90 from others scattered through Tertullian's works, it is evident that in his day Baptism was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that 91 the candidate professed his belief in the Three Persons of the Trinity, who were at once the witnesses of his profession and the sponsors for his salvation. We will take this opportunity of observing that, whatever might be the case with the Montanists in after times, the writings of Tertullian afford no ground for supposing that the founder of the sect introduced a new form of Baptism. After enforcing the necessity of Baptism by water, and describing and explaining the forms observed in the administration of the rite, Tertullian proceeds, in the remaining chapters of the Tract de Baptismo, to discuss some other points connected with the subject. He 92 first considers the question proposed by Christ to the Pharisees-"The Baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men?" To this Tertullian replies, that it was of divine commandment, because John was sent by God to baptise. So far it was from heaven. But it conveyed no heavenly gift: it conferred neither the remission of sins nor the Holy Spirit. 95 John's was the Baptism of repentance; designed to fit men for the reception of that Baptism, by which, through the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ, they obtain the remission of sins and the sanctifying in 94 fluences of the Spirit. Until the descent of 95 Ter the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the disciples of Christ baptised only with the Baptism of John; that is, unto repentance. tullian's interpretation of the words-" He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire"-is, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost applies to those whose faith is sincere and stedfast:-the Baptism with fire to those whose faith is feigned and unstable; and who are therefore baptised, not to salvation, but to judgement. Our 96 author supposes the Baptist's message to Christ to have originated in the failure of his faith, occasioned by the 93 On the object of John's mission, see adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 33. L. v. c. 2. 95 c. 10. sub fine. Some in Tertullian's day appear to have contended that there was a contradiction between the Baptist's prediction that Christ would baptise, and St. John's declaration (iv. 2.) that he did not baptise, c. 11. 96 c. 10. Matth. xi. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 18. Compare de Oratione, c. 1. Adv. transfer of the Spirit from him to Christ:a notion founded on John's declaration-" He must increase, and I must decrease." In "the passage just alluded to, Tertullian does not merely assert that the disciples of Christ baptised with the Baptism of John, but assigns his reasons for making the assertion. His words are Itaque tingebant Discipuli ejus (Christi) ut ministri, ut Ioannes ante præcursor, eodem baptismo Ioannis, ne qui alio putet, quia nec extat alius nisi postea Christi, qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat, utpote nondum adimpletâ gloriâ Domini, nec instructâ efficaciâ lavacri per passionem et resurrectionem. From these words we may fairly infer, that Tertullian knew no Baptisms connected with the divine dispensations, besides those of John and Christ. Yet Wall, in the Introduction to his History of Infant Baptism, has quoted a passage from this very Tract, to prove that our author was acquainted with the Jewish Baptism of proselytes. The passage is in the fifth chapter-Sed enim nationes, extraneæ ab omni intellectu Spiritalium, Potestatem eâdem efficaciâ suis idolis subministrant, sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis ali cujus, aut Mithræ-certè ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tinguntur. Idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem perjuriorum suorum agere præsumunt-quo agnito, hic quoque studium Diaboli cognoscimus res Dei æmulantis, quum et ipse baptismum in suis exercet. On this passage, Wall makes the following remark. "Now the divine baptism, which he says the devil imitated, must be the Jewish baptism. For the rites of Apollo and Ceres, in which he there instances as those in which the said baptism was used, were long before the times of the Christian baptism." This, however, is by no means a necessary inference. 98 In describing the notions entertained by Tertullian respecting the nature of dæmons, we mentioned that their chief employment and pleasure was to prevent mankind from embracing the worship of the true God; and that they were assisted in the attainment of this object by the partial knowledge which they had acquired, during their abode in heaven, of the nature of the divine dispensations. Availing themselves of this knowledge, they endeavoured to pre-occupy the minds of men by inventing rites, bearing some resemblance to those which were to be observed under the gospel. Thus, by their suggestion, Baptism was introduced 98 Chap. III. p. 218. into the Eleusinian mysteries, as a mode of initiation; being, if I may use the expression, an imitation by anticipation of Christian Baptism. 99 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 " 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? I am aware that there are 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. |