by Peter in Acts 2:38.
Claiming there was no opposition before the reformation isn't viable. These men used wording like "some will say" or "some think". There was quite a lot of opposition. Plus we see in their responses a diverse reasoning. Some said infants were born with sin while some said we baptize for reasons other than the remission of sins in children as Chrysostom above. Nevertheless you can see the opposition admitted in their statements. Thus, they rely on the silence of opposition, when there was a lot, it was and is a false argument..
For a long time people who practiced infant baptism relied solely on the statement from Polycarp for 2nd century evidence, Polycarp was a second century bishop in the early church, and a disciple of John. He said
"86 years I have served Christ"
apologists for hundreds of years used this to say he was baptized as an infant, being it unlikely that men of his age would live longer. It was an assumption used to support their theological position by Catholics and the Protestants who practiced it. Many high ranking Catholics I might add. Many high ranking Methodists and Wesleyans as well.
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/01/was-polycarp-of-smyrna-baptized-as-an-infant/
this is still in use today despite the Harris Fragment being found. The Harris fragment clearly implies Polycarp was about 18 at his baptism.
http://blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2007/08/case-for-infant-baptism.html
Here is a recent quote from the article above.
Some apparently feel that the early church did not baptize infants, but that can be disproved by reading the historical citations if the following article. Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers *) and from the very early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (a disciple and friend of St. John as well as bishop of the Church in Smyrna) in which Polycarp plainly says the following when the proconsul tries to get him to deny Christ because of his old age. He shows that he was infant baptized.
We now know they were incorrect. Plus they keep using Polycarp on websites and in other media.
So, what is the Harris fragment? Where did it come from? A few years ago an early historical fragment was found near Alexandria Egypt called the Harris fragment. You can look it up online. The interesting point is that it says Polycarp died in his 100's and implying he was 18 years old at his baptism. It has been tested and is considered authentic. It is owned and controlled by Catholics thus repressed as a document against their views..
Without Polycarp there are no provable examples of the early Church practicing infant baptism. Tertullian as a Bishop did not practice infant Baptism. He was in the next generation after Polycarp. He was the first person to use the word Trinity and first to formulate Three persons and one substance in explaining God. He was branded a heretic, but his views were adopted in the council of Nicea. So he was first rejected but later they accepted his beliefs. Today catholics reject Tertullian mainly because of his views on baptism. He does present at least one early Bishop that rejected it.
The interesting part is Catholics for centuries used Polycarp's statement, including Popes and prominent Bishops, now we know they were wrong in their presentation. This is startling when we consider at the time there was a counter statement from one of Polycarp's pupils. Irenaues in a letter to Florinus wrote that he had discussed Polycarps conversion and that he had been "converted" by apostles. This alone should have brought the argument to greater discretion, but catholics continued to use it. How are you converted when baptized at birth?
So now with the Irenaeus statement about Polycarp's conversion and the Harris fragment we see that it was very unlikely Polycarp was baptized as an infant. We have two witnesses against it. The Catholic proof turns out to be false.
Converted by apostles means he was taught as a young adult or older teen as implied in the Harris fragment.
There is one statement from Irenaeus that Catholics use to draw an assumption that Irenaeus did accept infant baptism, and being a follower of Polycarp that would be important, but Irenaeus makes it clear Pollycarp was converted.
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Notice it no where says he baptized new born infants, the word infant can mean up to 8 years of age. It is possible he is referring to older babes who come to faith when referencing rebirth. He is referencing Jesus as a babe, as Jesus passed through all stages, but Jesus was baptized at thirty, not as an infant. So the Irenaues' statement is just more fodder for assumption and speculation. His point was Jesus was the perfect teacher for every age and we know Jesus was not baptized as an infant. There is no proof in it. It seems more that Irenaeus is saying we have an obligation with children in the roll of teaching them. Jesus came to save all who are reborn. Thus bringing to rebirth through teaching, not initially through baptism.
Jesus' life was an example of dealing with relative age.
Jesus received children before their baptisms it seems, though the infants could be old enough to have faith. Matthew 18:6.
Mat 18:6 And whoG3739 G1161 everG302 should cause to stumbleG4624 oneG1520 G3588 of these small onesG3397 G3778 G3588 trustingG4100 inG1519 me,G1473 it would be advantageousG4851 to himG1473 thatG2443 [3should be hungG2910 1a millstoneG3458 2of a donkey]G3684 uponG1909 G3588 his neck,G5137 G1473 andG2532 he should be sunkG2670 inG1722 theG3588 openG3989 G3588 sea.G2281
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and he touched and blessed them without the command to baptize them.
Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mar 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
Jesus blessed without requiring baptism at that moment. Plus he said they receive the kingdom, thus an assumption of their consent even at an early age. If they understand and believe what is taught them.
http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2008/08/week-with-polycarp-introduction/
There are some New Testament assumptions that have been presented.
1. Jesus said, "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not"
But in this statement is no mention of baptism. They were allowed to come unto him it appears without baptism. I don't know who first assumed this statement was about baptism.
2. Baptized his whole house...Acts 10 & Acts 16
Another assumption that assumes there are babies involved without actual statements. There are statements within the texts stating the household had fear or faith, etc.
3. Saying baptism is called circumcision in Colossians 2.
Colossians 2:8-13
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Notice the statement is in connection to faith. Keep in mind circumcision was for a physical birth, baptism is in connection to spiritual birth. So within 8 days of spiritual new birth.
So it must be used of adults as well, it is explaining the baptism of adults, those in Acts 2:36-38 were definitely adults. They went through this circumcision.