Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine writings from Pliny the Younger and arguments made from them to determine whether there is strong evidence that he was an early witness to the practice of infant baptism. To get a primer on what theologians and historians have said on the development of infant baptism, we recommend reading this article here. We also recommend checking out our brief introduction article on the proper recipients of baptism from historical perspectives, which you can read here.
WHO WAS PLINY THE YOUNGER?
Pliny the Younger was a prominent Roman lawyer, magistrate, and author who lived during the height of the Roman Empire between 61 and 113 AD. Pliny is one of our most invaluable secular windows into the Roman Empire’s early encounters with the growing Christian religion. While he is best known for witnessing the eruption of Vesuvius, his most critical legacy for our study here lies in his correspondence with Emperor Trajan around 112 AD. As a provincial governor in Bithynia-Pontus (modern-day Turkey), Pliny wrote to ask how he should handle the rapidly growing group of Christians who refused to worship Roman gods. His administrative dilemma preserved an objective, firsthand snapshot of the faith, grit, and legal struggles of second-generation Christians living under imperial rule.
WHAT DID HE SAY THAT'S RELEVANT TO PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENTS?
“It is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of removing my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.” - Letter 96, To the Emperor Trajan
The key part that Paedobaptists appeal to is in the first section of this letter, where Pliny seeks consultation from Emperor Trajan on how to handle the prosecution and punishment of Christians. He grapples with determining if a difference should be made based on age.
“In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them.” - Letter 96, To the Emperor Trajan
“I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress.” - Letter 96, To the Emperor Trajan
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS ON THIS TEXT?
The argument for Pliny's letter supporting infant baptism is most prominently seen in Joachim Jeremias' 1960 work, which presents historical arguments for the practice through the first 400 years of church history.
“Then Pliny’s letter* written in 112/13 allows us to make an inference when it speaks of the very young (teneri) who along with the adults (robustiores) belong to the Church, and also of the many of all ages (multi omnis aetatis) who have been ensnared by the new faith. When we remember what Pliny says about the astonishingly quick spread of the Christian faith in Bithynia, we may conclude with certainty that among the very young there were numerous children of parents who had been converts from heathenism; and since Pliny considers the possibility that the very young should be brought to trial and punished in the same manner as the adults, we must take it that they had become through baptism full members of the Church.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 63-64
“If Pliny is considering whether these ‘tender’ children are to be prosecuted for belonging to the Christian Church, it can be assumed that they had become full members of it by their baptism, which does not support an age-limit at puberty or at a ‘more mature’ age.” - Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism, p. 58-59
Jeremias argues that Pliny's consideration of potentially punishing children allows Paedobaptists to validly infer and assume that these children were full members of Christian churches and had been baptized in infancy.
“And so this [Pliny’s letter] gives a view from the outside, not someone within the church of how it is that Christians included the young within their assemblies, within their worship. And so Pliny makes a point of this because it’s a bit unusual that this is the case, that the young are looked at with belonging in this way. Again, not an explicit reference to baptism, but it does certainly point in that direction.” - Jordan Cooper, Infant Baptism in the Second and Third Centuries, 15:26-15:56
“Infant baptism was not controversial in the Church during the first two centuries after Christ…Pliny describes with amazement that children belong to the Christian cult in just the same way as do the adults.” - Assumption Greek Orthodox Church, Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes
This argument has been perpetuated into the 21st century by figures such as Lutheran theologian Jordan Cooper as well as various online sources. Cooper additionally notes that, from Pliny's outside perspective, children are included in Christian assemblies and worship.
WHY THE ARGUMENT FAILS
There are multiple reasons why this argument fails as an early witness to the practice of infant baptism.
1. Right out of the gate, we must point out the obvious. There is nothing here that Pliny says that is directly about baptism or even indirectly about a coordinating issue connected to baptismal practice. This observation exposes how low the bar is for Paedobaptist prooftexts in early Christianity. The usage of Pliny is not a special instance; it's a common theme, especially in Jeremias' work, which is often regurgitated by Paedobaptists today. It seems any text that mentions children involved to one extent or another in Christianity is taken and assumed to be evidence for the practice of infant baptism. Unfortunately, that logic simply does not follow.
2. As we also covered in our previous article about Polycarp of Smyrna and the arguments for his baptism in infancy, Paedobaptists simply misunderstand and mischaracterize the Credobaptist views of Christian children. As we previously quoted, Jordan Cooper is a prime example of this. The children of Christians being included in assemblies and worship could only accurately be said to point in the direction of infant baptism if Paedobaptists were the only ones who had such inclusion, but they are not. Credobaptist Christians do not leave their children at home and wait to begin instructing them in Christianity until they've made a profession of faith. On the contrary, the children are brought to church and instructed in the knowledge of God. It is presumptuous and blatantly incorrect to act, as Jeremias, Cooper, and others do, as if Paedobaptists are the only ones who include children in assembly and worship, and assume from such inclusion that this means the children were baptized in infancy.
3. Let's think about a practical example to drive home our protest against these Paedobaptist assumptions. Imagine that in some country, there are two churches under persecution from Muslims. The Christians in these churches are all captured. For one church, the Muslims kill everyone of all ages. For the other church, the Muslims spare the young children and raise them in their religion. As horrifying as this sounds, for some Christians across the world, and Christians in history, it's their reality. Now, would it be reasonable to draw conclusions about the baptismal practices of each church based on how the Muslims handled the situation? Of course not. For one, why would it be reliable to assume that the Muslims have a full understanding of Christian practices? Secondly, there are far too many steps in logic between why a persecuting group goes after another group and what the religious practices of the persecuted group are. The same is true for utilizing Pliny as an early witness to infant baptism.
4. In the same letter, Pliny does not portray himself as someone with deep knowledge about Christian practice. Therefore, we cannot assume that some deeper-seated disdain for a practice of Christian children (like infant baptism or full initiation into the faith) could be a reason why children might be included in punishment. Whether or not children are punished, on its own, does not inform us about the prosecutor's understanding of Christian ordinances or initiatory practices.
"Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them." - Letter 96, To the Emperor Trajan
“They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal.” - Letter 96, To the Emperor Trajan
Pliny admits he had never been at a trial of Christians himself and was not acquainted with the nature of their crimes. He never indicates knowledge of Christian baptismal practices, which would be one of the only concrete ways to form a conclusion that includes the baptism of infants. In his letter to Trajan, there is no description of initiation rites. Instead, his knowledge of Christian rituals is limited to what's confessed during questioning. He doesn’t insist on punishing children because they’ve gone through all the rituals of the faith, as well as adults. He never claims this is his basis.
5. As we've shown, the argument that Pliny is an early witness to infant baptism depends on the interpretation that if children are mentioned in association with the church in any capacity, then it means they are full members and were baptized in infancy. However, if this interpretation and logic were consistently applied, would it not lead to the conclusion that if children are not mentioned in association with the church, then the church didn't baptize infants? As a contemporary example of this, let's look at what Ignatius said.
“Let not widows be neglected. Be thou, after the Lord, their protector and friend. Let nothing be done without thy consent; neither do thou anything without the approval of God, which indeed thou dost not, inasmuch as thou art stedfast. Let your assembling together be of frequent occurrence: seek after all by name. Do not despise either male or female slaves, yet neither let them be puffed up with conceit, but rather let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty. Let them not long to be set free [from slavery] at the public expense, that they be not found slaves to their own desires.” - To Polycarp, Chapter IV
“Flee evil arts; but all the more discourse in public regarding them. Speak to my sisters, that they love the Lord, and be satisfied with their husbands both in the flesh and spirit. In like manner also, exhort my brethren, in the name of Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, even as the Lord the Church. If any one can continue in a state of purity, to the honour of Him who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting. If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honour of God.” - To Polycarp, Chapter V
"Yet when Ignatius advises Polycarp on the care of the church of Smyrna, he urges attention to widows, slaves, wives and husbands, but not to children (Ign. Pol. 4-5)." - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 49
Living and writing around the time of Pliny, Ignatius' letter to Polycarp of Smyrna provides an interesting example for us. As Paedobaptist theologian David Wright noted, Ignatius advises Polycarp on the care of multiple categories of people in the Smyrnean church. However, Ignatius does not mention children in the chapters on exhortation. The very method Paedobaptists use to argue that Pliny is a witness for infant baptism would lead us in the direction of believing the Smyrnean church didn't baptize infants. But surely, everyone would agree that this reasoning is absurd. It seems sensible, then, that if one side of the logic consistently applied is absurd, the other side is equally absurd. Is the bar really so low that we are supposed to judge texts as evidence for infant baptism simply because children are mentioned within a Christian context?
CONCLUSION
The argument that Pliny the Younger is an early witness to infant baptism is certainly not the most prominent of arguments. Nevertheless, it's valuable and important to cover how he is utilized by some Paedobaptists. More than anything, it unveils how apologists like Jeremias and others are open to utilizing sources even if the evidence for infant baptism is barren. As we mentioned, this is not the first instance we have covered on such a case. Apparently, any mention of children in any proximity and association with Christianity implies or validates the concept that these children were baptized in infancy. Unfortunately, there is no validation to be found from such statements. For various reasons, the logic and inferences made from what Pliny said simply do not work, and therefore, the argument fails.
No comments:
Post a Comment