During the first three centuries Christian congregations all over the East continued separate independent bodies, unsupported by government, and consequently without any secular power over one another.  All this time they were Baptist churches; and though all the fathers of the first four ages down to Jerome were of Greece, Syria, and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not (if we except the case referred by Fidus to Cyprian, 256 A.D.) one record of the baptism of the baptism of a child till the year 370, when Galetes, the dying son of the Emperor Valens, was baptized by order of a monarch, who swore he would not be contradicted (see Rob. Res., p.55).  (G.H. Orchard)

Infant Baptism: Sylvester Hassell:  It is claimed that Irenaeus was born A.D. 97, and that he makes one allusion to infant baptism.  The fact is that both the date and place of Irenaeus’s birth and death are unknown.  The ablest scholars believe that he was born between A.D. 120 and 140; and some suppose that he died A.D. 202.  His book against Heresies was composed, says Mr. Schaff, between the years 177 and 192.  In that book he says that “our Lord came in order that through himself he might save all men, infants, and little ones, and children and youths and elders, even all who through him are born again unto God.”

The expression ‘born again’ is said, in the early so-called Father, habitually to mean baptized; but it remains to be proved that it always has that meaning, and that it has that meaning in the sentence just quoted from Irenaeus.  The phrase through him, instead of through water, militates emphatically against the idea of baptism regeneration in this passage—so admit the German scholars. 

The earliest undoubted reference to child baptism is by Tertullian of North Africa (born 160 A.D., died between 220 and 240— converted about A.D. 190), and he earnestly opposes it.  Certainly then, child baptism must have been, not of apostolic, but of recent origin, when Tertullian wrote.  Bunsen shows that Tertullian was not arguing against infant baptism at all, then unknown, but against the baptism of little growing children from six years old who could go down with the other catechumens into the baptismal bath, but were not yet in a state to make the proper responses. 

This custom was coming into fashion, but Tertullian rejects it.  From boys of ten, who might possibly sometimes give evidence of sincere piety, the clergy advanced to take in those of six or seven responded for by others, though able to descend into the water, unaided with the adult catechumens.  Then those of three or four, when just able to repeat a few of the sacred words, as Gregory Nazianzen recommends, were, by a further corruption, brought by baptism into the fold of the church.

From this very circumstance would arise the strongest argument for going a step further.  For since in these very young children baptism could not be a profession of personal faith, it could only lead the masses to suppose that it acted as a charm, and that the child was more safe in case of death, a view carefully cherished by the clergy.  Thus arose the belief that all, even infants, dying without baptism, would be lost; and hence followed the baptism of babes eight days old, and even those of a day. 

The first known instance of this last was A.D. 256, in North Africa, and these ideas slowly and gradually pervaded the church as Neander has shown.  A host of authorities fully sustain this view of the origin of infant baptism.  “The Catholic practice of pretending to make even infants catechumens, or rudimentally instructed in Christianity, before baptism, is an undesigned proof of the correctness of the above explanation, and of the truth of Baptist principles.”—T.F. Curtis.  Dean Stanley says that there is but one known instance of infant baptism in the third century, though he defends the practice as being “a standing testimony to the truth, value, and eternal significance of natural religion,” and as showing that, “in every child of Adam, whilst there is much evil, there is more good.”  (Hassell’s History pg 271)

“The baptism of youth, it is maintained by many, began in this [fourth] Century.  In the year 370 the Emperor Valens sent for Basil to baptize his dying son Galetes; the ground of the request was the illness of the youth.  Basil refused to do it, and it was eventually done by an Arian bishop.  If an emperor’s son must be baptized before he died, although destitute of faith, of course the next highest in authority must have the same privilege accorded him, and so on down to the lowest officer and the poorest and most obscure man in the empire.  And upon similar grounds it came to be urged that if young men and youths, who were taught to ask for baptism, could receive it and thus escape eternal punishment, the same blessing ought to be conferred on poor helpless infants, who could not even speak for themselves and knew not anything.  So that it was agreed eventually that they should also be baptized as soon as born or soon thereafter, so that they also, by this means, in case of death, might escape the flames of hell!  And either about 256 A.D. in Africa or 370 A.D. in Rome, is where youths’ and children’s baptism, without faith, came from; not from Christ or his apostles.  Be it remembered, then, that 370 years after the birth of our Savior, and emperor’s child was baptized by an Arian Bishop—having been refused by one of the Athanasian or orthodox party!”  (Hassell’s History pg 386)