# Baptism and History



## timmopussycat (Sep 14, 2011)

In the paedo forum Rich posted the following. How would credo's address the points made?

1. In the Scriptures ("early" Church history), the Scriptures are silent concerning any controversy over covenant inclusion of children. This is an argument from silence but if we assume the antipaedobaptist position was the default teaching of the Church, a "Judaizing" tendency would have been the inclusion of children even as they were attempting to circumcise adults. Paul (or any other Apostle) never once has to mention or explain to anyone in the early Church that children are no longer part of the visible Covenant.

2. By the second century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church. There were those who argued against what was being practiced around the Church but the reasoning against the practice was for sub-Christian reasons. When you think about a universal practice, how could the antipaedobaptist position have completely disappeared from the scene given the arguments against paedobaptism that are presented by antipaedobaptists? This is such a huge departure from orthodoxy that not a single epistle or letter survives to this day recounting any institutional memory of the trouble the introduction of that practice would have caused?

3. This is related to the second point but in debates with Augustine, Pelagius is interacting with his opponent and notes that he has never even heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Four centuries and absolutely no institutional memory that anybody in Church history had ever spoken against the practice?

The bottom line is that the antipaedobaptist position has to argue historically that its position disappeared so quickly from the scene of Church history that no shred of indignation over the novelty of infant baptism and its departure from orthodoxy survives to this day.​


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2011)

Antipaedobaptist apologists regularly draw attention to the so-called "fact" of paedocommunion in the early church, and argue that, if this was accepted as a corruption by most paedobaptists, there is no reason why paedobaptism shouldn't be seen in the same light. In "The True History of Paedocommunion" I have attempted to show why there is no genuine comparison between the two.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 14, 2011)

It appears that the error of baptismal regeneration also appeared early and without many vocal critics that I know of. Therefore, it is quite possible that other baptismal errors could have emerged early as well, especially if baptism was counted as necessary for salvation.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 14, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> In the Scriptures ("early" Church history), the Scriptures are silent concerning any controversy over covenant inclusion of children. This is an argument from silence but if we assume the antipaedobaptist position was the default teaching of the Church, a "Judaizing" tendency would have been the inclusion of children even as they were attempting to circumcise adults. Paul (or any other Apostle) never once has to mention or explain to anyone in the early Church that children are no longer part of the visible Covenant.


 Assuming paedobaptism was the norm is a huge assumption which is precisely what we are trying to demonstrate or denounce. The Scriptures are silent regarding infant baptism as a whole, not to mention any controversy over it, so not only is this a non-argument, it is a non-statement. The Judaizing tendency, seems to me, to demonstrate circumcision continued in the early church. This severely hurts the argument, in my opinion, that baptism was seen to replace circumcision, and, that it was obviously so.


timmopussycat said:


> By the second century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church.


 We don't actually know for certain that it was universal. We know Tertullian observed it happening in HIS context, but we also know that a few prominent Cappadocians didn't receive it. So saying it was universal is an overstatement. And if it was not universally practiced as a departure from orthodoxy, then it's no wonder that there aren't loud polemics about it.


timmopussycat said:


> Four centuries and absolutely no institutional memory that anybody in Church history had ever spoken against the practice?


 Tertullian? Or are we not listening to him because of his montanism?

As I've mentioned before, if it were universally practiced and canonized as sacred practice, like the eucharist, I find it bold to say the least that Tertullian would have written so sharply against it. Usually we debate points which are debatable, not the ones which are forever settled.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 14, 2011)

To address #1: The largest issue in the early church was regarding the practice of circumcision, which is, of course, related to the issue of infant baptism. Some argued that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, but the church decided otherwise.

The paedobaptist holds to the presupposition that circumcision is replaced by baptism, but covenant inclusion remains the same. If that were the case, the apostles should have made the simple argument to the Judaizers: "Baptism replaces circumcision." Since the Gentiles were baptized, they don't need to be circumcised. If it were that simple, then the debate should have been settled with that. But, in all the debates with the Judaizers, this argument is NEVER made.

Instead, what we find in Scripture is a long discussion in Acts 15 about how the Gentiles have truly come to God and have received the promised Holy Spirit, and that thus the Gentiles should not have to become Jews. It's not "they were baptized, thus they don't need to be circumcised," it's that "THESE ARE REAL BELIEVERS."

For the credobaptist position, this fits the data perfectly. Being included in the people of God is no longer via physical birth and circumcision. The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit; thus they ought to be baptized (Acts 10:47). Covenant inclusion is by receiving the Holy Spirit. Circumcision has been done away with, and with it the whole system of covenant inclusion by physical birth.

So when Paul writes in Romans that "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, not by the written code," he means that covenant inclusion is by the Spirit, and not by physical descent or applying the a covenant sign. Paedos say that the question of covenant inclusion never comes up. I disagree -- Paul nips it in the bud here such that no further discussion of covenant inclusion is necessary.

Indeed, the question of a covenant inclusion by baptism never comes up until Zwingli. In response to the Anabaptists, Zwingli was the first person to suggest a non-salvific, covenantal baptism.


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2011)

On baptismal regeneration, it is not proven that it was introduced early as a corruption. Speaking about the thing signified in the place of the sign is a biblical dynamic. It appears in the fathers without development. Baptismal regeneration must be read into their statements in order to find it there.

On circumcision, baptism in the place of circumcision is as early as Justin Martyr. In Justin, likewise, we find the discipleship of the smallest infants and the necessity of baptism for discipleship. The antipaedobaptist polemic has no means of accounting for these elements.


----------



## JML (Sep 14, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> discipleship of the smallest infants



How did Justin say we are to disciple the smallest infants?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 15, 2011)

Tertullian makes it clear that he had observed much infant baptism (ca. 200 A.D.), but would urge delay of baptism. He is urging that which the ecumenical councils of the church opposed: a delay of baptism so that one might be safer, particularly with respect to the question of sin after baptism.

A nascent baptismal regeneration and an as yet undeveloped sacerdotal system necessitated addressing the question of what to do with sin after baptism. If baptism washed away sin, it was argued by some, delay it as long as possible, since the church was perplexed as to how to handle sin after baptism and thus developed the sacraments, including penance, confirmation, and extreme unction, as well as marriage and holy orders--and both dominical sacraments (baptism and the Supper)--as a mean of dealing with such.

All this is to say that, taken in context, any way that you approach it, Tertullian is not someone who helps Baptists who wish to argue against infant baptism. To read him as supporting something like "baptism upon a profession of faith," is to completely mistake his meaning. He would, instead, delay baptism until the evident time of Christian maturity when he could better insure the fidelity that would attain heavenly glory. His is the sort of reasoning that would encourage "deathbed baptisms" of the sort that Constantine and others had or were rumored to have had.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## elnwood (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> On circumcision, baptism in the place of circumcision is as early as Justin Martyr.



Which Justin Martyr citation are you referring to? Is it this one?



> And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.


ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

If so, try again. Justin Martyr explicitly says "spiritual circumcision." It has nothing to do with "carnal circumcision," much less baptism replacing carnal circumcision.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 15, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Tertullian makes it clear that he had observed much infant baptism (ca. 200 A.D.), but would urge delay of baptism. He is urging that which the ecumenical councils of the church opposed: a delay of baptism so that one might be safer, particularly with respect to the question of sin after baptism.
> 
> A nascent baptismal regeneration and an as yet undeveloped sacerdotal system necessitated addressing the question of what to do with sin after baptism. If baptism washed away sin, it was argued by some, delay it as long as possible, since the church was perplexed as to how to handle sin after baptism and thus developed the sacraments, including penance, confirmation, and extreme unction, as well as marriage and holy orders--and both dominical sacraments (baptism and the Supper)--as a mean of dealing with such.
> 
> All this is to say that, taken in context, any way that you approach it, Tertullian is not someone who helps Baptists who wish to argue against infant baptism. To read him as supporting something like "baptism upon a profession of faith," is to completely mistake his meaning. He would, instead, delay baptism until the evident time of Christian maturity when he could better insure the fidelity that would attain heavenly glory. His is the sort of reasoning that would encourage "deathbed baptisms" of the sort that Constantine and others had or were rumored to have had.


Thanks for the post Alan. My intrigue in Tertullian as a baptist lies in his gall to even question infant baptism in the first place if, as many claim, it was universal and established since the time of the Apostles. Certainly he did not think himself wiser than the Apostles! His questions as to what to do about post baptismal sin would have been absorbed by what he knew was the established practice of the church. The fact that he would even suggest a delay in baptism ought to have been as preposterous as someone suggesting that the church not celebrate the eucharist. Thus I concur with Rich's original point that there is no controversy, even when someone like Tertullian comes along and questions it. Now, I realize the rebuttal that Tertullian also has the gall to suggest that unmarried men delay baptism as well. But it is not to be compared with infant baptism because there was never an exalted claim regarding the baptism of non-marrieds (universal, established since apostles), as there has been regarding infant baptism. What it does point to is the likelihood that baptism as a sacrament enjoyed more flexibility than the eucharist in these early years.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2011)

elnwood said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > On circumcision, baptism in the place of circumcision is as early as Justin Martyr.
> ...


Don,
Seriously.

1) the necessary _and_ sufficient criteria have been met with regard to the basic point at issue, which is to note that an ECF makes an explicit connection between circumcision and baptism, with what looks like a simple allusion to Paul's prior connection of these ordinances in Col.2:11-12.

2) *both* "carnal" and "spiritual" circumcision are OT concepts, *both* of which are as old as the _oldest_ OT writer, Moses. Ergo, Moses teaches that the external and internal factors are meant to correlate. This is the _least_ that is undeniable concerning the most ancient OT witness; and I would argue that the spiritual qualities taught in conjunction with the rite are evident within the text as far back as the patriarchal narratives themselves, which Moses has written/preserved. Added to that, the inspired NT writers also tell us that the truly enlightened OT saints were inveterate "spiritualizers" of the revelation entrusted to them; that is to say, from the beginning they never stopped at the initial, "carnal" level, but sought the greater truths concealed under lesser things.

3) how can Justin mean to convey anything other (to his Jewish interlocutor and readers) than that Christians plainly _don't_ take an "outward" circumcision, but rather possess the _inward_ (i.e. spiritual) implication of circumcision, which even Enoch possessed--a saint who lived even before circumcision was ordained! But the Christian receives his access to God by means of the Spirit's baptismal application, correlative to a NT rite ordained to replace the OT rite? Justin's reasoning is isn't any more obscure than that of Paul himself; his expression is an early hermeneutical witness to understanding Paul's intent in Col.2 to correlate the rites, and the truths embedded in them.

4) each sign, whether OT or NT, has a spiritual counterpart. The spiritual counterpart of _each_ has essentially the same import. Moses for his part teaches circumcision as spiritual cleansing; Paul and Peter for their part teach baptism as spiritual cleansing. In _neither_ case is the outward act an *infallible* witness to inward grace. However, this acknowledgment does not decouple the intended relation.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 15, 2011)

Bruce,

We Baptists agree with our Presbyterian brethren that circumcision and baptism both have a spiritual counterpart that points to regeneration. This is what Justin Martyr gets at in his quotation, and I agree with him.

If that's all you mean by "necessary and explicit connection" between circumcision and baptism, that's a pretty low bar. Any Baptist believes that, and it doesn't get you anywhere near a covenantal understanding of baptism.

What Justin Martyr does NOT say, and what is at issue here, is that the practice of carnal circumcision is replaced by baptism as a sign of covenant inclusion given to infants. As I stated earlier, that doesn't come until Zwingli.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 15, 2011)

Don,
How specific do the writers of the intervening centuries have to be?
Don't you and I agree, in principle (against, for example, Rome), that a doctrine does not actually need a worked-out articulation, organization, and systemization prior to 1500 to be valid?
And, I might as well ask: if it takes "covenant-theology" (or biblical-theology) to accurately define the structure of revelation--and if you admit of CT or some similar form as the properly basic orientation to Reformed hermeneutics--what point does it serve to observe that the connection between CT and sacramentology takes until the Reformation era to explicate? To my mind, the fact that even the earliest Reformers like Zwingli are "integrational," and begin to work out the basis for infant baptism almost immediately within the frame of a unified biblical hermeneutic, is evidence that these men wanted nothing to do with any church-practice that could not be founded on Scripture, and church-practice begins at baptism for anyone.

It is a Baptist-hypothesis, and a dismissive one, that the magisterial Reformers were essentially "worry-warts" on the subject of infant baptism, were basically afraid to tamper with this practice--and therefore must have been scrounging for a cobbled-together bulwark as a defense for retaining it. Even if this were so (which insults both their spirituality and integrity), the fact is that CT's in-tandem development provided what seems to this day like a "tailor-made" answer to the question of the basis for infant baptism, no "tweaking" required. It is the Baptist expropriation of CT that requires the tweaks in order to exclude infant-baptism. At least NCT doesn't require "hybridization." 

The church is marching out-of-step with Scripture on many things, and _is_ quite busy systematizing their erroneous sacramentology during the middle ages. So, why would we expect them to be taking the time to do the requisite Bible-study on this question? What "crisis" was calling forth the best minds to set baptism on a more solid scriptural footing? The church of the Middle Ages was too busy setting its preconceived ideas on an "Aristotelian" footing.

Oh, but even with all that inertia and blindness, it doesn't stop Aquinas from noting the parallel between circumcision and baptism. Again, this could be chalked-up to a simple recognition that Paul alludes briefly and cursorily to the connection in Col.2, and the question doesn't call for any serious development. The question that Col.2 answers _nobody is asking_ for a very long time.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

elnwood said:


> If so, try again. Justin Martyr explicitly says "spiritual circumcision." It has nothing to do with "carnal circumcision," much less baptism replacing carnal circumcision.



There is no reason to try again when the the engine has started the first time. "We have received it through baptism." Compare the apology: "Then we bring them to some place where there is water; and *they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated*: *for they are washed with water* in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." The antipaedobaptist method of separating sign and thing signified is contrary to the mindset of the early father.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

John Lanier said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > discipleship of the smallest infants
> ...


 
He states it as a simple fact in his Apology: "And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years."


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 15, 2011)

Theology of baptism/circumcision aside, i wonder if we can look at the actions of the early church and derive their thought process. We know that Jewish Christians continued to circumcise their children - even to this day. This wasn't just the Judaizers alone, but Paul had his reasons to continue circumcision as well. How convinced were they that baptism had replaced circumcision as the covenant sign? Perhaps a correlation can be seen in Paul and Justin and others, but how strong an argument can we make that it was a robust covenant theology that permeated and undergirded the early church's practice if circumcision continued to be practiced?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 15, 2011)

In chapter 7 of the Didache:



> Chapter 7 of the document pertains to baptism:
> 
> Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. [7.1-4]




[The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edition, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007]




Do you require the infants of believers to fast?



Below are two quotes from Origen which seem to support the paedobaptist case, but false teachings of washing away original sin also seems to be part of the mix:



> "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
> 
> "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).





Here is a good link to a book on baptism in the early church:

Baptism in the early church: history ... - Google Books


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 15, 2011)

I would like to build on the supposed controversy gap in the first few centuries of the church. The lack of controversy concerning the introduction of paedobaptism can be explained such. All that really needs to happen is that Christians start believing that eternal life was in the waters of baptism. Not a far stretch of the imagination. This belief, held strongly enough can bring one to both hasten AND delay baptism, depending on what the prevailing idea is at the time. So both the introduction and repudiation of paedobaptism can make perfect sense without causing controversy. Afterall, every one believes the half truth that salvation is in baptism and is holding onto that firmly.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 15, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I would like to build on the supposed controversy gap in the first few centuries of the church. The lack of controversy concerning the introduction of paedobaptism can be explained such. All that really needs to happen is that Christians start believing that eternal life was in the waters of baptism. Not a far stretch of the imagination. This belief, held strongly enough can bring one to both hasten AND delay baptism, depending on what the prevailing idea is at the time. So both the introduction and repudiation of paedobaptism can make perfect sense without causing controversy. Afterall, every one believes the half truth that salvation is in baptism and is holding onto that firmly.



Yes, I believe the quick and widespread degeneration of the church into the doctrine of either mature or nascent baptismal regeneration muted any controversies that would have developed. I believe that many of the quotes advocating infant baptism from the first 500 years are strongly connected to this bigger false belief.


----------



## JML (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Thanks Pastor. I was just curious about what he said about it.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 15, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Don,
> How specific do the writers of the intervening centuries have to be?
> Don't you and I agree, in principle (against, for example, Rome), that a doctrine does not actually need a worked-out articulation, organization, and systemization prior to 1500 to be valid?



Bruce, you make it sound like it needed plenty of deep thought, organization, and systematization for any theologian over 1500 years to actually articulate the correct basis for baptism. A simple one line "we baptize children to bring them into the covenant" would do. Surely the early church studied carnal circumcision in the Pentateuch. Why didn't they draw the one-to-one connection with baptism?

Something like "we baptize children to remove original sin" cropped up way before that, so clearly people were thinking about what baptism does.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 15, 2011)

elnwood said:


> "we baptize children to bring them into the covenant"



Actually, the peado view of covenant theology holds that the infants of believers are to receive baptism because by virtue of their birth relationship to a person of faith they are _*already*_ in the outer or visible aspect of the covenant 


Before baptism, the minister is to use some words of instruction, touching the institution, nature, use, and ends of this sacrament, shewing, “That it is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal;

...That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament;

...That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered; and that the fruit and power thereof reacheth to the whole course of our life. (DFtPWoG, _Of Baptism_; cf. WCF 25.2)​


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> but how strong an argument can we make that it was a robust covenant theology that permeated and undergirded the early church's practice if circumcision continued to be practiced?



If "covenant theology" is permitted its place as an undeveloped mechanism, as with most of patristic theology, it is easily shown that the early church tied baptism to covenant theology from the start. As for the alleged practice of circumcision, that is something which will have to be demonstrated before it can be analysed as part of a system.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Do you require the infants of believers to fast?



When dealing with a fact of history, modern standards are irrelevant. It is important to allow the evidence to speak for itself from within its own world of facts.



Pergamum said:


> Below are two quotes from Origen which seem to support the paedobaptist case, but false teachings of washing away original sin also seems to be part of the mix:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Baptism is given for the remission of sins. We read it in the Bible. Again, it should be observed that the close connection between sign and thing signified does not entail the developed theory of later ages.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 15, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > but how strong an argument can we make that it was a robust covenant theology that permeated and undergirded the early church's practice if circumcision continued to be practiced?
> ...


 I'd be interested in an elaboration on this.



> As for the alleged practice of circumcision, that is something which will have to be demonstrated before it can be analysed as part of a system.


 We find Paul circumcising Timothy post baptism (presumably). And as Don pointed out earlier, we don't see Paul using baptism as a reason why not to submit to circumcision.


----------



## MW (Sep 15, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> I'd be interested in an elaboration on this.



When dealing with patristic theology, it is understood that one is only working with the bare materials and that overt systematisation was a later development. In this case, one might look at the use of "grace" in the apostolic fathers, which has already been surveyed by Thomas Torrance. The visible church community with its ministry and services provides a context within which to speak of grace in a way that extends certain features of the NT use of it. This "extension" is much the same as what is later developed in Protestant covenant theology under the administration of the covenant of grace.



steadfast7 said:


> > As for the alleged practice of circumcision, that is something which will have to be demonstrated before it can be analysed as part of a system.
> 
> 
> We find Paul circumcising Timothy post baptism (presumably). And as Don pointed out earlier, we don't see Paul using baptism as a reason why not to submit to circumcision.


 
Circumcision was not a religious rite as practised by Paul, so it is irrelevant. He rejected the very notion. At any rate, it finds no place in the second or third century, which is the period under discussion.

The circumcision/baptism hermeneutic is regularly used throughout the early church. Baptism is spiritual circumcision. There is no separation of sign and thing signified.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 16, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Baptism is spiritual circumcision. There is no separation of sign and thing signified.


 This is intriguing. Do you mean water baptism here, or baptism in the Holy Spirit? Because Reformed Baptists would agree water baptism correlates with a spiritual circumcision, not a physical one.


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism is spiritual circumcision. There is no separation of sign and thing signified.
> ...



Yes, water baptism. We are discussing an historical issue. Present day convictions are basically irrelevant.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 16, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 So, a couple of things. First, if it's agreed that baptism is a spiritual circumcision, then is it not only for those of faith? Also, if water baptism signifies a spiritual circumcision belonging to those of faith, then what would be the motivation of the early church to have baptism mirror physical circumcision (of infants)?


----------

