Turris Fortis - On Infant Baptism

On Infant Baptism . . .

The following dialog came from an actual conversation between myself and a Baptist which ensued after the question of the origin of infant baptism was raised on an Internet mailing list for the discussion of Church history. I upheld the historic fact that this practice was around in the very earliest days of the Church, while he argued for the belief that this was an un-Biblical development of the Church at some later date. This was an electronic conversation, and the text is taken largely from my e-mails, composed before or after work, so please be forgiving of any spelling or grammatical errors, which I hope to weed out in a later, more structured version of this.

Q. What is the history of infant baptism? When was its origin?

A. Well, there is a strong case that this practice goes back to the New Testament and that even Jesus himself baptized infants. When He said in John 3 that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God, he surely meant to include infants for in Matthew 19:14 he says "the kingdom of heaven is for such." That he meant infants here is clear because the parallel passage in Luke says "they brought to him the also infants, that he might touch them." The Greek words brephe and prosepheron, used in these passages, both refer to babes in arms.

St. Paul tells us in Colossians that baptism is to take the place of circumcision. Since circumcision was applied to infants, so is baptism. In the Bible, it can be assumed that infants were included when whole households were baptized, as in Acts 16:15, "She was baptized and her household," and Acts 16:33, "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately."

Now of course many (Protestant) fundamentalists will argue against this because their own church has a tradition of only allowing adults to be baptized and there is nothing as clear cut in the Scriptures as to say, "You are to baptize infants as well." But the early church writings show that the practice handed down from the Apostles was of infant baptism. Origen wrote, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." When St. Augustine wrote on infant baptism, he said, "This the Church always had, always held."

In the third century, there was a movement to hold off on infant baptisms until the eighth day after birth. St. Cyprian tells us that in 253 the Council of Carthage rejected this practice. They saw no need to delay for 8 days. The Council of Milevis in 416 also said that recently born infants are to be baptized.

There were a few in the early church who were of the opinion that infants should wait until they could speak or take part in the ceremony (3 years old or so) unless there was danger of death. These men, such as St. Gregory Nazianzen and Tertullian, were few and far between, and even though this was their opinion, they did not deny the validity of infant baptism. Nor did they say only adults should be baptized as some modern sects do, but rather that a child should merely wait till they were old enough to speak. Church councils always upheld that infants could be baptized at any time, the earlier the better.

I'm not entirely sure when various sects began the practice of only allowing adults to be baptized, but it was after the Reformation. I think the 16th century British Anabaptists were the first organized group who rejected infant baptisms.

When you consider the supernatural and divine effects of the sacrament of baptism, what believing mother would not want her newborn baptized as soon as possible! Why wait for grace!

Q. I was born to a Methodist Mother and Baptist Father. I was Baptized as a Infant in the Methodist Church. When I was seven I accepted Christ as my savior. I was Baptized when I was 10 in the Baptist Church. My second baptism was more meaningful because I could participate and make my own decision.

A. The Catholic teaching would be that your second baptism was unnecessary and superfluous. When we say in the Nicene creed, "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins," we mean it. Any baptism that is done in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is valid, no matter what denomination you are in. Thus when Protestants who are baptized come into the Catholic Church, they need not be rebaptized. Likewise, we consider all who are baptized with this formula to be brothers and sisters in Christ, connected through our baptism. A lot of sects who deny the sacramental nature of baptism and see it more as an "affirmation of faith" will have repeat baptisms, as often as the person desires it seems.

Q. Does baptizing a infant really do a child any good? I have stayed faithful to Christ all of my life. Did the Baptism have anything to do with this? Or did growing up with two grandmothers that prayed everyday for me and kept me faithful have more to do with it? I know children who are baptized as infants, go through the Lutheran and Catholic Catechisms, hit High School and are never seen again inside a Church until their Wedding, then show up to baptize their children. Environment and a instilling of a Belief system by Mom and Dad have more to do with Grace than infant Baptism in my opinion.

A. This argument is based on the false assumption that baptism is a "magic formula" that will keep you free from sin and in line with Christ all your life. It won't. Each of us has a decision to either turn to or away from Christ, despite our baptismal vows. Baptism does something very specific, and we need to understand that.

Pope Eugene IV had as good a definition of baptism as any, and this is an accurate reflection of what the Catholic Church teaches about baptism. It may not be what your church teaches, but if you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then it is what we believe about your baptism, too.

"Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. . . .The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.”

So, you ask does baptism do children any good? Absolutely!

Q. Shouldn't the choice of Baptism should be extended to the individual? Infant baptism, if I understand it correctly, automatically makes the child a Christian. Seems to me that you can walk through the Catechism and not really have accepted Christ. Many Lutherans and Catholics don't have a personal walk with Christ.

A. If you think baptism is just an outward way of saying "I believe in Jesus" then all you say makes sense. But this is not what most Christians believe nor is it what the early Church, the Apostles, or Christ taught. Baptism is a Sacrament. God gives His children very special graces through this Sacrament. In confers the forgiveness of all sins, original and personal, and the punishment for those sins. It makes you a new creature, a temple of the Holy Spirit. It justifies the one it is conferred upon, allowing you to live under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, it brings you into the body of Christ, makes you one of the People of God. You belong no longer to yourself but to Christ.

This isn't just what I believe, but what the Apostles taught us, what the early Church practiced. Why deny a child these graces? Adults and babies, all ages of men and women, all classes, all races, all cultures, should have this sacrament made available to them. For adults, the Church ensures that they believe in Christ and His Church before baptism, and for infants, that their parents, or whoever is raising them, will raise them with these values. But the grace of this sacrament is not denied to anyone because of age.

This is sacrament. It is not something you do to "feel Christian." It isn't something you do to show yourself to be holy so that others might see. It's not a magic potion that will make problems go away. It is the key to salvation through Christ. Once it is given to you, the door is open. But you still have to walk through it.

Q. You quoted Bible verses before. I don't interpret them the same way. In Colossians 2:11-12 it says, "In him also you were Circumcised with a Circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of Flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Why do you think this circumcision was the same as baptism?

A. This is a description of baptism in Old Testament terms of circumcision, as an entry rite into the community. It's not just my interpretation. That the early Church also saw this was apparent because it was the whole reasoning behind the movement to wait 8 days till baptism that occurred in the third century. It was Jewish custom to wait 8 days to circumcise, and since baptism took the place of circumcision, some people thought you should wait 8 days for this sacrament also. But the Church found then that there was no need to wait even 8 days. This was in the third century, not the twentieth or twenty-first. They were maintaining the tradition that they had, handed on to them by the Apostles, of infant baptism in Christian families, against the new movement that said you must wait 8 days.

Q. If I have learned one thing from the Bible it is never assume that Christ or the Apostles meant anything other than what they said. Acts 16:15 says nothing about Lydia's family having children in it or that she had children that were baptized.

A. What is a household? I suppose it would be of benefit to look at the word in Greek or Hebrew and see what connotations it had 2000 years ago. I suspect it isn't that much different than now. I don't have children as of yet. If I invite you over, it would be to stay with me and my wife. If we had children, then I would be more likely to say "family" or "household." This isn't the only time entire households were baptized. There are several instances. Don't you think that at least one of the households had small infants? It seems to me that if it was meant that infants below a certain age were meant to be excluded from this sacrament, the text would somewhere say so. That it doesn't mention specifically that infants were or were not baptized would lend itself more to the argument that it was open to all, don't you think?

Q. The Kingdom is for everyone I agree, but Christ does NOT say that we should baptize infants. He blessed the children, Just like a priest does today for a child who hasn't been given First Communion.

A. What Christ said was that no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven unless baptized (see the John scripture), and Christ, in Matthew 19, says that the Kingdom of Heaven is also for little children. It only follows that little children should be baptized since they are meant to be in heaven and only the baptized enter heaven.

Q. In a fundamental reading of the text if it isn't there then it wasn't important or not meant to be. It does not explicitly say to baptize infants.

A. This is a "fundamentalist" reading of the text. But the text also does not say "don't baptize infants." So why ban it? It's not in scripture. Does it not mean anything that the early Church, that gave us the scriptures we have through the Church councils, also upheld infant baptism through those councils? Wouldn't it make more sense that if the scriptures really meant to ban infant baptism, then the early Church, that believed in infant baptism, would not have canonized those texts as scripture because they went against accepted Christian belief?

Q. If we used that logic, then there wouldn't be much in the New Testament then would there?

A. So you are saying that the very church that formed the Christian Bible and gave it to us in the form we know today and believe in was not following the practices in those Scriptures itself??? Why did they choose those books then? There were more gospels and epistles floating around, trust me. They chose these either because 1) they were infallible, protected by God from teaching error on matters of faith, which this is, or 2) because these books agreed with and supported what the church was teaching. Either you believe in one or both of those, or you believe that the Bible was just an accident of history.

Q. I ask you to read Romans 6:3-4. And explain to me how an infant can have new life when he hasn't had a life to speak of?

A. This verse says that when we are baptized we are united to Christ's death and through that new life. It doesn't say "you must be this old to ride this ride." There is no minimum "prior" life you must have before you can have new life. If there were, what would that age be? 21? 18? 16? 10? 5? 3? One year? One month? One minute? If you get into this argument you get into the very argument of when does life begin. The Catholic answer to this question is at conception.

Q. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in Salvation. Doctrine of Original sin aside, how can a infant confess with his mouth and believe in his heart? I can say that my Children believe this, doesn't make it so. Only you can confess only you can believe an Infant is not capable of confession or belief. Grace cannot be imparted to a soul that knows not what it is doing, there is no salvation attached to Infant baptism.

A. If you truly believe this then you believe that any child that dies before he is old enough to speak the name of Jesus is not saved. Whether baptized or not, he or she is going to hell. Is that what you truly believe is the fate of countless millions of infants who died early deaths?

Q. Baptism is merely a replacement of Circumcision of male infants and the blessing of female infants found in the Jewish Faith. Baptist believe it is a waste of time. The Book of Romans is clear on how one becomes a Christian--confess and believe.

A. This does not jive with the scripture, "Truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." A waste of time? Merely a replacement of circumcision? That's not what the Gospel says. Yes, Romans says you must confess and believe. But you must also be baptized. It's not enough to say the words. Not all who cry "Lord, Lord!" will be saved.

Q. Baptist dedicate their children to Christ when they are infants. We don't believe that infants are in need of baptism as we believe that until the Age of Accountability they will go to be with Christ when they die. Now the Age of Accountability is different for each person. I didn't say it made sense.

A. We believe that when Christ said no one enters the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is reborn in water and the Holy Spirit He intended it for children as well. We hold that you contract Original Sin at conception, so baptism is of course needed as forgiveness of that sin. This is inherited sin, not an action of the infant.

Q. Baptism strips away the old nature and puts on the new Christ centered life. How can a newborn infant have an old nature to be stripped from it? Being born in Original Sin is a myth.

A. If you think Original Sin is a myth, then I really can't help you on this one. I don't know how you can believe that Original Sin is a falsehood if you believe Christ really did what He did. If He died for all of our sins, that includes children below the age of reason, who cannot sin. According to you, they would have no need of Christ's redemption. Did Christ not die for them?

Q. I never said that children couldn't sin, they too fall short of the glory of God.

A. Sin requires will. You must desire to sin. It requires a moral, intelligent creature with free will and reason to turn away from God or perform an act offensive to God. Thus animals cannot sin. Children below the age of reason cannot sin. If children fall short of the glory of God it is because of Original Sin, which all humans are born with.

Q. So a three year old who accidentally shoots a gun and kills someone didn't sin? Three is generally considered to be below the age of reason.

A. If a three year old accidentally shoots off a gun and kills someone, that's not a sin, it's an accident. That three year old had no desire to kill, no desire to break God's law.

Q. But to say that at birth my wife brought a convicted sinner into the world, and I must immediately wash away the sins he is going to commit in his lifetime, is a misinterpretation of Scripture.

A. No, it is a misinterpretation of baptism. Baptism does nothing for the sins you will commit after baptism. It washes away the sins existing before baptism. For children before the age of reason, this would be Original Sin. You yourself just said that even children fall short of the glory of God. What is this but Original Sin? Can you at least concede that the early Church and the Apostles believed in Original Sin and therefore saw the need of infant baptism?

Q. I will concede that someone came up with the doctrine of Original Sin and applied it to infants. But it is not Biblical.

A. The doctrine comes from Genesis. And Romans 5:12. Read this article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

It's a pretty good history of the doctrine. If you deny this, then of course infant baptism would seem silly. The reason that the Church has always practiced infant baptism is because the Church has always believed in Original Sin. The reason the Church believes in Original Sin is because it is a true Christian doctrine, and has been from the very beginning of the Church.

Q. So an infant who dies of SIDS in the hospital goes to Hell? By your reckoning if the baby isn't baptized the minute he is born he runs the risk of going to hell until he does. I can't believe that a merciful God would allow that.

A. If we are to believe in the Gospels then we are to believe that when Christ said no one enters heaven unless they are reborn in water and spirit that He meant just that. Therefore unbaptized infants are in danger, yes. We don't like it. We certainly don't condemn them to hell. All we can say is that they are at the mercy of God. You say Baptists believe that unbaptized infants are protected by Christ until the age of reason. Well, we would like to believe that too. It certainly makes us feel better. But we can't prove that from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition, so we just don't know.

Catholics do not believe that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell, not right out anyway. In addition to baptism of water, there is also the baptism of desire, that states that one who dies while desiring to be baptized, still receives the sanctifying grace of baptism. Then there is the baptism of blood, which is conferred upon those who are martyred for Christ. Whether or not unborn infants are recipients of the baptism of desire is unclear. Can an infant's heart desire baptism? Since at an infant's baptism it is the parents who take on the baptismal vows for the child, can their desire confer the baptism of desire on their unborn baby? These are very touchy issues that more than likely will not be settled in this world. But the Catholic Church understands that baptism of some sort is necessary for salvation.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and Tradition, and the decrees of the Church."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

In other words, we want to believe that there is a place in heaven for unbaptized infants, but we cannot be sure of that. There are signs that would give us hope, but we should not gamble and delay baptism for our children any longer than is necessary.

Q. You can't have three baptisms as the Catholics believe. Christ only taught one baptism. The baptism that makes you a new man.

A. Whoa! Hold your horses here. Catholics believe in one baptism. It's in the Creed. "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Now we hold that baptism can be in one of three forms. In addition to the normal means of water, there is baptism of desire (one who is being catechized but dies before the actual baptism will be considered baptized because it was his desire to be baptized), and baptism of blood (a martyr who dies for Christ, though unbaptized, is saved because his martyrdom united him with Christ's death in a very real sense). But there is only one baptism. You can only be given that initial grace once. It is once and for all, you need no more. It is this act that brings you into God's family. You may fall from grace through sin, but you can then ask for forgiveness and God will grant it. But it is only the grace of baptism that washes away Original Sin. You only do that once.

In the Baptist church, isn't it common to re-baptize people?

Q. I am praying He accepts unbaptized babies, but many criminals were baptized as infants. Will Christ accept them?

A. Baptism does not confer a once and for all salvation. It washes away the stain of Original Sin and forgives any actual sins you have committed prior to baptism but says nothing about what you choose to do after baptism. You have free will to not follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You have free will to turn away from God and Christ. If these criminals sought Christ's forgiveness and repented for their sins, then Christ will accept them.

Q. You seem to have much faith in Church Fathers. But when Tertullian wrote in "De Anima" on the traducian doctrine of the transmission of the soul from the parents to the child in the reproductive process, he laid great emphasis on the rite of baptism. In his "Of Baptism" he said that post baptismal sins were mortal sins, and opposed infant baptism. (Christianity through the Centuries by Earle E Cairns. p.112-113) Doesn't sound like he validated infant baptism to me.

A. Yes, Tertullian was of the opinion that a child should wait. This was his opinion. The Church taught otherwise and his views were not ever made doctrine. They stood against the Church practice as handed down from the Apostles.

In the early Church, there was a movement among some that encouraged waiting until you were on your death bed to be baptized. Since the sacrament washes away all sin, original and otherwise, the person who dies immediately after baptism, before he has the chance to sin again, has a "free ticket" to heaven, so to speak. So many waited as long as possible, so they could still enjoy their hedonistic lifestyle. This notion was recognized by many as an improper way to view the sacrament and an abuse of the sacramental graces. It never really caught on.

Q. In the same book p.119-120, " By the end of the second Century..... Infant baptism which Tertullian opposed and Cyprian supported, and clinical baptism, the baptism of the sick, developed in this period." So infant baptism developed in the second century--it is not Apostolic teaching.

A. He is basing his argument that infant baptism developed in the second century because it is then that one finds the first writings about it. The reason one cannot find writings about it earlier was because it was not until then that people began to suggest that infants should not be baptized. That this was against the pre-existing Church practice is clear, and that is why Church Councils consistently upheld infant baptism. For infant baptism to be a pre-existing practice in the second century, it would have had to come from the first century, when the Apostles were still around and teaching.

Q. The practice of Infant baptism was developed by the Church Councils. Not Jesus and Not Paul. Jesus blessed the children and called the followers "little children" and we should be childlike in are relationship with the Father.

A. Why do you think that these earliest of Church Councils upheld this practice if it was not given to them by the Apostles? Did they just like seeing wet babies? Did they stand to gain personally from it? No. They were upholding the Apostolic teaching, which is what councils do.

Q. You rely on the Church Fathers for everything. What doesn't stand up to scrutinizing is this notion that the church is blameless for everything. This concept of Church infallibility is just as wrong as those who place all blame at the Church's feet, only from the opposite direction. Neither extreme can be true.

A. Who said the Church is blameless? You misunderstand infallibility. Infallibility does NOT mean:

-That the individual Church members are always right.

-That individual Church members are impeccable (without sin)

-That the Church as a whole is impeccable (without sin)

-That the Church never does anything wrong.

-That the Pope never does anything wrong.

-The list goes on. There are lots of things infallibility does not mean.

What it DOES mean is that Christ established a Church with teaching authority so that when the Church teaches on a matter of faith and morals it is preserved from error. That is it.

Christ promised us that His Church should not fail. He promised that His prayers would be with us, and that He would be with us always. We have faith in the Church because we have faith in Christ.

Q. You cannot deny that the early Church Fathers were sometimes wrong.

A. No one says that some of the early Fathers were not wrong. They are not infallible. It is the teaching Church that is infallible. This is why you can find Church fathers teaching any number of things that were later refuted by the Church, and the ones teaching in error then resigned to the official church teaching. How else would we know what to believe? How to interpret this Scripture passage or that? Every man with an opinion could start his own sect. There would be absolutely no unity, and unity is exactly what Christ wants in His Church.

Q. Just because the early church 'Fathers' were closer to an event doesn't mean that they were infallible.

A. You are right. They are not infallible. Neither are we. It is the teaching church that is infallible. But when we are trying to ascertain what the Apostles taught, and we have on one hand the writings of the very people they taught, or the generation after that, and on the other hand writings that are only 20 years old based on a modern man's interpretation of Scriptures, which do you think will be closer to the truth?

Q. The "truth" is that the Scriptures are either unclear or silent on this issue.

A. The truth is that Scriptures quote Jesus as saying that all are to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The truth is that Scriptures quote Jesus as saying that children are meant to go to heaven. The truth is that the Scriptures describe families being baptized together.

What is up for debate is weather or not any of these families included small children.

Q. The "truth" is that even the much-vaunted church 'Fathers' disagreed on this and other issues.

A. The truth is that in the second century and later a few of the early Fathers thought it would be better to allow infants to come to the age where they could speak so that they may take a more active role in their own baptism. The truth is that the Church councils decided this would be an unnecessary delay. Note--if the parents wished to hold off on their children's baptism, nothing prevents that. But they are not forced to wait if they do not wish to.

Q. The "truth" is that just because part of the early church participated in infant baptism and eventually became the majority doesn't mean they were right.

A. Well, the truth is that the majority of the early Church practiced infant baptism, and a few argued that it would be better to wait until the infants could speak. This minority was shown to be in the wrong by early Church councils. If those Church councils were wrong on this issue, could they be wrong on other issues as well? Maybe Christ was not wholly man and wholly God? Maybe the Scriptures are just as fallible as any other work of literature?

Q. Baptism is a change of life. It is a step that is taken after Salvation. To take it before Salvation does you no good.

A. Well, here we get into all sorts of differences between Catholics and Baptists where Salvation is concerned. The Baptist belief, if I am stating it correctly, is that once you have accepted Christ as your personal savior, you are saved and that salvation cannot be lost. The Catholic belief can be best stated by St. Paul, in Phil 2:12, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." The Catholic, when asked by the Evangelist knocking at his door, "Have you been saved?" will answer, "I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved." We see it as a process. Salvation is given to us by God through His Grace. We must retain it by our own free will.

So for a Catholic, the notion of holding off on Baptism until after Salvation is absurd. We don't know we are saved until we come to our judgment. We hope. But we cannot know how we may sin in the days between now and our death. We see Baptism as the first step towards Salvation, where God gives us that initial grace that washes us free from Original Sin.

Q. Show me indisputable 1st Century evidence that baptizing infants was done and I will stop opposing it.

A. I'm looking for it now. But you know that most Christian converts in the 1st century were adults. You have to allow some time to pass before children are being born into Christian families. Plus it takes some time for things like this to develop. You don't have a lot of things in the first century. The Bible, for instance. But you hold that in pretty high regard. I can prove infant baptism was done in the mid third century and was considered as a traditional teaching handed on by the Apostles at that time. The earliest reference I can find so far is from 215 AD, St. Hippolytus of Rome, saying, "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves let them do so, otherwise let their parents or other relatives speak for them." This is pretty much how we do things today.

I understand your Baptist position. Really, I do. It is the ultimate logical conclusion of Luther's original doctrine of Salvation by faith alone. Since infants are unable to profess the faith, they cannot receive the grace of baptism. Also, Baptists do not see baptism as a grace conferring sacrament. I do understand your church's position. I don't want to argue the theological merits of it. I'm just saying it is not a historic one. It is not what the first Christians believed.

So far I have documentation from 215 AD (Hippolytus) saying that children who cannot speak can be baptized with their parents speaking for them. I have Origen in 244 stating that the Church has baptized infants since the time of the Apostles, and I have the council of Carthage in 252 saying it wasn't necessary to wait 8 days to baptize an infant. I'd say that is pretty good evidence for the practice of the early Church.

I'm looking for sources from even earlier. It's pretty hard work, you know, looking for these 2000 year old texts. While I'm looking, would you be so kind as to find for me a first century reference to an authoritative Church statement that infant baptism is not to be allowed? I'd appreciate it. So far all of the third century sources I could find seem to indicate this was a very old practice. . .