Thirdly, the works of the fathers themselves testify that they confessed the baptism of children to be as legitimate as the baptism of adults. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes that even if sinners who believe "

And who approaches the remission of sins all the more conveniently, because he is forgiven not his own, but other people's sins." [37]

St. Gregory the Theologian: "Do you have a baby? - Do not allow time for the damage to escalate. May he be sanctified in infancy and consecrated to the Spirit from his youth. Are you afraid of the seal, because of the weakness of your nature, like a faint-hearted and faithless mother? But Hannah had promised Samuel to God even before her birth, and after her birth she soon consecrated and brought him up for the sacred robe, not fearing human weakness, but believing in God." [38]

Blessed Augustine: "This (infant baptism) the Church has always had, always maintained. This she received from the faith of her ancestors, she constantly observes it even to the end." [39]

Basil the Great's work "Discourses Inducing Baptism"[40] is well known, in which he in every possible way persuades Christians to accept the sacrament of baptism without delay, since, in the words of the saint, in addition to the washing away of sins, it is "a chariot to heaven, the preparation of the Kingdom, the bestowal of sonship." [41]

And, finally, let us cite an excerpt from the definition of the Council of Carthage (252): "We must not exclude anyone from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, good and forgiving for everything. If this was to be observed in relation to all, then, as we think, it is especially necessary to observe it in relation to newborn infants, who deserve our help and God's mercy by the very beginning, since from the very beginning of their birth they express only prayer with their weeping and tears." [42] Even if this argument may seem frivolous to some, the fact of conciliar recognition of the practice of infant baptism in the third century does not allow the assertion that "only in the sixth century, when the dominant position of the state church was established, infant baptism became a widespread phenomenon"[43] to be regarded as historical.

Thus, it is obvious that there are two practices in the Church that do not contradict or exclude each other at all. Their pros and cons have also been known for a long time. Adult baptism as an act of firm determination is much more memorable, thus having a psychological advantage. But, it is still more convenient to grow cereals in the field, without waiting for the appearance of weeds. Likewise, it is better to treat a disease from its very beginnings. And although the knowledge of dirt by taste is partly useful for the soul's striving for the purity of Christ, and for the former blind man, the acquired sight is certainly more valuable, but does this mean an inevitable protest against the initial inoculation with the Light?

The orthodox thesis is simple: baptism is grace-filled and therefore necessary for children as well. In order to accept it, it is necessary to discuss two questions: 1) are children capable of receiving Divine grace? (2) Can this grace be granted to one who is incapable of believing by faith, a believer? That is, can a believing mother and an unintelligent child be considered as unanimous?

To answer the first question, let's recall a few episodes from the Bible: Jesus was indignant and said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them... and having embraced them, he laid his hands on them and blessed them (Mark 10:14-16). So, if one kind of grace could be given to children directly, then why can't the grace of baptism be given to them? John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). About Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you: I made you a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15). They received the grace of transforming their souls to serve God. It is this kind of grace-filled action of the Holy Spirit that is requested for children in baptism. Thus, we see that even the most stupid children are capable of receiving the grace of God.

By virtue of this circumstance, by the faith of the parents, the Lord gave healing to their children. Thus Christ healed the demon-possessed daughter of a Canaanite woman according to the faith of her mother. "O woman," He said, "great is thy faith, that it be done unto thee according to thy desire" (Matt. 15:28). Among the Baptists, who so advertise their saving faith, the latter is evidently not so deep that they can expect that by their faith the grace of God will be communicated to their children in baptism. The Lord also healed the demon-possessed lunatic according to the faith of his father (Mark 9:27). In this example, it is most clearly shown that it was the faith of the father, not the son (who was incapable of believing), that made healing possible (see v. 24). The Lord did not demand faith from Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:41) or from the centurion's servant. And Jesus said to the centurion, Go, and as thou hast believed, let it be done unto thee. And his servant recovered in that hour (Matt. 8:13). Here, four people are lowering a paralytic from the roof. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Child! Thy sins are forgiven thee (Mark 2:5). That's how! And sins are forgiven according to the faith of those who bring them! This is how they believe in the Orthodox Church, bringing children to the font of holy baptism. Through the faith of their parents and godparents, the grace of God is communicated to them. I think Baptists could believe so, but dogmatics does not allow it.

"It is customary in our country," writes V.F. Martsinkovsky on behalf of the Orthodox, "that godparents pronounce vows for the child being baptized. But this is inconceivable neither in the psychological nor in the moral sense, and there is no permission for it in the Word of God, but on the contrary, this custom contradicts the Word of God... it is inconceivable to vouch for someone else's conversion in the future." [44] It is not known from where Martsinkovsky draws his arguments with such confidence, but the Word of God presents us with many examples of such a guarantee.

Although infants cannot be instructed in the faith, in the pages of the Bible, adults made vows to God for their foolish children, and the Lord accepted these promises. Thus, even before the birth of Samuel, Hannah made a vow, saying: "Lord, Almighty God, Sabaoth! if Thou lookest upon the sorrow of Thy servant... and if you give your servant a male child, I will give him to the Lord as a gift all the days of his life, and he shall not drink wine or strong drink, and the razor shall not touch his head (1 Samuel 1:11). The latter does not mean that he will simply be an unshaven teetotaler. This means that he will be a Nazarite of God all his life, which presupposes even greater vows than those pronounced (see Num. 6). If a mother could promise such special service to God in the Old Testament for her son, and God accepted him, then why can't New Testament parents do the same for their children?

And you don't even need to promise something extra! Orthodox godparents promise God only that those who are baptized will be instructed in faith and piety, and will belong to the saving Church of Christ. The godparents are called upon to limit as much as possible the circle of spiritual searches of the person being baptized. Relying on the truth of the Word of God, they exclude Buddhism, shamanism, occultism, Protestantism, etc., etc. (to name a few) from the diet of spiritual nutrition due to their destructive nature for the soul. And the palette of religious paths of the newly baptized is reduced to the Orthodox understanding of spiritual life. In other words, the godparents undertake to cultivate the seed of Christ in the soul of the person being baptized as much as possible and not to allow thorns to make baptism futile. For example, Hannah limited Samuel's choice of spiritual path to a minimum even before he was born, and thus deprived him of the right to choose. All parents act in the same way, deciding for their children what to eat, what to wear and what to study, based on what they (parents) consider useful for the child. A question for adults: Do you consider your church to be true? Is the action of the Holy Spirit really more beneficial than the actions of other spirits? If the answer to both questions is yes, then I repeat again: "Suffer the little children to come unto Christ, and hinder them not from happening" (Mark 10:14). Thus, even the Protestant understanding of baptism as an oath and promises to God should not exclude children from being baptized!

This can also include an analogue that has already become banal: children are taken to vaccinations. They are either unaware of what is happening, or they are clearly opposed to it. But adults understand that this is necessary, and therefore they still get vaccinated. The baby is sick. He does not understand either the cause of the disease or its consequences. However, parents do everything that is necessary to save him without his consent and awareness. Protestants do the same with their children, trying in every possible way to introduce them to the life of the church and limit the influence of "this world", so that, when they grow up, they become more faithful Christians. And it is the church that they (parents) consider to be true. Orthodox fathers, mothers, godparents and grandmothers pursue the same goal! And they differ from the Protestant ones only in that they do not limit their influence on the child only by their own human efforts, but, introducing them into the body of Christ, they dedicate and adopt them to God.