initiation; being, if I may use the expression, an imitation by anticipation of Christian Baptism. That this is a correct exposition of our author's meaning, will be evident from a comparison of the different passages in which he alludes to the subject. The reader will find some of them quoted at length in 99 Chapter III.; and reference made to a passage in the Tract 100 de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, which is as follows-Tingit et ipse (Diabolus) quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos: expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit: et si adhuc memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos; celebrat et panis oblationem, et imaginem resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coronam. Here we find that not merely Baptism, but also the custom of marking the forehead with the sign of the cross, and the consecration of the bread in the Eucharist, were imitated in the mysteries of Mithra. Are we, therefore, to conclude that the latter were also Jewish customs? Wall's conclusion is founded entirely on the assumption that the imitation of divine rites, which Tertullian ascribed to 99 Note 90. 100 c. 40. See also the instances mentioned in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 23, one of which is referred to in Chap. V. p. 385. the devil, was necessarily an imitation of rites actually instituted; whereas he held that its very purpose was to anticipate their institution. This is not the proper place for enquiring whether Baptism was practised by the Jews before our Saviour's advent as an initiatory rite, or only as a mode of purification. Be this as it may, Tertullian's express declaration, that besides the Baptisms of Christ and John there was no other Baptism, renders him but an indifferent voucher for its use among the Jews, as an initiatory rite. To proceed with the Tract de Baptismo. The 101 next question discussed by our author is, whether the Apostles were baptised: and if not, whether they could be saved; since our Saviour declared to Nicodemus that, "unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"a passage which the ancients uniformly interpreted of Baptism. Tertullian admits that St. Paul is the only Apostle of whom it is expressly recorded, that he was baptised in the Lord that is, with Christian Baptism. He shews it, however, to be highly probable that the Apostles had received John's Baptism; which, as the Baptism of Christ was not then C. 12. See Chap. I. note 174. 101 instituted, would be sufficient: our Lord himself having said to Peter, 102" He that is once washed, needs not to be washed again."-" But if," Tertullian continues, "we should admit that the Apostles were never baptised, theirs was an extraordinary case, and formed an exception to the general rule respecting the necessity of Baptism." It is amusing to observe how greatly the ancients were perplexed with this difficulty; and to what expedients they had recourse in order to get rid of it. They argued, for instance, that Peter was baptised, when he attempted to walk upon the sea; and the other Apostles, when the waves broke over the vessel in the storm on the lake of Gennesareth. They 103 who denied the necessity of Baptism, alleged the example of Abraham, who pleased God by faith alone without Baptism. 66 True," replies Tertullian; "but, as since the promulgation of the Gospel additional objects of faith, the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, have been proposed to mankind, so also a new condition of salvation has been introduced, and faith will not now avail without Baptism." He confirms his argument by a 102 John xiii. 10. The verse is quoted inaccurately. reference to our Saviour's injunction to the Apostles, "Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;" and to his favourite passage, the declaration to Nicodemus. Another 104 argument against the necessity of Baptism was founded on the statement of St. Paul in 105 the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that "he was sent to preach, not to baptise." Our author justly remarks, that these words must be understood with reference to the disputes then prevailing at Corinth; not as meant positively to declare that it was no part of an Apostle's office to baptise. St. Paul had himself baptised Gaius, and Crispus, and the houshold of Stephanas. With respect to the propriety of rebaptising, Tertullian 106 says explicitly that Baptism ought not to be repeated; but he considered 104 c. 14. 105 c. 1. v. 17. 106 c. 15. Hæretici autem nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis agnoscere quod mihi est præceptum, quia nec idem Deus est nobis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem. See also de Pudicitiâ, c. 19. Unde et apud nos, ut Ethnico par, immo et super Ethnicum, Hæreticus etiam per baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur. But when the Tract de Pudicitiâ was written, Tertullian had seceded openly from the Church, Heretical Baptism as utterly null. "As Here tics," he argues, "have neither the same God nor the same Christ with us, so neither have they the same Baptism. Since, therefore, they never were baptised, they must be cleansed by Baptism, before they are admitted into the Church." We should, 107 as has been already observed, bear in mind that the Heretics, with whom Tertullian had principally to contend, were those who affirmed that the Creator of the world was not the Supreme God. 108 We have already seen that Tertullian calls martyrdom a second baptism. He says that martyrdom will both 109 supply the want of Baptism by water, and restore it to those who have lost it by transgression. 110 In our remarks upon the twenty-third Article of the Church, we alluded to a passage in the Tract de Baptismo, in which Tertullian ascribes to the laity an inherent right to administer Baptism. We should now deem it sufficient to refer the reader to what we have 107 See Chap. V. notes 237, 238. 109 Hic est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum repræsentat, et perditum reddit. Compare de Pudicitiâ, c. 13. Quæ exinde jam perierat baptismate amisso. 110 c. 17. Chap. V. p. 349. |