On Baptism
De baptismo, extremely important for the history of the
liturgy of initiation and the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, is not
merely the earliest work on the subject, it is the only Ante-Nicene treatise on
any of the sacraments. It may be classed with the anti-heretical writings, occasioned
as it was, by the attacks at Carthage of a certain Quintilla, a member of the
sect of Caius, who made rationalistic objections and ‘carried away a great
number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy
baptism’ (ch. 1). Tertullian answers her in this small tract of twenty chapters,
in which he speaks like a teacher to his catechumens: ‘A treatise on this
matter will not be superfluous; instructing both such as are just becoming
formed in the faith, and those who, content with simple belief, do not
investigate the grounds of tradition and carry an untried credible faith
through inexperience’ (ch. 1).
How could washing the body with water
effect the cleaning of the soul and salvation from eternal death, was evidently
one of the objections. Thus the first chapter begins with the exclamation: ‘Happy
sacrament of our water, in which the sins of our former blindness are washed away
and we are set free for everlasting life!’ and ends: ‘We little fish, like our
Fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ), Jesus Christ, are born in water, and it is
only by abiding in water that we are safe.’ The fact that God uses such an everyday
means should not be a stumbling-block to the carnal mind, because He chooses
the lowly and unpretentious things for his purposes (ch. 2). Water, since the beginning
of the world a preferred and life-giving element (ch. 3), was sanctified by the
creator and chosen as a vehicle of His power (ch. 4). Here we learn incidentally
that the consecration of the baptismal font was then practiced in the Church of
Africa:
All waters, therefore, in virtue of
the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the
sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from
the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and
being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying (4
ANF).
Ever since the primeval hovering of
the Spirit of God over the deep, water has been regarded as a symbol of
purification and the dwelling-place of supernatural efficacy. Pagan rites being
but diabolic imitations of the sacrament, and even popular beliefs give
testimony to this (ch. 5). Not the mere physical cleansing bestows grace but the
sacred action united with the use of the trinitarian formula (ch. 6). Directly
after baptism follows the anointing (ch. 7), then confirmation in which the
imposition of hands confers the Holy Spirit (ch. 8).
The passing through the Red Sea and
the water from the rock (ch. 9) as well as the baptism of St. John (ch. 10)
prefigured the Christian initiation. The author answers the objection that,
because Christ did not personally administer the rite, it is, therefore, not
necessary for salvation (ch. 11). He then deals with the problem: Since no one
can attain eternal life without it, how is it that the apostles were saved, for
we find none of them receiving it, except Paul? (ch. 12). It was not a requisite before the resurrection
of the Lord (ch. 13). St. Paul’s assertion that he had not been sent to baptize
(1 Cor. 1, 17) must be understood correctly (ch. 14). There is but one
regeneration, that of the Church (ch. 15). The author denies here the validity of
the heretics’ ceremony without going into details because this point had
already received a fuller discussion from him in Greek, as he remarks (15).
There is one exception from the necessity of being baptized with water, and
that is martyrdom, which he calls the ‘second baptism,’ the ‘baptism of blood’
(ch. 16). Thus he speaks of two baptisms, sent out by Christ ‘from the wound of
His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed,
with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might also carry the
stain of blood’ (ibid.). The usual minister of baptism is the bishop;
presbyters and deacons also have the right, but not without the ordinary’s
authority (ch. 17). Even laymen possess the power, ‘for what is equally
received can be equally given . . . Baptism which is equally a divine
institution, can be administered by all . . . Let it suffice certainly to take
advantage of the privilege in cases of necessity, if at any time circumstances
either of place or of time or of person compel it. From then the boldness of
the helper is welcomed, when the situation of the endangered person is urgent,
since he will be guilty of the loss of a human creature, if he refrains from
bestowing what he had free liberty to confer’ (ibid.). The sacrament is
not rashly to be administered. The faith of the recipient must be examined
carefully. For this reason the author does not favor the baptism of infants:
And so, according to the circumstances
and disposition, and even the age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is
preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it
necessary, if it is not so urgent, that the sponsors likewise should be thrust
into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil
their promises, and may be disappointed by the developed of an evil disposition?
The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’
then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning whither
to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.
Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the ‘remission of sins?’ (ch. 18
ANF).
Easter and Pentecost are the
liturgical dates for the ceremony, but every time is apt. There might be a
difference of solemnity, but there is no distinction in grace (ch. 19). The
last chapter deals with the preparation for the reception of the sacrament (ch.
20).
The tract is free of every trace of
Montanism and shows high regard for ecclesiastical authority: ‘Hostility to the
bishop’s position begets schisms’ (ch. 17). It must have been written in Tertullian’s
early period, perhaps between 198 and 200 A.D. (Johannes Quasten, Patrology,
4 vols. [Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, Inc., 1992], 2:278-80)
