Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine relevant texts from Aristides of Athens to understand who the proper recipients of baptism are and whether he aligns with Credobaptism or Paedobaptism. For background context, we recommend reading our brief introduction article on the proper recipients of baptism from historical perspectives, available here.
REVIEWING COMMON CLAIMS FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS
In the apologetic landscape, Paedobaptists defending their practice routinely claim that the baptismal practice of Christians always included infants, going back to the apostles. They argue that the practice of believers being the only proper recipients of baptism has no attestation until the 1500s, and that Paedobaptism was the universal practice before then.
“Since the Apostles themselves, paedobaptism was practiced and handed off to the Apostolic Fathers, who handed it off to the next generation, known as the Early Church Fathers. It must be noted that since the early church itself, dating back to the Apostles, paedobaptism has always been practiced.” - Trey Soto, Do Christians have to believe in Paedobaptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Theopolis Institute, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“Infant baptism is the universal practice of the Christian church for over the first 1500 years of its existence.” - Kim Riddlebarger, The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, VI.D
“It is not infant baptism which is an odd practice, rather it is the rejection of infant baptism which is a novelty and only represents a single strand of Protestantism…. If we are going to compare opinions then I am convinced that it is only reasonable to believe that the earliest Christians, taught by the Apostles, had the correct understanding, and that any novel ideas, which are contrary to 1500 years of unanimous Christian teaching, cannot be authentic Christianity.” - St. George Orthodox Ministry, Infant Baptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Tim Lecroy, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“For fifteen hundred years after Christ, the practice of infant baptism was universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception,” - Samuel Miller, cited by Booth in, Children of the Promise, p. 179
In this article, we will examine Aristides of Athens.
WHO WAS ARISTIDES OF ATHENS?
Aristides of Athens was a 2nd-century Greek Christian, primarily known as the author of the Apology of Aristides.
Aristides of Athens was an early Christian philosopher and one of the first believers to publicly defend the Christian faith. Around A.D. 125, he wrote a work called The Apology of Aristides and presented it to the Roman emperor. In those days, Christians were often misunderstood and accused of all kinds of false things. Aristides wrote to explain what Christians actually believed and why their faith deserved to be taken seriously. Rather than relying on emotional arguments, he appealed to reason, comparing the beliefs of different nations and arguing that the God revealed in Christ is the one true Creator.
Aristides and his work were mentioned by church historians and leaders in subsequent centuries.
“Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons.” - Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter III, Section 3
“Let me now run through the list of our own writers. Did not Quadratus a disciple of the apostles and bishop of the Athenian church deliver to the Emperor Hadrian (on the occasion of his visit to the Eleusinian mysteries) a treatise in defence of our religion. And so great was the admiration caused in everyone by his eminent ability that it stilled a most severe persecution. The philosopher Aristides, a man of great eloquence, presented to the same Emperor an apology for the Christians composed of extracts from philosophic writers.” - Letter LXX, Section 4
REVIEWING CONTEMPORARY PAEDOBAPTIST PROOFTEXTS UP TO ARISTIDES
Before getting into what Aristides said in his Apology that's relevant to Credobaptism, let's review comments on two early prooftexts that Paedobaptists believe demonstrate the practice of baptizing infants.
First, Polycarp of Smyrna. You can read our article on whether Polycarp was baptized in infancy here.
“This confession does not indeed mention baptism. Yet it permits an inference to be made…Thus Polycarp reckons his ‘service of Christ’ from his birth. This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. If his parents were pagan at his birth, he would have been baptized with the ‘house’ at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words ‘service of Christ’ for eighty-six years supports a baptism soon after his birth,” - Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism, p. 58
Joachim Jeremias, when speculating on whether or not Polycarp's parents were pagan at his birth, assumes that he would have been baptized with them as an infant if they converted while he was a young child.
Second, Pliny the Younger. You can read our article on whether Pliny was an early witness to infant baptism here.
“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 also assumes that if young children were punished by Roman authorities along with adults for being Christian, it follows that the children had been baptized beforehand and were "full members of the church" as a result.
Our purpose in calling attention to these comments is not to rebut them here. You can click on the links above to see why these arguments fall short and are unpersuasive. Rather, our purpose is to show that early patristic arguments for Paedobaptism up to the time of Aristides often rely on the assumption that if children are mentioned in any Christian context, they are "full members of the Church" and have been baptized in infancy. In addition to the assumption that if adults convert to Christianity, their children are baptized with them.
What we will soon see is that Aristides' account of Christian initiation around 125 AD does not allow for these assumptions to stand. In which case, the argument for some prooftexts for Paedobaptism around the time of Aristides is weakened.
ARISTIDES ON CHRISTIAN INITIATION
“But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. For they know and trust in God, the Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from whom are all things, to whom there is no other god as companion, from whom they received commandments which they engraved upon their minds and observe in hope and expectation of the world which is to come. Wherefore they do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor bear false witness, nor embezzle what is held in pledge, nor covet what is not theirs. They honour father and mother, and show kindness to those near to them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly. They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they would not that others should do unto them, they do not to others; and of the food which is consecrated to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest; and their men keep themselves from every unlawful union and from all uncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in the other world." - Apology, Chapter XV
Before chapter 15, Aristides overviews the beliefs and moral practices of various people groups like the Barbarians, Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews. Now, he turns to discuss the beliefs and moral practices of Christians.
Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction.” - Apology, Chapter XV
“Didache 7.1 informs us that a course of moral instruction preceded baptism, a course expounded by the “I'wo Ways Scheme’ (Did. 1-6), and we may conjecture from the First Epistle of Peter that the injunction to charity had a dominating position in primitive Christian baptismal instruction, even if we do not see in this letter the working-over of a baptismal address or indeed of a baptismal liturgy, but explain the numerous echoes of baptismal terminology by the theory that the letter was addressed to the new converts of a recently completed great missionary drive.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 30
In other early Christian texts which indicate Credobaptism, one potential Paedobaptist response is that the text is in a missionary context, like we see with the Didache. Consequently, they believe such texts are only dealing with first-generation converts to Christianity, and thus the baptisms are framed on a credo-basis because there are not yet infants who could be baptized. But once there are infants, it's assumed they would be baptized as well. In the case of Aristides, he is talking about the belief and practice of people who are already Christian; thus invalidating this common Paedobaptist response.
So does Aristides say, in accord with common Paedobaptist reasoning, that children of Christians are baptized on account of the faith of their parents and the fact that they are in a Christian family? Does he say, as Jeremias commented, that at a young age they "become through baptism full members of the Church"? He does not.
What Aristides actually says points away from Paedobaptism and toward Credobaptism for children. Notice that Aristides does not assume that children of Christians are "Christians" in the proper sense. So how do children under the jurisdiction of Christian adults become Christian? Are they baptized soon after birth, thereby making them "full members of the Church" as would be expected under Paedobaptism? No, Aristides says the Christians persuade them out of love. As a necessary consequence, this means the children are beyond infancy because they are developed enough in body and mind to be reasoned with.
"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous." - Apology, Chapter II
In chapter II, Aristides lists the basics of the Christian faith, and says those who believe these things are called Christians. He includes things like the incarnation, virgin birth, death, and resurrection. This helps us understand what the children are supposed to be persuaded about. Then, once they are persuaded, the children would be called "brethren without distinction" and a Christian in the proper sense. We can infer that some sort of personal profession of faith is included in proving this persuasion. Otherwise, there would be no ground to confidently know if the child has been persuaded or not.
We must also point out that Aristides' statement does not explicitly refer to baptism. However, all sides and traditions would agree that baptism is part of the Christian initiation experience, whether as the effectual means of becoming a Christian, as the crowning event testifying to the initiation as a Christian, or otherwise. So baptism is within the context and setting of initiation. Aristides' description of this setting aligns with Credobaptism because he doesn't just assume that the children of Christians are also Christian because of who their parents are. There is a categorical distinction in his mind. Additionally, even for children, he places the prerequisite for being a Christian and "brethren without distinction" on personal persuasion. If we were to grant Jeremias' comment, which is commonplace among Paedobaptists, that children "become through baptism full members of the Church", then Aristides has Credobaptism in mind because he places this personal persuasion as a preceding requirement to be identified as such. So we see that Aristides' view of how children are initiated into Christianity aligns with Credobaptism. This has led various Paedobaptists to make the following acknowledgments:
“Aristides is therefore another witness to a form of young believers’ baptism.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 11
“In Aristides’ Apology (15.6) we appear to have a piece of evidence that not only indirectly excludes infant baptism, as the previous patristic testimonies, but that expressly postpones the baptism even of the children of Christian parents to a later age. The baptism follows after the children have received instruction in Christian teaching.” - Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, p. 58
So we are not alone in our observation that Aristides demonstrates Credobaptist principles in his Apology.
ARISTIDES ON CHILDREN
There is additional evidence against infant baptism in Aristides' apology. Later in the same chapter, he comments again about children of Christian parents.
"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." - Apology, Chapter XV
Aristides says that deceased young children of Christians "passed through the world without sins." This indicates that he doesn't view infants as guilty of sin. So how is this evidence against infant baptism? One reason why some Paedobaptist traditions baptize infants, and a major reason historically, is the concept that infants are guilty of sin, which needs to be remitted through baptism for the child not to be damned and be able to enter heaven. This is a topic we have written extensively on in other articles, so we won't go in much depth here. Let's look at three sources displaying this from the 5th century.
"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." - Council in 418, Canon II
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33
“What do we understand by the darkness but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he who believes not in Christ will “abide in darkness,”—which, of course, is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the refreshment of living beings. So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 35
“For only the little ones who do not yet have their own actions, whether good ones or bad ones, will be condemned by reason of original sin alone, if the grace of the savior does not come to their aid by the bath of rebirth. But all the rest who, in using free choice, have added their own personal sins on top of original sin, if they are not rescued from the power of darkness by the grace of God and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, will receive judgment, not only according to the merits of their origin, but also according to merits of their own will.” - Second Letter of Augustine to Abbot Valentine, AP4 WSA 1.26.47
Prosper of Aquitaine, 390 AD - 455 AD
“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.” - The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16
What we see in these three examples is that one prominent reason for baptizing infants is to remove the sin they are guilty of, so they aren't damned if they die and can go to heaven. What's the relevance of this to Aristides of Athens?
This reason to baptize infants is premised on the idea that infants are guilty of sin. If a person in early Christianity didn't believe that infants were guilty of sin, it would mean they wouldn't affirm infant baptism for that particular reason. Without clear affirmation of the practice, the rejection of certain concepts often used as justification for the practice makes it less likely that the person affirms the practice but failed to mention it in their writings. Therefore, since Aristides indicated that deceased young children weren't guilty of sin, it becomes less likely that he affirmed the practice of baptizing infants. Interestingly, we saw the same concept in the Epistle of Barnabas, which similarly spoke of young children and explicitly discussed baptism in a manner favorable to Credobaptism.
JEREMIAS' ARGUMENT FOR INFANT BAPTISM IN ARISTIDES
We must also address Joachim Jeremias' interpretation of the text in his book arguing for infant baptism over the first four centuries of Christian history. Interestingly, in that book he does not comment on the text from Aristides we have reviewed, which points decisively toward Credobaptism.
"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." - Apology, Chapter XV
He sees Aristides' comment about young children being born to Christian parents as supporting the practice of infant baptism because he interprets "they give thanks to God" as baptism. How does he arrive at this interpretation?
“And on their side, they offer prayer that these may repent of their error; and when it happens that one of them has repented, he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which were done by him; and he makes confession to God, saying, I did these things in ignorance. And he purifies his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he committed them in ignorance in the former time, when he used to blaspheme and speak evil of the true knowledge of the Christians.” - Apology, Chapter XVII
“In this passage the expression ‘to thank God’ is a reference to baptism.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 71
It starts with how Jeremias interprets a section a few chapters later about Greeks converting to Christianity. Jeremias' argument partially depends on the idea that "to thank God" rather than "make confession to God" is the correct rendering. Nevertheless, we don't see why we should grant that "thank God" or "confession to God" should be seen as baptism. Jeremias is likely looking at the later comment "he purifies his heart" as referring to baptism, and projecting that interpretation back onto "confession to God".
The problem is, Aristides seems to define for us in this chapter what thank/confession to God means. It's immediately described as a "saying" that is repentant behavior of the Greeks acknowledging their sins, which is the entire preceding context about what Christians are desiring from the Greeks. It seems that this is what the thank/confession to God is. It's a communication, prayer, or acknowledgement given to God about something. If this phrase does not mean baptism in chapter XVII, we fail to see how that interpretation could be inserted into what Aristides says in chapter XV.
After this, one could argue that "he purifies his heart" is referring to baptism. However, it's far from explicit and largely depends on one's prior interpretive commitments to what purification and cleansing refer to. Regardless, if "he purifies his heart" refers to baptism, it does not change that in chapter XVII, the thank/confession to God does not clearly refer to baptism. This seems distinct from and preceding the purification of heart, which may or may not be a reference to baptism.
“Since Aristides always uses this expression to describe Christian rites, and since, as we saw, he does not mention baptism directly but only indicates it with the phrase ‘thanks God’, it is also very probable that here too in 15.11 when he uses the words, ‘When a child is born to them they thank God,’ he is referring to baptism.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 71
As a result, when Jeremias comes full circle and argues that this phrase indicates infant baptism, we are forced to push back. We fail to see why we must conclude that "thanks to God" means baptism.
"Every morning and every hour they give thanks and praise to God for His loving-kindnesses toward them; and for their food and their drink they offer thanksgiving to Him." - Apology, Chapter XV
Immediately preceding the text about offering thanks when a Christian dies and when a child is born, Aristides says that Christians give thanks to God every morning, every hour, for food and drink. There are a total of seven "give thanks" events mentioned in this chapter. Overall, they seem to fit the categories we noticed in chapter XVII, where the thanksgiving to God is a communication, prayer, or acknowledgment given to God about something. They could be informal and spontaneous or formal and structured rites where there is a specific prayer or acknowledgment that is given. Regardless, they do not map neatly onto any model of Christian sacraments.
If "thanks to God" after the birth of a child refers to the sacrament of baptism, what sacrament does "give thanks to God the more" after a young child dies refer to? More baptism? A different sacrament? If so, which one, and how are we contextually identifying what it is? What sacrament is performed when an adult Christian dies? It seems arbitrary and out of doctrinal convenience that Jeremias and others insert baptism in place of "thanks to God" in the one place where young children are mentioned. It would be hard to imagine a more cryptic and obscure way of referring to baptism than this.
But there are more issues; this statement about giving thanks to God after the birth of a child is in the same chapter after we see Aristides discuss how Christian initiation works for children. As we covered, the children are persuaded to believe the fundamental Christian doctrines before they are considered Christians and brethren without distinction. After this, Aristides then mentions the times when Christians give thanks to God. It seems highly unlikely that Aristides now means that young children can become, as Jeremias says, "through baptism full members of the Church" without any persuasion at all. This idea runs completely contrary to what he just said beforehand.
The issues with this interpretation of Aristides from Jeremias have led other Paedobaptists to make the following comments:
“Jeremias is convinced that in the second passage, the phrase ‘to thank God’, undoubtedly refers to baptism. He thus concludes that it is ‘very probable’ that the quoted phrase should be interpreted likewise in the former instance. Jeremias’ arguments in both places are unconvincing, if not far-fetched.” - Stander and Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 44
“Moreover the parallelism with theo ther places plainly encourages the interpretation, ‘thank God (in prayer)’. Similiarly 17.4 gives no justification for relating the ’thank God’ to baptism.” - Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, p. 56
“Jeremias believed that ‘thank God’ in these paragraphs was an indirect way of referring to baptism. Aland convincingly undermined this interpretation.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 125
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have examined what Aristides of Athens said in his Apology to determine if he demonstrates the practice of Credobaptism in early Christianity. When Aristides talked about how initiation works for those under the jurisdiction of Christian adults, he does not assume they are also Christian simply because of who the head of household is. The status of the Christian adult does not automatically transfer to those whom the adult represents or is an authority figure over. Instead, there is a categorical distinction. This distinction is resolved once the bondservant or child has been personally persuaded to become Christian. It is at that point that they are "brethren without distinction". This demonstrates that Aristides was not functioning with a Paedobaptist covenant household view where the faith of a parent qualifies their child as a proper recipient of baptism. Rather, Aristides is functioning with the understanding that formal initiation into Christianity is grounded in personal persuasion and conviction, which is exactly the Credobaptist perspective on the recipients of baptism.
As additional evidence, Aristides does not find agreement with infants being guilty of sin, which is a prominent historical and theological reason given for baptizing infants.
As a tertiary piece of supportive evidence, various Paedobaptist theologians have made the same observation that this text provides positive evidence for believer-oriented baptismal practice, while offering no clear positive evidence or provision for infant baptism, and in fact offering evidence to the contrary. Lastly, the arguments that do exist from some Paedobaptists like Jeremias, claiming Aristides as an early witness to the practice, are far from convincing and inconsistent. As a result, we have Credobaptism in Aristides of Athens.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment