Although the contrary opinion has been maintained, I consider the de Baptismo to be an early and preMontanist work. Further than that I should hesitate to go, except that I think it possible that Tertullian wrote an early (Greek) treatise on the Baptism of Heretics, and that our present work is an adaptation of it, worked over and added to, to suit the circumstances in which it was written. What those circum

stances were, we must now inquire.

The necessity of Baptism with water was denied, among other Catholic beliefs, by a Gnostic prophetess whose name is now lost. She enjoyed the temporary appellation of Quintilla, owing to the prevalence of a false reading in ch. 1; but, with the restoration of what is probably the true text, the proper name has disappeared from the passage. She belonged to what Tertullian called the Caina (or Gaiana) haeresis, which he mentions again in the de Praescr. Haeret. 33 as representative in his day of the 'Nicolaitans.' Jerome, if the spelling of Dom Martianay is to be trusted, calls it Caina haeresis. With an unmistakeable reference to a passage of Tertullian's de Baptismo he writes to Oceanus (Ep. lxxxii), 'En consurgit mihi Caïna haeresis; atque olim emortua uipera contritum caput leuat, quae non ex parte, ut ante consueuerat, sed totum Christi subruit sacramentum.' He accuses Vigilantius of reviving it Scribit aduersum haeresim tuam,' he writes 'Tertullianus uir eruditissimus insigne uolumen, quod Scorpiacum uocat rectissimo nomine; quia arcuato uulnere in ecclesiae corpus uenena diffundit, quae olim appellabatur Caïna haeresis' (adu. Vig. p. 285). It will be observed that the language of Jerome, like that of Tertullian himself, would be specially appropriate if the heresy which he has in view was connected with that of

the Serpent-worshippers or Ophites, as was the case with those who were called Cainites. Assuming that this heresy which Tertullian wrote to combat was a branch of or the same as that of the Cainites1, we may represent their particular form of Gnostic teaching to have been that there were two chief Powers, Σopía the higher, and 'Torépa (= uterus) the lower. Eve bore Abel to the "Torépa and to the Zopía Cain, hence their name: they honoured Cain as the Instrument of Wisdom, also Ham, Esau, the Sodomites, Korah, and Judas Iscariot -the latter, either because by betraying our Lord he defeated His intention of destroying the Truth; or because, by compelling the rulers to put Christ to death against their will, he brought about the salvation of mankind. These heretics, holding, no doubt, in common with many Oriental schools, the inherent impurity of matter, denied (as it seems) the necessity of sacraments. Tertullian had, therefore, to support two positions: (1) the dignity and appropriateness of water, in itself; (2) that its use in Baptism is not only defensible, but necessary.

It is well to bear carefully in mind what the occasion of this treatise was, or the reader may be disappointed at not finding something in it which he had expected to be there. Let us see, in the next place, how he maintains his theses.

1 See an article (by Dr Salmon) on 'Cainites,' D.C.B. i p. 380; where references are given for the very puzzling variations of the name. He discusses (and rejects) the theory, maintained e.g. by Dr Harnack, that there was a heresiarch Caius, and identifies the 'Gaiana haeresis' with the Cainites, in which view I have followed him. They seem to have belonged to the group of Gnostics called from their worship of the serpent Ophites, for which see Harnack, Z. Quellenkritik d. Gnosticismus, p. 58; Hilgenfeld, d. Ketzergesch. d. Urchr., pp. 250, 263, 552; Gruter, Ophiten, § 2, p. 159; Kurz, Ch. Hist., p. 111, E.T.3 The identification rests on Clem. Alex. Strom. VII xvii 108. A prayer of theirs is quoted by Iren. c. Haeres. i 31.

2. Analysis of the Treatise.

The treatise may conveniently be divided into three parts, (1) chs. I-9: (2) chs. 10-16: (3) chs. 17-end. The first part is doctrinal and general; the second deals with some particular questions which were under debate in his day; and the third deals with practical matters connected with the administration of the Sacrament.

(1) He begins by asserting the necessity of writing, owing to the dangerous nature of the erroneous doctrine, and the risk that it may spread. Moreover, such teaching as he has to give will be of service, not only to catechumens, but to simple and unreflecting persons who are content with traditional beliefs. (2) The heresy about water rests on the fallacious assumption that God would not effect so marvellous a result by means so simple. This is really the reverse of the truth. Simplicity is characteristic of Divine operations it is the worship of false gods which has to rely for its effect upon external magnificence. (3) The age and dignity of water should be considered. Water existed in a rude form at the beginning, was the chariot of the Holy Spirit, brought forth the first living creatures, was indispensable in the creation of man. (4) The same Holy Spirit who rested upon water at the Creation is present also at the waters of Baptism, and ever since water—all water, in general-has received through Him the power to sanctify. The use of water to cleanse the body is a type of its spiritual use to cleanse the soul from sin. (5) The use of water in heathen rites, though void of efficacy, is analogous, and shows how the Devil tries to give his votaries a colourable imitation of Christian Sacraments. It affords, indeed, an argument a fortiori: ‘If water is believed to be efficacious by the worshippers of idols, how reasonable it is that the worshippers of the true God should credit it with Divine efficacy!' Further, if the angel at the pool of Bethsaida could heal the body of one man once a year, may not the angel of Baptism heal the souls of all nations at any time? Thus man is restored to the 'likeness of God.' (6) Water is

necessary, therefore, to Baptism, cleansing from sin, and preparing us to receive the Holy Spirit. (7) Unction follows next, whereof the O.T. is not without types. It anoints us to the priesthood, being a bodily action, but of spiritual efficacy. (8) Then the Imposition of Hands, whereby, through the blessing, the Holy Spirit is invited to descend, completes the rite. The Holy Spirit readily descends upon the consecrated waters, His ancient restingplace, as He did in the form of a dove at the Baptism of Christ. The mention of a dove suggests the Flood, and the lessons to be learnt from it. The Church is like the ark. Those who sinned after the Flood are reserved unto fire, which should be a warning to those who sin after Baptism. (9) Some further instances are given from both Testaments of the use of water in God's dealings with man, showing that, from the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites to the water which flowed from Christ's side upon the Cross, water has been ordained to religious use in the Divine economy.

Having thus, as he says, 'spoken in general of the things which lay the foundation of Baptism,' Tertullian proceeds to discuss various particular questions connected with it, about which speculation was rife in his time:—what was conferred by the Baptism of John whether our Lord Himself baptized: whether the Apostles were baptized: whether faith is not enough, without Baptism whether heretical Baptism is valid; and what is implied in 'The Baptism of Blood.' (10, 11) John's Baptism, he teaches, was preparatory: it could not give remission of sins or confer the Holy Spirit; and, though we read that our Lord Himself did not baptize, He did so by His agents. (12) The Apostles had probably only received the Baptism of John: their nearness to our Lord made Baptism by Him superfluous. (13, 14) Arguments from the case of Abraham and from the language of St Paul are not insuperable: the former was under the Old Covenant, and the latter did baptize, if rarely. (15) Heretical Baptism is invalid, or 'One' Baptism has no meaning. (16) 'The Baptism of Blood' (i.e. martyrdom) was prefigured by the water and blood which flowed from our Lord's side: it gives Baptism to those who have never had it, and restores it to those who have lost it.

III. chs. 17-end. Practical.

The concluding chapters deal (17, 18) with the proper minister of the Sacrament, and the age at which it is best to receive it; (19) the canonical seasons for administering it; and (20) the proper preparation of the candidates.

§3. Holy Baptism as it appears in Tertullian.

We should have had abundant cause to be grateful to this writer if the treatise just analysed had been his sole contribution to our knowledge of Baptismal doctrine and practice at the close of the second century. But there are scattered references to the Sacrament in various parts of his writings, and three longer passages which, for the convenience of the reader, are here given in full. The first occurs in the de Corona, a work written probably in 201, a little later than the de Baptismo. In ch. 3 we read as follows: In Baptism, when we are about to come to the water, in the same place, but at a somewhat earlier time, we do in the Church testify, under the hand of a chief minister, that we renounce the Devil and his pomp and his angels. Then we are thrice dipped, answering somewhat more fully than the Lord hath prescribed in the Gospel1; then, some undertaking the charge of us, we first taste a mixture of honey and milk, and from that day we abstain for a whole week from our daily washing3.'

1 By which perhaps he means that the answers to the interrogations on our faith go a little beyond the baptismal formula.

2 Or, being taken up out of the water.

3 Denique, ut a baptismate ingrediar, aquam adituri ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius, in ecclesia sub antistitis manu, contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo et pompae et angelis eius. Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid [amplius non aliquid, al.] respondentes quam dominus in euangelio determinauit. Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus, exque ea die lauacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadem abstinemus.