Does a Mythical Bird in the New Testament Imply the Damnation of Unbaptized Children?
The phoenix dies in flames and is reborn every 500 years. A small-but-vocal group of Russian Orthodox clergy says that all unbaptized infants go to hell. What's the connection?
Perhaps you remember reading this remarkable passage in your copy of the New Testament:
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies.
But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.
Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise?
If your copy of the New Testament includes this passage, then you are probably a time-traveler from the 3rd century, and you just happen to be visiting us today, because no modern copy of the New Testament contains this passage. But there was a widely accepted document in the Early Church, which considered this to be a legitimate passage of inspired Scripture.
Did one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils accept this as part of the New Testament? And did the same Ecumenical Council teach that unbaptized babies go to hell? These questions will be addressed below.
Did an Ecumenical Council Find a Phoenix in the New Testament?
There are reasons why a person might think the New Testament includes the tale of the phoenix:
In the New Testament, Philippians 4:3 mentions Clement, a fellow worker of the apostle Paul.
Towards the end of the 1st century, St. Clement wrote the book of 1 Clement, addressed to the Christians in Corinth. It ranks with Didache as one of the earliest Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament. The book of 1 Clement includes the tale of the phoenix, quoted above.
The Apostolic Canons, an important document from the early centuries of the Church, actually considers 1 Clement to be part of the New Testament:
"Our own books, that is, those of the New Testament, are: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James, and one of Jude. Two Epistles of Clemens, and the Constitutions of Clemens, addressed to you Bishops, in eight books, which are not to be published to all on account of the mystical things in them. And the Acts of us the Apostles."
This list of New Testament books includes "Two Epistles of Clemens", which are the books of 1 Clement & 2 Clement. The list also includes the "Constitutions of Clemens", which are otherwise known as the eight books of Apostolic Constitutions.In the year 690, the second canon of the Council of Trullo accepted the legitimacy of the Apostolic Canons — including canon #85, which includes the book of 1 Clement as part of the New Testament. (Trullo rejects the eight books of Apostolic Constitutions, but makes no objection to the books of 1 & 2 Clement.)
In the year 787, the first canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council accepted the canons of the first Six Ecumenical Councils. (Some people think that includes the Council of Trullo, and some people don’t.)
This chain of reasoning leads many to believe that the 85 Apostolic Canons were ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council, and that we are therefore obliged to follow all 85 canons without exception.
But if we do that, we will have to add the books of 1 & 2 Clement to the New Testament, and we will have to start believing in the tale of the phoenix. And it seems unlikely that a strident traditionalist would be willing to embrace such drastic innovations.
Yet this is the same sort of reasoning which some traditionalists use, in hopes of convincing Orthodox Christians that the 7th Ecumenical Council mandates a particular understanding of original sin (and thus the damnation of unbaptized infants).
Did an Ecumenical Council Teach the Doctrine of Original Sin?
There are reasons why a person might think the 7th Ecumenical Council accepted the Augustinian doctrine of original sin:
In the year 419, a Council of Carthage promoted St. Augustine’s understanding of original sin. They said original sin is inherited by infants, and that this is the reason for infant baptism. (Some early copies of the canons from this council also mention the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants.)
In the year 690, the second canon of the Council of Trullo accepted the legitimacy of the Councils of Carthage.
In the year 787, the first canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council accepted the canons of the first Six Ecumenical Councils. (Some people think that includes the Council of Trullo, and some people don’t.)
This chain of reasoning leads many to believe that the Councils of Carthage were ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council, and that we are obliged to follow all such canons without exception.
But if we accept such reasoning, then we are also obliged to believe in the mythical phoenix, for the proof of its existence depends upon similar arguments.
Saints Who Taught the Damnation of Unbaptized Children
Of course, when certain groups of people promote the idea of torturing babies in hell for all eternity, they don’t rely on the Councils of Carthage alone. They also cite a number of Orthodox Saints who taught similarly.
Warning: The following section is not for the faint of heart. If you would be scandalized to learn that a handful of canonized saints made a mistake and expressed seriously disturbing opinions on this one isolated topic, then this portion of the article is not for you. Please skip the following quotes and then continue with the remainder of the article.
Consider the following quotes from St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Avitus of Vienne, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Gregory the Dialogist, St. Photius the Great, and modern Russian priest Fr. Daniel Sysoev:
St. Augustine of Hippo (+430)
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism"
- St. Augustine (A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33)
“It remains, therefore, that [unbaptized infants] are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone they go to damnation”
- St. Augustine (The Gift of Perseverance, 9, 23)
“Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament [of baptism] shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that ‘by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation'. That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church”
- St. Augustine (Letter 166, Treatise on the Origin of the Human Soul, Chapter 7.21)
“Now in which of these classes must we place infants — amongst those who believe on the Son, or amongst those who believe not the Son? . . . surely they who have lacked the sacrament [of baptism] must be classed amongst those who do not believe on the Son, and therefore, if they shall depart this life without this grace, they will have to encounter what is written concerning such — they shall not have life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. Whence could this result to those who clearly have no sins of their own, if they are not held to be obnoxious to original sin?”
- St. Augustine (A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 28)
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (+455)
“Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.”
- St. Prosper of Aquitaine (The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16)
“For instance, let us reflect on this. Among pagans, among Jews, among heretics, and among Catholic Christians also, how large a number of children die who manifestly, as far as their own wills go, have done neither good nor evil! But we are told that on them weighs the sentence which the human race received for the sin of Adam, our first father. And the rigour of this sentence, which is not relaxed even for children, proves only how grave that sin was. Were children not to suffer harm from their privation of baptism, then also we would no longer believe that no one is born in innocence.”
- St. Prosper of Aquitaine (The call of all nations, Book 2, Chapter 21)
“But this supposition, that the happiness of children can never be frustrated, would add great strength to the erroneous opinion which ventures to say, in opposition to our Catholic faith, that men receive grace according to their merit. For then it would look as though the guiltless innocence of infants could claim in full justice that not one of their number should fail to receive this adoption, because no guilt holds them in chains. Then there would have been nothing against the faith in the statement made by someone about the baptism of children: 'Grace has something to adopt, but the water of baptism has nothing to cleanse.' But all followers of the truth see the execrable implication of the gospel preached here. It is obvious that all who die without baptism are lost”
- St. Prosper of Aquitaine (The call of all nations, Book 2, Chapter 24)
St. Avitus of Vienne (+518)
"Perhaps hope comforts her as she grieves, if only the son she bears should live. But it often happens that as she groans she gives birth to dead children. And often the dead limbs of a mother assign a double tomb to an offspring never born because of death's intervention. And how often does that less terrible thing occur, that the mother herself dies alone and, after bringing forth her burden, gives up both the child and her ghost? What if it happens that a child, raised and nourished year after year, is carried off by death, one on whom, again and again, a mother's one hope rested? Then everything is gone, everything her joys promised her when she framed her prayers. And a case more dreadful than all of these occurs when envious death snatches away a tender child who lacks baptism and who must be borne under that harsh sentence to Hell. Such a child, when it ceases to be the child of its mother, becomes the son of damnation, and its sad parents wish unborn the limbs to which they gave life only to see them consigned to the flames."
- St. Avitus (The Poems of Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, Poem 6, 171-216)
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+533)
“Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, which is given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their own actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of Original Sin.”
- St. Fulgentius (To Peter on the faith, 70)
“For through the sacrament of holy baptism, that life is freed from the bonds of original sin, which had been bound by the chains of the same sin. And because the power of holy baptism is so great that when it found life in which it loosed that chain of original sin, it washed away as well by the blessing of the second birth all those things which it found which had been added later.”
- St. Fulgentius (Letter to Ferrandus, 18)
“For sometimes a child is born to believers, even to those who (as we have already said) are solicitous with godly faith and love for the redemption of their child, but he dies before he is washed by the sacred water of baptism. Another child is born to unbelieving parents who do not enthusiastically or even tepidly desire his salvation; in fact, they do not even desire it at all. This child is violently taken away from his parents or kidnapped by the order of a dispensation from above and is brought to holy baptism because of the devoted love of certain believers, and soon after being baptized he departs this life. If one considers the first state of these two children, both are equally children of wrath because they are both simultaneously bound by the same debt of original sin. And where the states of the two are completely equal, their merits surely cannot be said to be unequal. Therefore, there is no difference in the states of the children that might cause one to be elected and the other to be rejected. In fact, if one takes the will of the parents into consideration, the Christian parents earnestly desired that their child be baptized and hastened eagerly to have it done, but their child was prevented by death from being baptized and was assigned to the eternal fires.”
- St. Fulgentius (The truth about predestination and grace, 27)
St. Gregory the Dialogist (+604)
"For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; There they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will."
- St. Gregory the Dialogist (Exposition on the book of blessed Job, Volume 1, Book IX, Chapter 32)
St. Photius the Great (+893)
Speaking about the same Council of Carthage (419 A.D.) mentioned earlier in this article, St. Photius says this council denied the possibility of any place between heaven and hell, where unbaptized infants might hope to escape eternal torment:
“[I am reading] an account of the proceedings of the synod held at Carthage… The president was Aurelius, bishop of Carthage and Dotianus of Telepte, chief prelate of the province of Byzacena, supported by distinguished Church dignitaries from different provinces, to the number of 224. This synod excommunicated those who asserted that Adam was created mortal, and that he did not suffer death as a punishment for his sin; also those who declared that infants newly born had no need of baptism, because they were not liable to original sin from Adam; also those who affirmed that there was a place midway between hell and paradise, to which infants dying unbaptized were removed, there to live in a state of blessedness. Six other similar articles, which hold the first place in the heresies of Pelagius and Coelestius, were also anathematized. The emperors Theodosius and Honorius also wrote to bishop Aurelius condemning these same heretics.
- St. Photius the Great (Biblioteca, Review 53)
Fr. Daniel Sysoev (+2009)
Much more recently, Fr. Daniel Sysoev — a popular priest in Russia — has made similar comments:
"According to the Lord, all the unbaptized, except for those who were executed for Christ’s sake, will go to hades... As for innocent infants, there is simply no such thing. Every man has a distorted will from the moment of conception. Every man joins the devil’s 'mafia' by virtue of his birth, and it is this that made necessary the sacrifice of Christ, which acts in us through baptism, so that infants also might be saved."
- Fr. Daniel Sysoev (Letters, p. 16, 18, 20)
"In the eyes of God both you and every infant are sinners, and if you do not receive baptism you will go to hades."
- Fr. Daniel Sysoev (Letters, p. 143)
"What happens after death to people who were not baptized? They are going to hell, there is no other way for them. Christ descended into hell only once – on Holy Saturday – and freed those people who lived before His birth, but were looking for Him. All the people who don’t want to come to Christ, perish forever… There is no salvation without baptism. If you take the position of J.J. Russo, who believed that children are a clean slate, then, of course, the death of children (without a baptism) would be extremely unjust. But Scripture says that there is not one righteous. After baptism the grace of God washes away all sins by repentance... In the moment of birth, even of conception, a person enters into an alliance, between Adam and the devil, and becomes a sinner with the very beginning. There is no such thing as 'sinless baby.'
- Fr. Daniel Sysoev (Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Missionary Edition, p. 24, 172, 174)
"Hades is a kind of underground into which people who have fallen into sin go, and to this day, all of the unbaptized, without exception, wind up there."
- Fr. Daniel Sysoev (Instructions for the Immortal, p. 7)
"Sinners and unbaptized go to Hades, where with dread they await punishment."
- Fr. Daniel Sysoev (The Law of God, p. 28; cf p. 143-144)
If people are able to read all of the above quotes without getting physically ill, they must have a stomach that is stronger than mine, and emotions that are more callous. Like the Tin Man from Oz, maybe they are in need of a heart implant. Or, perhaps more likely, they really don’t want to believe that millions of babies are being tortured in hell right now, but they just don’t see any way around it, since they think that’s what the Church requires them to believe. Not wanting to disagree with the Church, they enter the realm of cognitive dissonance, forcing themselves to defend something that (even to them) seems utterly indefensible.
Damning Babies to (Nice) Hell in Modern Russia
Here in Russia, I have encountered a small-but-vocal minority of Russian Orthodox priests and laymen who are ardent followers of Fr. Daniel Sysoev, and who are fervent advocates of the eternal damnation of unbaptized children. They will explain to you that hundreds of millions of infants — including all victims of abortion — are forever excluded from heaven, because they never had the opportunity to be baptized. (Also, they say if you are a faithful Orthodox Christian catechumen, but you unexpectedly die before baptism, you will go straight to hell.)
Thankfully, most of the time they don’t seem to be heartless people. Instead, it seems apparent that they are struggling with the cognitive dissonance mentioned above. They don’t believe these babies are in heaven, but they also cannot imagine torturing an innocent baby, so they try to imagine some version of “Nice Hell”, where these babies can enjoy a certain level of happiness for all eternity, even though they are forever separated from Christ. Think of it as an Orthodox version of Roman Catholic “Limbo” for infants.
To achieve this emotional band-aid for their conscience, they seem to follow a predictable strategy:
They usually avoid sharing the quotes from Saints listed above. They focus on other quotes about original sin and the need for infant baptism, but they shy away from these harsher quotes, because they are just as scandalized by them as the rest of us are. — Nothing screams “injustice” more poignantly than the image of unborn children being tortured in the fires of hell.
They share quotes from St. Gregory the Theologian, who lived slightly prior to St. Augustine. St. Gregory imagined that there might be some middle place between heaven and hell, where unbaptized babies might go, receiving neither punishment nor reward. — But if this group of people truly believes that infants are “guilty” of original sin, then why shy away from the consequences? If infants truly have guilt, then why wouldn’t they be worthy of punishment? While this approach is certainly more compassionate, it is less reasonable and not internally consistent. If they really believe (as I do) that infants cannot deserve punishment, then it is unreasonable to lock them out of heaven forever.
They keep repeating the mantra that “the Council of Carthage taught original sin... the Council of Trullo accepted the Council of Carthage… and the 7th Eumenical Council accepted the Council of Trullo.” — Perhaps they think if they repeat it enough times, it will somehow make infant damnation sound more reasonable. (It doesn’t work.) As demonstrated in the first part of this article, the same argument can be used to “prove” the existence of the phoenix. But if I can’t bring myself to believe in that mythical bird, then I’m not going to believe in the myth of infant damnation, either.
Also, if this gruop of people is determined to dogmatize every detail of the Council of Carthage, then they will have to reckon with the above quote from St. Photius the Great. He says that the Council of Carthage anathematizes those who believe in the existence of “nice hell” — a place where infants could be outside heaven, yet still avoid suffering. No, I’m afraid the Council of Carthage and the testimony of St. Photius don’t permit such a luxury. If you believe that babies go to hell, then you have to believe that they go to real hell, flames and all.
The Innocence of Infants — According to the Saints
Thankfully, there has been no shortage of saints who attest to the innocence of infants. They may inherit the effects of Adam’s sin, but they do not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. They may inherit sickness, death, and the temptation to fall into sin, but they do not inherit sin itself. They are not born guilty.
Reasonable Orthodox Christians throughout the ages have never denied the doctrine of original sin. We fully recognize the fact that Adam’s sin brought about terribly negative effects to the entire human race. This is why even babies can get sick and die. This is why, even in early childhood, we have a great temptation to sin. Original sin is a real thing, and we affirm its existence. What we deny is that it involves guilt of any kind. We suffer because of Adam’s sin. But we are not guilty of it.
Experts in Church history have repeatedly noted that Augustine’s version of original sin was not taught by the Greek Fathers in the East. For example:
“It is virtually an axiom of historical theology that the doctrine of original sin, as we recognize it today, cannot be traced back beyond Augustine.”
- Gerald Bray (Original Sin in patristic thought, p. 37)
“For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.”
- International Theological Commission, The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized, para. 11
“The most critical point of difference between the East and the West is the absence among the Greek-speaking theologians of the concept of inherited guilt, which is the central point of the Latin doctrine of sin. Without exception among the Greek theologians, the inheritance from Adam’s sin was mortality and corruption only. That is, the Greek fathers taught that humanity inherited Adam’s punishment, death, but not Adam’s sin. Guilt for sin could only be the result of a freely committed personal act. The Greek theologians consistently espoused the sinlessness of infants as late as John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, contemporaries of Augustine.”
- Toews (The Story of Original Sin, Chapter 4)
Until the time of St. Augustine’s innovation, Orthodox saints almost unanimously reject the idea of inherited guilt. Let’s take a survey of multiple saints and writings from the Early Church, affirming the innocence and sinlessness of infants:
Epistle of Barnabas, 70 AD - 132 AD
Among the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Epistle of Barnabus is one of the earliest and most highly respected. Written around the end of the 1st century or the beginning of the 2nd century, it is ranked among the Apostolic Fathers, in the same category as the Didache, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. In the early centuries of the Church, many Christians considered this epistle to be inspired Scripture. The 3rd century Codex Sinaiticus includes the Epistle of Barnabus at the end of the New Testament. In this epistle, the author assumes the natural innocence of children:
"Forasmuch then as He renewed us in the remission of sins, He made us to be a new type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if He were recreating us... Behold then we have been created anew, as He saith again in another prophet; Behold, saith the Lord, I will take out from these, that is to say, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, their stony hearts, and will put into them hearts of flesh; for He Himself was to be manifested in the flesh and to dwell in us."
- Epistle of Barnabas, 6:11, 14
In this letter, the author likens Christians being renewed in the remission of sins and being given a new heart to having the soul of children. The author seems to be using children as a standard of innocence. An innocence that guilty sinners return to through the remission of sins. If the author believed children to be guilty from conception, this likening wouldn't make much sense.
St. Aristides of Athens (+134)
"And if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another near. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins."
- St. Aristides of Athens, Apology, Chapter XV
If St. Aristides believed that all humans from their beginning are guilty of Adam's sin, it wouldn't make much sense for him to say that young children who die pass through the world without sins. Why would he say such a thing if he believed in inherited/imputed Adamic guilt? The most simple and likely explanation would be because he didn't believe young children were guilty of sins yet.
The Shepherd of Hermas, 100 AD - 160 A.D.
In the first centuries of the Early Church, one of the most beloved books was the Shepherd of Hermas. Multiple sources say it was written by the brother of St. Pius I. This book was so honored by the Church that some even considered it to be canonical Scripture. St. Irenaeus of Lyons quoted from it and called it Scripture. The 3rd century Codex Sinaiticus includes the Shepherd of Hermas at the end of the New Testament. Throughout this book, it is understood that infants are innocent, free from any sin:
“And they who believed from the twelfth mountain, which was white, are the following: they are as infant children, in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remained as children. Such accordingly, without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God; but they remained like children all the days of their life in the same mind. All of you, then, who shall remain stedfast, and be as children, without doing evil, will be more honoured than all who have been previously mentioned; for all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him. Blessed, then, are ye who put away wickedness from yourselves, and put on innocence. As the first of all will you live unto God.”
- The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXIX
"Of this race, therefore, no one will perish; for although any of them be tempted by the most wicked devil, and commit sin, he will quickly return to his Lord. I deem you happy, I, who am the messenger of repentance, whoever of you are innocent as children, because your part is good, and honourable before God."
- The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similitude IX, Chapter XXXI
"He said to me, Be simple and guileless, and you will be as the children who know not the wickedness that ruins the life of men."
- The Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate II.1
Clement of Alexandria (+215)
"Such are the arguments of Julius Cassian, the originator of deceits... Let them tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication, or how that which has done nothing has fallen under the curse of Adam. The only consistent answer for them, it seems, is to say that birth is an evil, not only for the body, but also for the soul for the sake of which the body itself exists. And when David says: “In sin I was born and in unrighteousness my mother conceived me," he says in prophetic manner that Eve is his mother. For Eve became the mother of the living." But if he was conceived in sin, yet he was not himself in sin, nor is he himself sin... If birth is something evil, let the blasphemers say that the Lord who shared in birth was born in evil, and that the virgin gave birth to him in evil. Woe to these wicked fellows! They blaspheme against the will of God and the mystery of creation in speaking evil of birth. This is the ground upon which Docetism is held by Cassian and by Marcion also, and on which even Valentine indeed teaches that Christ's body was "psychic."
- Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book III, Chapters XIII, XVI, & XVII
"Let them not then say, that he who does wrong and sins transgresses through the agency of demons; for then he would be guiltless. But by choosing the same things as demons, by sinning; being unstable, and light, and fickle in his desires, like a demon, he becomes a demoniac man. Now he who is bad, having become, through evil, sinful by nature, becomes depraved, having what he has chosen; and being sinful, sins also in his actions."
- Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter XII
Clement of Alexandria indicates that he viewed infant children as innocent and without evil or sin. He indicates that someone would actually be without guilt if they transgressed through the agency of another. We are instead guilty because we have transgressed against God through our own agency and sinful choices.
St. Methodius of Olympus (+311)
St. Methodius was a bishop of Olympus and Patara in Lycia. In his book, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, he discusses the artistry of God in fetal development and the judgment on adulterous parents who put their children to death. Without any mention of baptism, he says that guardian angels are assigned to all children, in order to nourish them with gentleness:
“Whence, also, we have received from the inspired writings that those who are begotten, even though it be in adultery, are committed to guardian angels. But if they came into being in opposition to the will and the decree of the blessed nature of God, how should they be delivered over to angels, to be nourished with much gentleness and indulgence? and how, if they had to accuse their own parents, could they confidently, before the judgment seat of Christ, invoke Him and say, ‘Thou didst not, O Lord, grudge us this common light; but these appointed us to death, despising Thy command?’ ‘For,’ He says, ‘children begotten of unlawful beds are witnesses of wickedness against their parents at their trial’”.
- St. Methodius of Olympus, Conviv. ii. 6
In the above quote, it is important to note that the adulterous parents did not want the children, and tried to cover up their crime, putting these children to death. Thus, we should not assume that the children were baptized.
"Because there is nothing evil by nature, but it is by use that evil things become such. So I say, says he, that man was made with a free-will, not as if there were already evil in existence, which he had the power of choosing if he wished, but on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God."
- St. Methodius of Olympus, Concerning Free Will, ANF06.610
"it is in our power to do, or to avoid doing, evil; since otherwise we should not be punished for doing evil, nor be rewarded for doing well;"
- St. Methodius of Olympus, From Discourses on the Resurrection, Part 3.X
"Sin is an act of personal freedom, without which there is neither sin nor virtue, neither reward nor punishment,"
- St. Methodius of Olympus
"Again I will say it, nor will I cease exhorting you to good, Come, beloved, let us bless Him who is blessed, that we may be ourselves blessed of Him. Every age and condition does this discourse summon to praise the Lord; kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and all judges of the earth; both young men and maidens—and what is new in this miracle, the tender and innocent age of babes and sucklings hath obtained the first place in raising to God with thankful confession the hymn which was of God taught them in the strains in which Moses sang before to the people when they came forth out of Egypt—namely, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.”
- St. Methodius of Olympus, Oration on the Palms, I
Methodius exhibits a strong view of evil, guilt, and punishment corresponding with choices rather than nature. He's clear that humans aren't evil by nature. Without sinful acts of personal freedom, there isn't punishment in his view. These ideas of his don't seem compatible with a doctrine of perpetually inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. Additionally, he refers to babies as being at the "innocent age".
St. Ephrem the Syrian (+373)
"There the married state finds rest after having been anguished by the pangs of giving birth, brought on by the curse and by the pain of childbearing; now it sees the children whom it had buried amid laments, pasturing like lambs in Eden; exalted in their ranks, glorious in their splendours, they are like kindred of the spotless angels."
- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, Hymn 7(VII), Verse 8
"The river of humanity consists of people of all ages, with old, young, children and babes, infants in their mothers’ arms and others still unborn, in the womb. Such is the sequence of Paradise’s fruit: firstfruits issued forth with the autumn harvest, wave upon wave, fecund with blossoms and fruit."
- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, Hymn 10[X], Verse 13
Ephrem details a positive view concerning the fate of young children who die, including the unborn. They're "like lambs in Eden" and "are like kindred of the spotless angels."
St. Basil the Great (+379 AD)
"Hence it is evident that our Lord assumed the natural affections to establish His real incarnation, and not by way of semblance of incantation, and that all the affections derived from evil that besmirch the purity of our life, He rejected as unworthy of His unsullied Godhead. It is on this account that He is said to have been “made in the likeness of flesh of sin;” not, as these men hold, in likeness of flesh, but of flesh of sin. It follows that He took our flesh with its natural afflictions, but “did no sin.” Just as the death which is in the flesh, transmitted to us through Adam, was swallowed up by the Godhead, so was the sin taken away by the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus, so that in the resurrection we receive back the flesh neither liable to death nor subject to sin."
- St. Basil the Great, The Letters to the Sozopolitans, 3
"On the other hand, of the evils of hell the cause is not God, but ourselves. The origin and root of sin is what is in our own control and our free will."
- St. Basil the Great, IV Homiletical, Homily IX
"If the origin of our virtues and of our vices is not in ourselves, but is the fatal consequence of our birth, it is useless for legislators to prescribe for us what we ought to do, and what we ought to avoid; it is useless for judges to honour virtue and to punish vice. The guilt is not in the robber, not in the assassin: it was willed for him; it was impossible for him to hold back his hand, urged to evil by inevitable necessity. Those who laboriously cultivate the arts are the maddest of men. The labourer will make an abundant harvest without sowing seed and without sharpening his sickle. Whether he wishes it or not, the merchant will make his fortune, and will be flooded with riches by fate. As for us Christians, we shall see our great hopes vanish, since from the moment that man does not act with freedom, there is neither reward for justice, nor punishment for sin. Under the reign of necessity and of fatality there is no place for merit, the first condition of all righteous judgment. But let us stop. You who are sound in yourselves have no need to hear more, and time does not allow us to make attacks without limit against these unhappy men."
- St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron, Homily VI, Chapter VII
St. Basil seems to view mortality as the "death" that is transmitted to us through Adam. This death is undone through Christ in the resurrection of the dead when we receive glorified bodies. Lacking from St. Basil is any idea of guilt being perpetually transmitted. When he touches on the origin and root of sin, St. Basil doesn't mention Adam or perpetually passed on sin guilt. Rather, he focuses on personal responsibility and abuse of free will as the origin of sin. This doesn't seem compatible with a view that says we have sin accounted to us from our conception. In such a scenario, our control and free will would have nothing to do with the origin and root of our sin. Additionally, St. Basil says that if virtues and vices do not originate in each person's own actions punishment would be useless. Where there is no free personal action of sin, there is no punishment for sin. St. Basil clearly grounds each person's judicial punishment for sin in personal actions.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386)
"And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will. Listen not, I pray you, to any one perversely interpreting the words, But if I do that which I would not Romans 7:16: but remember Him who says, If you be willing, and hearken unto Me, you shall eat the good things of the land: but if you be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, the sword shall devour you, etc. Isaiah 1:19-20: and again, As you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification."
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV.19
"And you must know your soul to be endowed with free-will, and to be God’s fairest work in the image of himself. It is immortal in as far as God grants it immortality. It is a rational living creature not subject to decay, because these qualities have been bestowed by God upon it. And it has the power to do what it chooses. For you do not sin because you were born that way, nor if you fornicate is it by chance. And do not take any notice of what some people say, that the conjunctions of the stars compel you to fall into unclean living. Why should you avoid acknowledging that you have done wrong by blaming it onto the stars that had nothing to do with it?"
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV.18
St. Cyril strongly suggests that nobody is a sinner from birth, but that we do have the propensity to sin. It seems that St. Cyril believes we become sinners and are therefore guilty after we come into the world.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (+395)
"Whereas the innocent babe has no such plague before its soul’s eyes obscuring its measure of light, and so it continues to exist in that natural life; it does not need the soundness which comes from purgation, because it never admitted the plague into its soul at all."
- St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Death, Para. 3
"Certainly, in comparison with one who has lived all his life in sin, not only the innocent babe but even one who has never come into the world at all will be blessed."
- St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Death, Para. 4
St. Gregory is quite explicit that in his view, the souls of babies are innocent and aren't touched in any way by "the plague". In his mind, innocent babies and all babies who died in the womb will be blessed.
St. John Chrysostom (+407)
"What then? tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? and how Abraham? and how Job? and how all the rest? And what, I pray? shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it doth so no longer."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily XXXIX
"As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 1
"For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, Homily X, Para. 7
When he comments on Romans 5, Chrysostom makes statements that don't convey a belief in inherited/imputed guilt. He seems to believe that mortality is the primary thing that Adam passed on to his progeny. John conveys that people only deserve punishment if they become a sinner through themselves. He says that all dying in Adam the death of sin is said to be of the body.
"Nor indeed is it possible for a soul, torn away from the body, to wander here any more. For “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God;” and if of the righteous, then those children's souls also; for neither are they wicked: and the souls too of sinners are straightway led away hence."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily XXVIII.3
"And the first prayer too is full of mercy, when we entreat for the energumens; and the second again, for others under penance seeking for much mercy; and the third also for ourselves, and this puts forward the innocent children of the people entreating God for mercy. For since we condemn ourselves for sins, for them that have sinned much and deserve to be blamed we ourselves cry; but for ourselves the children; for the imitators of whose simplicity the kingdom of heaven is reserved. For this image shows this, that they who are like those children, lowly and simple, these above all men are able to deliver the guilty by their prayers."
- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily LXXI
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit."
- St. John Chrysostom, Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian, 1:6:21
When it comes to infants, Chrysostom is clear that the souls of children who die are in the hand of God along with the righteous. He doesn't view them as wicked. They are innocent and sinless. When he lists the benefits of baptizing infants, the removal of guilt is not among them. Some of our interlocutors often appeal to infant baptismal texts as proof of inherited/imputed Adamic guilt. St. John Chrysostom is an explicit example that an affirmation of infant baptism doesn't mean that the infant is guilty of sin.
The Council of Carthage in Context
One modern writer has pointed out that the Council of Carthage was widely accepted by the Early Church, in both the East and the West. I largely agree with his historical assessment, and as long as this particular Council of Carthage is placed in proper context, it actually does not contradict the early patristic understanding of infant sinlessness.
This council was convened specifically to refute the false teachings of the heretics Pelagius and Celestius. These men didn’t merely reject the concept of inherited guilt. They said that we don’t inherit original sin at all. They apparently believed that infants enter the world in the same pure state as Adam and Eve were in before the fall. Of course, such a position has been unanimously rejected by all the saints. It is clear that we inherit corruption from Adam, including sickness, death, and an inclination to sin. We do not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, but we do inherit many of the painful effects of his sin.
The Council of Carthage had eight canons, and seven of those canons have nothing to do with the question of infant innocence. The text of the second canon, regarding infants being baptized for the remission of sins, is as follows:
Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
Obviously, this council had no intention of condemning the views of infant innocence held by the vast majority of Orthodox saints at that time, including St. Aristides of Athens, St. Methodius of Olympus, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, & St. John Chrysostom. The Council of Carthage was an antidote to the heresies of Pelagius, not an overturning of the patristic consensus.
The same saints who recognize the innocence of infants also recognize the importance of infant baptism. Belief in one does not negate belief in the other. This is why St. John Chrysostom is able to say, “we baptize even infants, although they are sinless” (St. John Chrysostom, Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian, 1:6:21). As long as the term “original sin” does not include the assumption of “inherited guilt”, all Orthodox saints affirm the reality of original sin. We inherit many negative effects from Adam’s sin, and holy baptism is powerful to counteract these effects.
As for the unusually harsh interpretation of the Council of Carthage promoted by St. Photius, it is possible that he merely had access to a spurious copy of the the council. It has been discovered that in a small minority of texts, the following paragraph was added to the canons of this council:
Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, In my Father's house are many mansions is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.
This passage is indeed harsh, and is obviously what St. Photius was reading when he made his comments about the eternal condemnation of infants. But this passage does not exist in early Greek texts of this council, nor does it appear in the record of Dionysius. This passage was found in one isolated ancient codex, and should not be viewed as an authentic declaration of the original council.
St. Vincent of Lerins (+456)
St. Vincent famously wrote the Commonitory, in which he argues that Christians must follow the true faith that has been held “everywhere, always, and by all.” This guideline has come to be known as the Vincentian Canon, reminding us to always be in agreement with the consensus of the Saints.
In general, this approach works very well. By appealing to the historic consensus of the Saints, we can affirm the legitimacy of bishops, priests, deacons, liturgy, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
The consensus of Saints also affirms the Orthodox understanding of original sin — that is, we suffer as a result of Adam’s sin, even though we are not guilty of his sin.
Indeed, what happens if we apply the Vincentian Canon in the mid-5th-century, at the time when St. Vincent himself was alive? A small minority of saints might be found — St. Augustine, St. Jerome, & St. Prosper — who believed that infants were guilty of Adam’s sin. But an earlier and far longer list of saints — St. Aristides of Athens, The Epistle of Barnabus, The Shepherd of Hermas, St. Methodius of Olympus, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, & St. John Chrysostom — acknowledged that infants are innocent and sinless.
If St. Vincent himself had applied the Vincentian Canon to this particular theological question, it is not difficult to see what the results would be. In the Early Church, the overwhelming concensus of the saints was in favor of the innocence of infants, without any hint of “inherited guilt” from Adam.
Unfortunately, St. Augustine’s influence was unusually heavy, particularly in the West, and many saints who came after him suffered from similar theological excess. In addition to affirming the heredity of original sin (which is accurate), they also affirmed the heredity of Adam’s guilt (which is not accurate). As a result, this is how we ended up with a long list of medieval saints who wrote about God torturing babies in the flames of hell.
Conclusion
If we believe that infant children are innocent, we are in good company. The majority of Orthodox saints in the Early Church believed the same. We can accept the doctrine of original sin in the same way that they did. We inherit many painful effects of Adam’s sin, but we do not inherit the guilt of his sin.
Dear Fr. Joseph, Evlogeite. Very good article. Thank you very much for your articles. I have been posting them on social media. And I received good words that people are benefitted. Lord Jesus Christ have Mercy.
There is no phoenix or any mythical bird mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. What New Testament has this author been reading? Because the New Testament on planet earth never once speaks of any mythical bird. Please quote me a specific verse in the New Testament that has the word "phoenix" in it, or mentions any mythical bird. Sorry, but the New Testament and Christianity have nothing to do with paganism or the occult. The New Testament must be understood in it's Jewish milieu.