What do you think?
Rate this book
Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
This magisterial volume is a comprehensive survey of the doctrine and practice of baptism in the first five centuries of Christian history, arranged geographically within chronological periods. Baptism in the Early Church covers the antecedents to Christian baptism and traces the history of Christian doctrine and practice from the New Testament through the writings of the church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. The book deals primarily with the literary sources, though it also gives attention to depictions of baptism (primarily of Jesus) in various art forms and to the surviving baptismal fonts.
Ferguson’s thorough study points to the central importance of baptism in the early church. Many blessings were attributed to baptism, but the two earliest and most consistently mentioned are forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit; faith and repentance were necessary in order to receive these benefits. Jewish immersion rites, the practice of John the Baptist, the meaning of the words used for baptism, the literary descriptions, and the material remains argue that full immersion was the normal practice, and the evidence from art is consistent with this interpretation.
Containing nearly everything currently known about the early Christian ritual of baptism, with extensive citations to the primary and secondary literature, Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early Church is destined to be a standard reference work.
Ferguson’s thorough study points to the central importance of baptism in the early church. Many blessings were attributed to baptism, but the two earliest and most consistently mentioned are forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit; faith and repentance were necessary in order to receive these benefits. Jewish immersion rites, the practice of John the Baptist, the meaning of the words used for baptism, the literary descriptions, and the material remains argue that full immersion was the normal practice, and the evidence from art is consistent with this interpretation.
Containing nearly everything currently known about the early Christian ritual of baptism, with extensive citations to the primary and secondary literature, Ferguson’s Baptism in the Early Church is destined to be a standard reference work.
987 pages, Paperback
First published September 15, 2008
42 people are currently reading
446 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 16, 2022
Extremely impressive and thorough. An exhaustive account of baptismal references and practices in the first four centuries of the church.
Some notable findings: early Christians were unanimously of the belief that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Even heretics did not assert that people are saved without baptism. Nothing like the “faith only” view of the Protestants existed in this time. Reading each of these thousands of references is a bit shocking.
-John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 were unanimously believed to refer to baptism, including “baptismal regeneration.”
-Ferguson posits that infant baptism developed as an emergency problem in cases of sickness, then slowly grew more normalized. It is extremely significant that Augustine argues that original sin is true because infant baptism is already happening, not that infant baptism needs to happen bc original sin is true. The rest of Christian history works from doctrine to practice.
-Ancient baptism was nude!
-Often involved renunciation of satan, sometimes exorcism, often anointing with oil
-Some believed so much in baptism’s power that they started to delay it to “get the most out of it”.
Sometimes Ferguson is unnecessarily conservative—he seems to really push back on the growing connection between baptism and circumcision, moving from immersion to pouring/sprinkling, and the development of the original sin doctrine. I suspect this is a reaction to other scholars (esp pedobaptists) going the other way with the evidence.
This book is often very dry and has a lotttt of repetition. But it is an excellent reference work for the topic.
Some notable findings: early Christians were unanimously of the belief that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Even heretics did not assert that people are saved without baptism. Nothing like the “faith only” view of the Protestants existed in this time. Reading each of these thousands of references is a bit shocking.
-John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 were unanimously believed to refer to baptism, including “baptismal regeneration.”
-Ferguson posits that infant baptism developed as an emergency problem in cases of sickness, then slowly grew more normalized. It is extremely significant that Augustine argues that original sin is true because infant baptism is already happening, not that infant baptism needs to happen bc original sin is true. The rest of Christian history works from doctrine to practice.
-Ancient baptism was nude!
-Often involved renunciation of satan, sometimes exorcism, often anointing with oil
-Some believed so much in baptism’s power that they started to delay it to “get the most out of it”.
Sometimes Ferguson is unnecessarily conservative—he seems to really push back on the growing connection between baptism and circumcision, moving from immersion to pouring/sprinkling, and the development of the original sin doctrine. I suspect this is a reaction to other scholars (esp pedobaptists) going the other way with the evidence.
This book is often very dry and has a lotttt of repetition. But it is an excellent reference work for the topic.
May 7, 2018
For just over a year, this book was a key component of my Monday morning recovery from preaching twice and teaching on Sunday. Ferguson sought to address comprehensively and fairly the doctrine and practice of baptism during the first five centuries of Christian history. He considered literary documents, artwork from the period, and archaeological work connected with the design and dimensions of baptismal pools/fonts from the period. Ferguson quoted writers from across the spectrum of Christian belief during the period, identifying their geographic, time, and doctrinal contexts. He considered how doctrinal disputes may have shaped changes in baptismal practice, while taking care to introduce in his conclusion scholars who disagree with him in interpretation of some data. He addressed aspects of baptismal practice that were widely practiced in some places or eras, such as use of women to assist with baptism of women, association of anointing or exorcism with baptism, nude baptism, being immersed three times, and reasons for increased baptism of small children as time passed. He noted how writers from the period almost unanimously connected baptism with salvation and forgiveness of sins. Numerous photographs, footnotes, and extensive indices with bibliography will help greatly those who wish to study more. I have read frequently in on-line forums that the writing style in this book is "dry," which seems unfortunate in a study of baptism. Despite that, I highly recommend the reading of this book. Take your time and digest it thoroughly.
September 7, 2020
This is an excellent biblical and historical study of the question of baptism. Although hard to find, the author is a Church of Christ member, though he doesn't argue explicitly for Church of Christ doctrine. His study of the meaning of the words behind baptism and baptize are amazing and extensive. He not only survey Christian literature after the New Testament, but begins by surveying the New Testament up until Augustine. That's the reason why it's a huge book.
Though I generally disagreed with the biblical interpretation of the author, simply equating any reference to be baptism as water baptism, connecting forgiveness of sins and regeneration to it (Church of Christ doctrine), his historical survey was amazing. It must be admitted that we as modern evangelicals and me, as a Reformed Baptist, do not baptize people for the same reasons that the early church did. John 3:5 was, first of all, used to refer to baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit, and send, it was used to argue that baptism is absolutely necessary. Some fathers even spoke of martyrdom as a baptism for catachumens who were not yet baptized. Their baptism in blood was the baptism they needed for salvation. It is fair to say that there was generally the error of confusing the sign for the thing signified.
This is also attested to when we see the development of infant baptism. I think we are often impressed or silenced by paedobaptist when they endlessly proclaim infant baptism to be practiced in the early church without ourselves surveying the evidence. Up until the time of Augustine and the 5th century, adult baptism was the norm. Infant baptism began to be developed out of clinical baptism. Since they associated baptism closely with regeneration and salvation, the church saw an urgency to baptize adults who were sick and on their deathbed lest they go into eternity without the seal of baptism. Gradually baptism began to be given to infants and children who were in danger of death lest they depart from this world without the seal. Even Pelagius the heretic, argued that baptism was necessary for salvation. Even though he disagreed with Augustine on original sin and contended that infants are sinless, yet they must receive baptism for the kingdom of heaven. Augustine contended that unbaptized infants were damned because they have original sin and they don't meet the requirement of John 3:5. Some others contended that they were in a kind of limbo (between heaven and hell). The West and the East had also different reasons for baptizing infants which raises a lot of doubts about infant baptism being an apostolic practice. Some fathers used the argument of apostolic practice and tradition of the church, but if one is honest some of the things they claim are wild and certainly not apostolic. I mean, if someone is defending a doctrine which they believe, they are not likely going to say that it is something novel which places a lot of doubts about appeals to apostolic tradition.
Overall, this was an extensive and great study. The only downside (aside from Church of Christ interpretations) is that it did not provide a summary chapter or table at the end of each century for what each father taught. A lot of early church theologians were surveyed and it was not easy to remember what each one contributed to the discussion of baptism. It would have been great if the contributions of each could have been summarized and given in a table for reference.
Though I generally disagreed with the biblical interpretation of the author, simply equating any reference to be baptism as water baptism, connecting forgiveness of sins and regeneration to it (Church of Christ doctrine), his historical survey was amazing. It must be admitted that we as modern evangelicals and me, as a Reformed Baptist, do not baptize people for the same reasons that the early church did. John 3:5 was, first of all, used to refer to baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit, and send, it was used to argue that baptism is absolutely necessary. Some fathers even spoke of martyrdom as a baptism for catachumens who were not yet baptized. Their baptism in blood was the baptism they needed for salvation. It is fair to say that there was generally the error of confusing the sign for the thing signified.
This is also attested to when we see the development of infant baptism. I think we are often impressed or silenced by paedobaptist when they endlessly proclaim infant baptism to be practiced in the early church without ourselves surveying the evidence. Up until the time of Augustine and the 5th century, adult baptism was the norm. Infant baptism began to be developed out of clinical baptism. Since they associated baptism closely with regeneration and salvation, the church saw an urgency to baptize adults who were sick and on their deathbed lest they go into eternity without the seal of baptism. Gradually baptism began to be given to infants and children who were in danger of death lest they depart from this world without the seal. Even Pelagius the heretic, argued that baptism was necessary for salvation. Even though he disagreed with Augustine on original sin and contended that infants are sinless, yet they must receive baptism for the kingdom of heaven. Augustine contended that unbaptized infants were damned because they have original sin and they don't meet the requirement of John 3:5. Some others contended that they were in a kind of limbo (between heaven and hell). The West and the East had also different reasons for baptizing infants which raises a lot of doubts about infant baptism being an apostolic practice. Some fathers used the argument of apostolic practice and tradition of the church, but if one is honest some of the things they claim are wild and certainly not apostolic. I mean, if someone is defending a doctrine which they believe, they are not likely going to say that it is something novel which places a lot of doubts about appeals to apostolic tradition.
Overall, this was an extensive and great study. The only downside (aside from Church of Christ interpretations) is that it did not provide a summary chapter or table at the end of each century for what each father taught. A lot of early church theologians were surveyed and it was not easy to remember what each one contributed to the discussion of baptism. It would have been great if the contributions of each could have been summarized and given in a table for reference.
May 8, 2020
كتاب أكاديمي دراسي بشكل كويس جدًا.
بيبحث في فصوله حوالين القراءات اليهودية للاغتسالات والطقوس المشابهة للمعمودية في القرون الأولى للمسيحية وماذا ورثت المسيحية من تلك الممارسات وماذا رفضت ولماذا، وفيه تركيز كبير على السياق اللغوي اللي للكلمة اليونانية بتاعة المعمودية في الأدبيات اليونانية القديمة، الكتاب فيه جزء دراسي كويس عن المعمودية في نصوص العهد الجديد مع طرح موضوعي جدًا للقراءات والآراء المختلفة.
الكاتب مطلع بشكل كبير على النقد النصي للنصوص اللي هو بيناقشها ودي ميزة كبيرة.
الترجمة كويسة واحترافية جدًا فيما عدا شوية غلطات نحوية.
بيبحث في فصوله حوالين القراءات اليهودية للاغتسالات والطقوس المشابهة للمعمودية في القرون الأولى للمسيحية وماذا ورثت المسيحية من تلك الممارسات وماذا رفضت ولماذا، وفيه تركيز كبير على السياق اللغوي اللي للكلمة اليونانية بتاعة المعمودية في الأدبيات اليونانية القديمة، الكتاب فيه جزء دراسي كويس عن المعمودية في نصوص العهد الجديد مع طرح موضوعي جدًا للقراءات والآراء المختلفة.
الكاتب مطلع بشكل كبير على النقد النصي للنصوص اللي هو بيناقشها ودي ميزة كبيرة.
الترجمة كويسة واحترافية جدًا فيما عدا شوية غلطات نحوية.
January 2, 2024
This is a great book. So interesting to get a bit of history and insight into the sacrament of baptism.
January 3, 2021
Everett Ferguson presents a major gift to students interested in the Patristic area, by tracing in detail the baptismal developed from St. John the Baptist to St. Augustine. Ferguson, as a baptists scholar, does focus a fair amount of time arguing that the normal practice of the Patristic age is to baptize believes through immersion. Paedo-baptism arises out of the Church first baptizing infants out of an emergency although this only makes sense if the Patristic Theologians viewed baptism as regenerative (that Ferguson also argues against). One element of baptism theology that stands out in Ferguson's work is his treatment on how the second century has traces of Patristic Fathers discussing baptism for the dead that sheds some light on Paul's discussion of its practice in 1 Corinthians 15. For those looking for a treatment on baptism in the Patristic age, Ferguson's work is a must have even though I would differ with him on some interpretations of how Paedo-baptism plays a role in the Patristic age.
November 20, 2024
Well, if nothing else this book deserves 5 stars for the following reasons:
1. It must have taken forever to collect this research
2. It an excellent reference work and introduction to disputes surrounding particular works and interpretations (though not touching on overarching argumentation).
There is a lot to reflect on here for Christians. It seems to me that, like with many theological issues, the early church had to work through key questions on baptism. Likewise, each believer today will have to wrestle with these issues and determine which tradition most closely aligns with their convictions. One thing is clear: Baptism has been ascribed the utmost importance in the church from the very beginning.
Here I will detail a couple of the author's conclusions. First, "The New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism" (p. 854). It is my opinion that anyone who reads through NT passages and the apostolic fathers' views on baptism will see how the author reaches this conclusion. Furthermore, "Two fundamental blessings are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (p. 854). In other words, baptismal regeneration is clearly apostolic.
On the other hand, we have the question of infant baptism. The author essentially concludes that a delay of baptism was the norm at first, but people baptized infants on their deathbeds since baptism was so closely linked with salvation (of course, this suggests that they considered the baptism of infants exceptional rather than invalid). Eventually, this practice replaced the former. Ultimately, I think people have to look at the arguments as laid out by the church fathers and decide if this development in the norm was correct (e.g., acceptance of original sin seems to necessitate infant baptism). After all, there are many issues that take time to be fully clarified within the church. In any case, the early church placed too much importance on baptism to treat this as a tertiary issue.
The author also asserts that baptism by immersion was the norm early on. However, I think inconsistencies arise in how people treat this. Though this was the "norm," that does not imply other forms were considered invalid (e.g., the Didache explicitly gives an alternative). My question for those who appeal to immersion as the only valid form of baptism would be, why neglect every other early baptismal tradition? Where is the baptismal regeneration? Where is the renunciation of the devil? Where is the nudity of the one being baptized? Where is the laying on of hands? Where is the fasting? In my view, to appeal to tradition for anti-pedobaptism and simultaneously reject baptismal regeneration (and all other traditions) is completely untenable.
Heavenly Father, grant us grace and wisdom in our search for truth from your abundant mercy, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
1. It must have taken forever to collect this research
2. It an excellent reference work and introduction to disputes surrounding particular works and interpretations (though not touching on overarching argumentation).
There is a lot to reflect on here for Christians. It seems to me that, like with many theological issues, the early church had to work through key questions on baptism. Likewise, each believer today will have to wrestle with these issues and determine which tradition most closely aligns with their convictions. One thing is clear: Baptism has been ascribed the utmost importance in the church from the very beginning.
Here I will detail a couple of the author's conclusions. First, "The New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism" (p. 854). It is my opinion that anyone who reads through NT passages and the apostolic fathers' views on baptism will see how the author reaches this conclusion. Furthermore, "Two fundamental blessings are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (p. 854). In other words, baptismal regeneration is clearly apostolic.
On the other hand, we have the question of infant baptism. The author essentially concludes that a delay of baptism was the norm at first, but people baptized infants on their deathbeds since baptism was so closely linked with salvation (of course, this suggests that they considered the baptism of infants exceptional rather than invalid). Eventually, this practice replaced the former. Ultimately, I think people have to look at the arguments as laid out by the church fathers and decide if this development in the norm was correct (e.g., acceptance of original sin seems to necessitate infant baptism). After all, there are many issues that take time to be fully clarified within the church. In any case, the early church placed too much importance on baptism to treat this as a tertiary issue.
The author also asserts that baptism by immersion was the norm early on. However, I think inconsistencies arise in how people treat this. Though this was the "norm," that does not imply other forms were considered invalid (e.g., the Didache explicitly gives an alternative). My question for those who appeal to immersion as the only valid form of baptism would be, why neglect every other early baptismal tradition? Where is the baptismal regeneration? Where is the renunciation of the devil? Where is the nudity of the one being baptized? Where is the laying on of hands? Where is the fasting? In my view, to appeal to tradition for anti-pedobaptism and simultaneously reject baptismal regeneration (and all other traditions) is completely untenable.
Heavenly Father, grant us grace and wisdom in our search for truth from your abundant mercy, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
April 3, 2020
The most exhaustive text you will find on the history of Baptism through the first 5 centuries. Any bible scholar who is after the truth of baptism and it’s history in the church should look no further. Ferguson’s book is a work of Art - brilliance. He starts with the antecedents of baptism and ends with baptismal fonts across those 5 centuries. He reviews the Holy Scriptures, the apocrypha, writings from the early church fathers, and others. He truly examines everything that’s available to us.
I found the chapter on the origins of infant baptism to be fascinating. I also enjoyed the burial inscriptions and how they demonstrated children were not routinely baptized until well after the 5th century. It leaves the scholar to wonder - why not before then? You learn the origins of infant baptism are credited to the traditions of men and not the Holy Scriptures.
I found the chapter on the origins of infant baptism to be fascinating. I also enjoyed the burial inscriptions and how they demonstrated children were not routinely baptized until well after the 5th century. It leaves the scholar to wonder - why not before then? You learn the origins of infant baptism are credited to the traditions of men and not the Holy Scriptures.
January 10, 2025
This is not an easy read. It's massive both in size and literary content. By the grace of God I made it through the entire thing front to back and I'm so glad I did. This book opened the door to countless papers and other books I've since read, so if you have a thirst for Christian history knowledge, this book is worth it's weight in gold.
December 3, 2022
I'm glad I read this, and I genuinely found it interesting. But it is what it is, and what it is is a long, dry, scholarly tome.
Read
December 29, 2022This work is massive. I admit to skimming certain sections & only thoroughly reading the parts that particularly interested me plus each topic's conclusions. Very impressive & interesting study.
July 28, 2025
Must read for anyone weighing on this subject.
November 8, 2025
I love when a book confirms my priors.
April 14, 2015
This is a comprehensive survey of written and artifactual evidence concerning baptism. Ferguson reaches three primary conclusions. First, baptism was primarily done by immersion throughout this time period. Other modes were used only in emergency situations. Second, paedobaptism emerged slowly over time. Not until the fourth century did it become widely accepted. Third, baptism was considered to be the point of regeneration, reception of the Spirit, and the reception of other salvific blessings. Ferguson is a member of the Churches of Christ. The conclusions he reaches are consistent with Churches of Christ doctrine. In general, however, I thought that Ferguson was giving a fair presentation of the data. I remain unconvinced, however, of his claim to find baptismal regeneration in the New Testament texts (though I grant that it is clearly found in the church fathers). He also seemed averse to finding the doctrine of original sin in fathers prior to Augustine. These caveats aside, this is the resource that has collected all the data on baptism in the early church.
August 7, 2013
A very thorough examination of primary source documents detailing baptismal practices from before the advent of Christ through the 5th century AD. Yes, very thorough, over 1,000 pages, and some great information, such as when infant baptism crept in, and other controversial practices. But very, very, very dry. Bring water to your reading chair, or dip into as a reference. Again, I cannot stress enough that Ferguson has clearly researched the topic exhaustively, it's just unfortunate that the end result was also a little exhausting to read!
September 13, 2015
This book was extremely informative and comprehensive. I look forward to reading Jeremias' book on baptism which dives into justifying infant baptism. This author I feel is against it and perhaps weaves his theology into the book a bit. Many of the things I wondered about were in fact ancient customs which surprised me a tad. I would encourage those who study baptism or those entering seminary to give this lengthy book a read. I did not feel it was too dry and it gives you some practice reading Greek.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews