About baptism

Tertullian's treatise “On Baptism” (20 chapters, 200-206) is addressed to the catechumens. The essay was written in connection with the fact that heretical opinions regarding Baptism began to spread in the African Church, denying its necessity. A certain Quintilla, belonging to the sect of Gaius, disputed the necessity and beneficial effects of baptism, especially on the ground that washing with water seems to be a completely insignificant act. Tertullian objects that God's acts are simple in their mode of execution and powerful in their effects (chap. 2), and water has a symbolic meaning of purification (chap. 3-5). Next, it talks about the essence, necessity and method of performing baptism and the anointing associated with it (chap. 6-8), about baptism by blood as a replacement for water baptism (water and blood baptism came from the wound of the pierced side of Christ); about the baptism of children, about the festive times of baptism and about preparation for it (chap. 15–20). *The title of the work in Latin is De baptismo. Contents Chapter 1. About the water of baptism Chapter 2. About the same thing Chapter 3. About the same thing Chapter 4. About the effect of baptism Chapter 5. About the same thing Chapter 6. About the same thing Chapter 7. About the anointing after baptism Chapter 8. About the laying on of hands after baptism Chapter 9. About the similarities of the water of baptism Chapter 10. About the baptism of John Chapter 11. The Baptism of Christ Chapter 12. Were there any Apostles baptized? Chapter 13. About when the commandment of baptism took effect. Chapter 14. About whether Paul baptized? Chapter 15. About the unity of baptism Chapter 16. About baptism by blood Chapter 17. About persons performing baptism Chapter 18. About the age at which baptism should be accepted Chapter 19. About the day of baptism Chapter 20. About prayer before baptism Chapter 1. About the water of baptism. The blessed sacrament of our water, with which, having washed ourselves from the sins of former blindness, we receive freedom into eternal life! This discussion will not be superfluous; it is instructive both for those who are fully educated and for those who, content with simple faith, without examining the foundations of devoted teaching, possess, through their ignorance, an inexperienced, probable faith. Hence this recently appeared viper, from the heresy of Caius, (de Cajana) engulfed many with its most poisonous teaching, destroying first of all baptism. This is completely in accordance with (its) nature, for vipers, asps and basilisks usually look for dry and waterless places. But we, like fish, - according to our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we are born, - remain alive in no other way than by being in water. From here the most monstrous Quintilla, who is not characterized by sound teaching, understood well how to kill fish - to take them out of the water. But how great is the power of perversion in relation to faith - which must be shaken, or completely rejected, in order to strike faith on the very foundations on which it is affirmed. There is nothing that would so strongly influence the thoughts of people as the simplicity of divine works, revealed in the act (of their accomplishment), and (at the same time) the greatness promised in (their) result. So it is here: since a person immersed in water with such simplicity, without any pomp, without any unusual preparation, without expense, and washed with a few words, comes out a little cleaner, or even not cleaner at all; then it is considered impossible to inherit eternity. Let me be a liar if, on the contrary, festivals or idolatry mysteries do not create faith and respect for themselves precisely through offerings, the use of some special preparations, and expenses. Oh, pathetic unbelief, which denies God what is characteristic of Him: simplicity and power. So what? Isn't it amazing that death is destroyed by washing? Yes, even more so should one believe if that is precisely why they do not believe it, because it is surprising. For what else should the works of God be, if not surpassing all astonishment? We also surprise ourselves, but because we believe. On the contrary, unbelief is surprised and does not believe. He is surprised at the simplicity, as if it were some kind of emptiness; marvels at the majestic as if it were something impossible. Let it really be as you think, but the divine utterance has sufficiently forestalled both. “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound its wisdom” (1 Cor 1.27), and: “what is very difficult with men is easy with God” (Matthew 19.26). For if God is both wise and omnipotent, which those who forget Him do not deny, then He justly (merito) chose as the subject of His activity that which is the opposite of wisdom and strength, that is, unwisdom and weakness. For every force has its cause (causam) in what causes it. Remembering this saying, as if about some kind of prescription (praecriptionis), we nevertheless think how unreasonable and impossible it is for us to be renewed by water. Why was this materiality worthy of performing such a high purpose? It is necessary, I think, to explore the great significance of the fluid element. And without a doubt, a lot comes to mind, starting from the earliest times (a primordio). For this element belongs to what, before any structure of the world, in a still primitive form, rested with God. “In the beginning,” he says, “God... created... the heavens and the earth. But the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1.1-2). So, man, you must first of all respect the antiquity of the waters, as an early substance; then (respect) their high purpose, as the seat of the Spirit of God, - therefore, more suitable than the other then existing element. For the darkness was still uneducated, without the decoration of the stars, and there was a sad abyss, and the earth was unprepared, and the sky was imperfect; The liquid element alone - matter is always perfect, cheerful, simple (simplex), pure in itself - represented for God a kind of vessel (vecticulum). And the subsequent dispensation of the world was determined for God in some way by the likeness of waters. For He made the establishment in the midst of the vault of heaven through the division of the waters; and He accomplished the establishment of the dry earth through the separation of the waters (Gen. 1.6). Then, when, after the arrangement of the world according to its elements, inhabitants could be given (to it), the waters were first commanded to produce living beings. The fluid element first of all produces what lives, so that it would not seem surprising if in baptism the waters can give life. And the work of creating man himself was finally completed with the assistance of the waters. The material is taken from the earth, but it was suitable only in a state of moisture and phlegm, namely, the waters separated into their place before the fourth day, with the moisture remaining at the top, gave it the form of silt (limus) (cf. Gen. 2.7). If, then, I were to consistently point out everything or much that I remember about the great significance of this element - what is its power or beneficial effect, how many inventions does it serve, how many needs (officiis), how much benefit does it bring to the world - then I am afraid that you would not praise water more than you understood the power of baptism. Although through this I would more fully teach that there is no room for doubt when He imparted the generative power to that matter that God uses in all things and deeds; what guides earthly life is also beneficial in the heavenly realm. Chapter 4. About the effect of baptism. But it will be enough to extract that in which the basis (ratio) of baptism is recognized - first of all, what was already indicated through external action to the image of baptism, namely, that the Spirit of God, hovering over the waters at the beginning, was already forming them for those being baptized. The holy, of course, was carried over the sanctified, or from the One carried above received sanctification that which (It) wore. For it is necessary that each subordinate matter assimilates the qualities of that which acts from the outside, especially so that the corporeal (perceives the properties) of the spiritual, which, due to the subtlety of its essence, easily penetrates and takes possession of (the corporeal). Thus, the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One, itself received the power of sanctification. Let no one say: are we baptized in the very waters that were then in the beginning? Of course, not in the same ones, since there is only one genus, but there are multiple species. But what belongs (attributum est) to the genus is also to be found in the species. Hence there is no difference whether someone washes in the sea, or in a pond, in a river, or in a spring, in a lake, or in a pool, and there is no difference between those baptized by John in the Jordan and those baptized by Peter in the Tiber. And did that eunuch, whom Philip baptized on the way in the first water that happened, receive more or less saving power? Thus, all waters, due to the original advantage of (their) origin, are followed, when God is invoked, by the sacrament of consecration. For the Spirit immediately descends from heaven and is present with the waters, sanctifying them with Himself, and thus the sanctified waters impart the power of sanctification. There is a similarity here with the simple act (of ablution); only instead of dirt we are defiled by sins and washed by waters. But sins are not noticed in the flesh, for no one bears on his skin the defilement of idolatry, or fornication, or deceit; thus they become defiled in the spirit, which is the author of sin. For the spirit rules, and the body serves. However, both of them present a kind of accusation to each other: the spirit - due to power, the body - due to service. Therefore, when the waters received healing power through the mediation of an angel, the spirit is washed bodily in the waters, and the flesh is cleansed in them spiritually. And the pagans, being deprived of all understanding of spiritual powers, attribute the same actions to their idols. But they are deceived by the “empty” waters. For they are also initiated into some mysteries through washing, for example. in the mysteries of Isis or Mithras; even their gods are worn out for ablutions. In addition, they cleanse their huts, houses, churches and entire cities by sprinkling with blood, and, at least on the feasts of Apollo and Eleusinia, they wash themselves and imagine that they are doing this for the revival and impunity of their perjuries. Among the ancients, those defiled by murder were freed from sin through cleansing water. So, if, in the hope of purification, they are nevertheless attracted by the nature of water, for its very matter is intended for washing; then how much more true is it that the waters produce the indicated effect according to the will of God, by Whom their entire nature is determined. If they think that water, during religious rites, has a purifying power, then what religion is higher than the religion of the living God? With this in mind, here too we recognize the desire of the devil to imitate the works of God, when he himself introduces baptism among his own. But is there anything similar? The unclean is cleansed, the lost is set free, the condemned are released! Consequently, he would destroy his own work if he washed away the sins that he himself instills. The ego also serves as a witness against those who reject the faith - if they do not believe the works of God at all, but believe what amounts to imitation on the part of the enemy of God. But in other cases, aren’t evil spirits present near the waters, not communicating a mysterious effect, but imitating the carrying of the Spirit of God at the beginning (over the waters)? All dark springs know about this, and all hidden streams, ponds in baths, ditches near houses or cisterns and treasures, which, as they say, are drawn into themselves, obviously due to the action of a harmful spirit. They name some exhausted, insane and suffering from hydrophobia, whom the water led to death, or plunged into madness and frenzy. Why are we talking about this? Lest anyone consider it cruel that God’s holy angel comes to save man by dissolving water, while the evil angel often makes unclean use of the same element for the purpose of man’s destruction. If it seems unheard of for an angel to descend into the waters, then an example (of significance) is presented for the future. The angel, descending, troubled the source of Bethesda (John 5.4); this was observed by those who complained about (their) health. For if someone was planning to go there, then after washing he would stop complaining. This image of bodily healing also testifies to spiritual healing, according to the rule according to which the physical always precedes, as an image, the spiritual. Thus, with the increase in the goodness of God in people, both the waters and the angels are more effective. What previously healed diseases of the body now heals the soul; what formerly brought temporary salvation now brings eternal salvation; What previously gave liberation to one person only once a year, now saves people every day, when death is abolished through the washing away of sins. Once the guilt is removed, the punishment is removed. Thus, man is restored to God, “in the likeness” (ad similitudinem) of that man who was created “in the image” (ad immginem) of God (Gen. 1.26–27); the image is in the reflection, and the likeness must be sought in eternity. For (man) again receives that Spirit of God, which he then received from His breath, but then lost through sin. It is not in water that we receive the Holy Spirit, but purified in water, in the presence of an angel, we are prepared to receive the Holy Spirit. Here too there was a prototype (figura). As John was the forerunner of the Lord, preparing His ways; so the angel of baptism, the witness, smoothes the paths for those who have the Holy Spirit to descend - smooths the paths through the washing of sins, which is given by faith sealed in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). For if with three witnesses “every word will stand” (2 Cor 13.1), then how much more sufficient is the number of divine names to confirm our faith, for, with the blessed calling, we have both witnesses of faith and guarantors of salvation. And if the testimony of faith and the promise of hope is affirmed with “three,” then it is necessary to add a mention of the Church, for where there are three, that is, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is the body of the three. Chapter 7. About anointing after baptism. Then, emerging from the baptismal font, we are anointed with the blessed unction, following the original teaching, according to which we were usually anointed into the priesthood with oil from the horn. From the time that Aaron was anointed by Moses - why is he called “anointed” (Χριστὸς), from χρῖσμα, which means “anointing” - the latter, who gave the name to the Lord, became spiritual, for He was anointed by God the Father with the Spirit, as it says in the Acts: “For truly they were gathered in this city against the Holy Son Yours, whom You anointed" (Acts 4:27). So in us, the anointing concerns (currit) the body, but brings spiritual benefits. Likewise, the act of baptism is sensual, for we are immersed in water, but its effect is spiritual, for we are freed from sins. Chapter 8. About the laying on of hands after baptism. Then follows the laying on of hands, calling and bringing down through the blessing of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, if human ingenuity is allowed to enclose the spirit (breath) in water and their connection, with the corresponding movement of the hands (fingers), through the medium of another spirit, is clearly shown by sounds of such clarity; then is it really not permissible for God to express spiritual height (sublimitatem) in his organ, through the laying on of holy hands? But this also has a basis in the Old Testament, where Jacob blessed his grandchildren from Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh, laying his hands on their heads in a cross shape (Gen. 28.14); so folded, cross to cross, they, prefiguring Christ, already then foreshadowed the future blessing in Christ. And the Holy Spirit then mercifully descends on the pure and blessed body and rests on the waters of baptism, as if again recognizing (His) original seat. He descended on the Lord in the form of a dove, so that the essence of the Holy Spirit would be revealed through the medium of an animal distinguished by purity and innocence, for even on the bodily side the dove has no bile. Therefore, not without the influence of the previous image, he says: “Be... simple as doves” (Matthew 10.16). And after the waters of the flood, by which ancient crime was cleansed - after (let me put it this way) the baptism of the world, the messenger dove let the earth know about the end of heavenly wrath, for, released from the ark, he returned with an olive branch (Gen. 8.11), which is also revered by the pagans as a symbol of peace. With the same intention, but in a spiritual way, the dove of the Holy Spirit descends to the earth, that is, to our flesh, which emerged from the font after (the cleansing of) old sins, bringing the peace of God, being sent from heaven, where the Church is located, transformed by the ark. But the world sins again, why for it baptism should be like an evil flood. Therefore, the world is doomed to fire, just like a person who resumes sins after baptism, which we should also accept in the sense of a warning. Chapter 9. About the similarities of the water of baptism. Thus, how many natural favorable indications, how many beneficial advantages, how many great religious actions, how many similarities, how many preparations and prayerful appeals - led to the establishment of the religious use of water! And first of all, when the people, brought out of Egypt to freedom, escaped the power of the Egyptian king by crossing the water, which then drowned the king himself with all his troops. Which likeness (figura) appears more clearly in the sacrament of baptism? Namely, the pagans are liberated from this age through water and leave their original ruler, the devil, drowned in water. Likewise, with the rod of Moses, water is healed from the bad state of bitterness for pleasant consumption. And this rod was Christ, who transformed with Himself the unhealthy veins of a previously poisoned and bitter nature into the most beneficial waters of baptism. This is the water that flowed out to the people from the “subsequent stone” (de comite petra). For if the stone is Christ (1 Cor 10.4), then without a doubt we see how through water in Christ baptism becomes blessed. What grace does water have with God and His Christ for the confirmation of baptism! Christ never works without water, just as He Himself was baptized with water. The firstfruits of His power, called for marriage, He sanctified with water. While talking, He calls those who are thirsty to His eternal water. Teaching love, He, among acts of mercy, praises the cup of water given to his brother. He rests at the well (John 4.6); walks and crosses freely on water (John 6.19ff.); serves water to students; even until His suffering He continues to testify to His baptism; when he was handed over to crucifixion, then (again) water is encountered, as the hands of Pilate know (Matthew 26.24); when it was pierced, water flowed out of the rib, as the warrior’s spear knows about (John 19.34). Chapter 10. About the baptism of John. We have said, as far as our weak strength allowed, everything that affirms the religious character (religionem) of baptism. Now, after some side questions, I will move on, as far as I am able, to other matters relating to his essence. The baptism preached by John even then aroused the question proposed to the Pharisees by the Lord Himself: was it a heavenly baptism, or only an earthly one (Matthew 21.25). They were unable to answer this definitely, precisely because of misunderstanding stemming from unbelief. We, although (our) faith is as small as (our) knowledge, can express a judgment that this baptism was divine, however, not by action, but by institution, for we read that John was sent by God to this ministry, but under conditions (similar) to other people. For he did not communicate anything heavenly, but was the Forerunner of heavenly things, appointed to preach repentance, which is in the power of man. Thus, the scribes and Pharisees who did not want to believe did not bring repentance. And if repentance was a human act, then it is necessary that his baptism, i.e. John was subject to the same condition; or if it were heavenly, it would also give the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. But it did not forgive sins, nor did it bring down the Spirit, but God alone does this. Even the Lord Himself denied the possibility of the descent of the Spirit before He Himself ascended to the Father. And what else the Lord did not tell, the servant, of course, could not deliver. Hence, later in the Acts of the Apostles we find an indication that those who had the baptism of John did not receive the Holy Spirit, they did not even hear about Him (Acts 19.23); Consequently, that which did not deliver heavenly was not heavenly - when even that very thing that was heavenly in John, namely the prophetic spirit, weakened so much after the descent of all the fullness of the Spirit on the Lord that about Whom He preached, Whom He named as having come, He subsequently sent Him to ask if He was it (Matthew 11.3). Thus, it was a baptism of repentance, as if still seeking forgiveness and sanctification that would come in Christ. For since he preached baptism for the remission of sins, this indicated future remission. In fact, repentance precedes, and remission of sins follows, and this meant: “preparing the way” (Matthew 3.3). And whoever prepares the way is not the doer himself, but only cares about doing it for others. He himself confesses that what belongs to him is not heavenly, but (belongs to) Christ, saying: “he who is from the earth... speaks from the earth; He who came from above is above all” (John 3.31). In the same way: “Whoever baptizes for repentance, He who baptizes with the Spirit and fire is coming soon” (Luke 3.16). This is because true and strong faith is baptized with water for salvation, and illusory and unstable faith is baptized with fire for condemnation. Chapter 11. Baptism of Christ. But then, they say, the Lord comes and does not perform baptism. For we read: “yet He did not baptize, but only His disciples” (John 4.2). As if, in fact, John predicted that He (i.e., Christ) would Himself baptize with His own hands. This, of course, cannot be understood, but it is said simply, according to the usual usage of words, as they say for the beauty of the word (verbi gratia): “The emperor declared an edict,” or: “the prefect punished with sticks.” Did he announce it himself or did he beat him up himself? Often they say about the one who is served what he himself does. The words: “He... will... baptize you” (Matthew 3:11) must be understood as if it were: “through Him or into Him you will be baptized.” But let not the fact that He Himself baptize tempt some, for into Whom would He baptize? For repentance? But what then does He need a Forerunner for? For the remission of sins, which He gave in His word? Into Himself, Whom He hid in humiliation? The Holy Spirit, Who has not yet descended from the Father? However, let no one think about any other baptism, for there is no other baptism except the subsequent baptism of Christ, which, obviously, could not be given by the disciples then, since the words of the Lord had not yet been fulfilled, and the action of the font was not animated by suffering and resurrection. For neither our death could be destroyed except by the suffering of the Lord, nor could our life be restored without His resurrection (Rom 6.4–5). Chapter 12. Were the Apostles Baptized? But since it is written that salvation cannot be given to anyone without baptism, especially according to the word of the Lord, who says: “Unless someone is born of water, he does not have life” (John 3.5); then petty, even unreasonable speculations of some arise as to how, in view of the indicated commandment, salvation will be given to the Apostles, whom, except for Paul, we do not find baptized into the Lord. Otherwise: since only one of them, Paul, was clothed with baptism into Christ (Acts 9.18), then either it must be admitted that the others (Apostles), deprived of the baptism of Christ, are in danger, if only the commandment is valid; or it is necessary to destroy the commandment itself, when salvation is promised to the unbaptized. God is my witness that I have actually heard such speculation, lest anyone consider me so depraved that I, out of passion for the decoration of style (libidine stylo), invent something that arouses doubt in others. And now, as far as I can, I will answer those who deny that the Apostles were baptized. If they (i.e., the Apostles) accepted the human baptism of John, then they also desired the Lord’s baptism, which is why the Lord Himself called for a single baptism, saying to Peter, who did not want to be washed away: “Whoever has been washed away once has no need of it again” (John 13.6), which, of course, He would not say to someone who is not baptized. And this is a clear argument against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the Apostles of even John’s baptism. Is it likely that in those persons the “path of the Lord” was not yet prepared, that is, the baptism of John, which was intended to open the path of the Lord throughout the world? If the Lord Himself, who did not need repentance at all, accepted baptism, then was it not necessary for sinners? True, others were not baptized, but these were not companions of Christ, but opponents of the faith, scribes and Pharisees. From this it is clear that if those who opposed the Lord did not want to be baptized, then those who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not of the same mind with His enemies, especially when the Lord, to whom they joined, so exalted John the Baptist in his testimony (Matthew 11.11). Not without obvious artificiality, others pretend that the Apostles then received a semblance of baptism when they were thrown into the ship and flooded by the waves (Matthew 8.24), and that Peter himself, walking through the sea, was sufficiently immersed in water (Matthew 14.29–30). But I believe that it is one thing to be carried and tossed by the ferocity of the sea, and another thing is to be baptized in accordance with the teachings of faith (disciplina religionis). True, this ship is the image of the Church, since it is restless in the midst of the sea, that is, this age, among the waves, that is, persecution and temptation, when in His long-suffering the Lord seems to rest, until, finally, as if awakened by the prayers of the saints, He conquers this age and again gives peace to His own. But were the Apostles baptized in any way, or continued to remain unbaptized, so that this (i.e., the previously indicated) word of the Lord (John 13.10) about a single baptism is directed, under the image of Peter, only to us, however, it is insanely included in the assessment (aestimare) of the salvation of the Apostles, for the advantage of their first election and then - special closeness (to the Lord) could be a substitute (compendium) baptism. They, I believe, followed the One who promised salvation to every believer: “Your faith,” he said, “has saved you” (Matthew 9.22), and: “Your sins will be forgiven” (Mk 2.5), to the believer, but not the baptized one. If this (i.e., faith) was absent from the Apostles, then I don’t know to whom faith belonged - which, excited by the single word of the Lord, leaves the place of collecting taxes (Matt. 9.9), leaves the father, and the ship, and the occupation that supported life (Matt. 4.20-22), neglected the burial of the father, and thus carried out the highest instruction of the Lord: “Who... loves father or mother... more Me, not eating Me... is worthy” (Matthew 10.37) before she heard him. Chapter 13. About when the commandment of baptism came into force. Here these wicked people raise questions again. Truly, they say, baptism is not necessary for those for whom faith is sufficient, for Abraham also pleased God not with the “sacrament of water,” but with the sacrament of faith (Gen. 15.7). But in everything (usually) the later is the final, and the subsequent surpasses the preceding in strength. Before the passion and resurrection of Christ, salvation could be given by simple faith alone (per nudam fidem). But since faith increased through belief in His birth, passion and resurrection, expansion took place through the sacrament - through the sealing of baptism, which is, as it were, the garment of faith, which was previously “naked” and had no power without its law. But the law of the necessity of baptism is given and the form is prescribed. “Go,” he says, “teach... the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28.19). The explanation, which is completely consistent with this law: “unless someone is born... of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (John 3.5), already places the need for baptism on faith. Thus, all those who believed from now on were baptized. Then Paul, who believed, was baptized (Acts 9.18). And this is precisely what the Lord commanded (him), during the punishment of blinding, saying: “Arise and go to Damascus, there it will be revealed to you ... what you must do” (Acts 9.6), that is, to be baptized, which is the only thing he lacked. But for the rest, he learned enough and believed that the Nazarene is the Lord, the Son of God. Chapter 14: Did Paul Baptize? But regarding the Apostle himself, they point out that he said: “Christ did not... send me... to baptize” (1 Cor 1.17), as if this argument abolishes baptism. For why did he baptize Gaius and Crispus and the house of Stephen (1 Cor 1.14–15)? Although Christ did not send him to baptize, He commanded the other Apostles to baptize. In fact, this was written to the Corinthians according to the conditions of that time, for they were worried about division and disagreement, when one considered himself Paul's, the other Apollo's (1 Cor 1.12). As a result of this, the peace-loving Apostle, so that it does not seem that he is taking everything for himself, says that he was sent not for baptism, but for preaching (1 Cor. 1.17). For first is to preach, then to baptize. And if preaching comes first, then, I believe, it is permissible for him to baptize who is permissible to preach. Chapter 15. On the unity of baptism I don’t know if there is still anything controversial about baptism. Let me remind you, however, of what was omitted earlier, so that it does not seem that I am rejecting thoughts that naturally suggest themselves (imminentes). Baptism is one for us, as can be seen, as much from the Gospel of the Lord as from the writings of the Apostle, for there is one Lord, and one baptism, and one heavenly Church (Eph 4.4–6). But regarding heretics it is good to consider what must be observed, for the saying (of Scripture) concerns us (actually). Heretics, however, have no participation in our teaching, and that they are “external” is evidenced by the very cessation of church communion with them. I am not obliged to acknowledge the existence among them of that which serves as a commandment for me, for we have not the same God as they do with them, not one Christ, that is, not the same. Therefore, baptism (among them) is not the same, for it is not the same. Since they do not have it according to legal rite, then without a doubt they do not have it at all, and what they do not have cannot be considered existing. And they cannot accept it, because they do not have it. But you have already spoken about this in more detail in Greek. Once, therefore, we go into the font, sins are washed away once, for we must not repeat them. However, Jewish Israel is washed daily, because it is defiled daily. So that the same thing does not happen among you, one baptism is commanded. O blessed water, which has washed once, which does not serve as a playground for sinners (ludibrio), which, being not susceptible to infection by constant uncleanness, does not again defile those whom it has washed. Chapter 16. About baptism by blood. There is also a second baptism for us, which is only one, namely the baptism of blood, about which the Lord, having already received baptism, says: “with baptism you will be baptized with it” (Luke 12.50). For He came, as John wrote, “by water and blood” (1 John 5.6), to be baptized by water, to be glorified by blood, and then to make us through water called, through blood chosen. He exudes these two baptisms with the wound of a pierced rib (John 19.34), for those who believed in His blood were washed with water, and those who were washed with water also drink (His) blood. This is baptism, which replaces the font that was not accepted (representat), and returns the lost one. Chapter 17. About persons performing baptism. It remains to conclude (discuss) this subject by recalling the rules for performing and receiving baptism. The supreme minister (summus sacerdos), who is the bishop, has the right to perform; then - presbyters and deacons, but not without the will of the bishop, - for the sake of the honor of the Church, with the preservation of which (that is, honor) there is a saving world. In other cases, this right also belongs to the laity, for what is equally (ex aequo) accepted can equally be given, as long as the students are not called bishops, or presbyters, or deacons. The Word of God should not be torn from anyone. Therefore, baptism, the beginning of the divine (census Dei), can be performed by everyone. But the discipline of respect and modesty is all the more appropriate for the laity because it also falls on the elders, so that they do not appropriate to themselves what belongs to the bishop - the ministry of the bishop. Enmity is the mother of divisions (schismatum). “Everything... is permissible,” says the Holy Apostle, “but not everything is beneficial” (1 Cor 6.12). It is enough that you use it (i.e. the right of baptism) in cases of necessity, if circumstances or time or person prompt this. For then the determination of the one who rushes to help when circumstances oppress the one in danger is valued. Therefore, they will be guilty of the death of a person if they slow down the delivery of what they can freely deliver. “And the pride of women who admired the right to teach will not arrogate to themselves the right to baptize, unless a new “beast” appears, similar to the previous one, so that, just as he destroyed baptism, so he will distribute it with his other power. And if, on the basis of the writings falsely attributed to Paul, they defend by the example of Thecla the freedom of women to teach and baptize, then let them know that that presbyter of Asia, who compiled this writing, trying, as it were, to increase the authority of Paul with his name, was deprived of his place when he was convinced and he himself admitted that he did it out of love for Paul. For does it seem likely that he gives women the authority to teach and baptize, who exactly persistently does not allow a woman to teach: “Let them keep silence and ask their husbands at home” (1 Cor 14.34). Chapter 18. About the age at which one should be baptized. As for other things, those whose duty it is (to perform baptism) know that it should not be entrusted without reasoning. “Give to everyone who asks you” (Luke 6.30) has a special application (titulum), referring to alms. On the contrary, in this case, one should rather take into account the following: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not cast your pearls before swine” (Matt 7.6) and: “Do not lay on your hands, lest you be involved in others’ sins” (1 Tim. 5.22). If Philip baptized the eunuch so quickly, then it must be recalled that (here) there was a clear and open honor on the part of the Lord. The Spirit commanded Philip to take exactly this path (Acts 8.26); The eunuch himself was not found idle and suddenly wanting to be baptized, but traveling to pray in the church, immersed in the divine Scripture (Acts 8.27–28). Thus it was fitting that he should be found to whom God, in his goodness, willingly sent an Apostle. The Spirit again commands the latter to cleave to the chariot of the eunuch; (then) Scripture is given in time to (strengthen) faith; upon request (the Apostle) is accepted onto the chariot; The Lord appears; faith does not hesitate; the water is not waited, and the Apostle, after the work is completed, is delighted (Acts 8.29–39). But Paul was actually baptized soon, for Simon, who received him into his home (Acts 9.11), soon realized that he (i.e., Paul) was destined to be a chosen vessel. Divine honor presupposes its own preliminary conditions (praerogativas), and every request can deceive and be deceived. Therefore, it will be more useful to slow down baptism, depending on the conditions and location of a particular person, even (his) age, and especially in relation to children. For what is the need to expose the recipients to danger, since they themselves, after death, may not fulfill their promises, and, if the evil nature (of the baptized person) is manifested (proventu), they may be deceived. The Lord says: “Do not forbid them to come to Me” (Matthew 19.14). Let them, therefore, come when they have grown; let them come if they have learned, when they are instructed where they are going; let them become Christians when they can know Christ. Why should an innocent age rush to the remission of sins? Do they really act more cautiously in everyday affairs, in order to entrust the divine essence to someone who has not yet been entrusted with earthly things? Let them learn to ask for salvation, so that it will be obvious to you what you have given to “the one who asks” (Luke 6.30). With no less reason, the celibate should also be delayed, since they are faced with temptation - both virgins due to their mature age, and widows due to (their) vanity (vagationem) until they either get married or become stronger in abstinence. If we understood the importance of baptism, we would rather be afraid of haste than delay; pure faith is sure of salvation. Chapter 19. About the day of baptism. The solemn day for baptism is Easter, when the sufferings of the Lord were fulfilled, on which we are baptized. Without artificiality, it can be interpreted in a figurative sense that, intending to celebrate the last Easter, the Lord, sending disciples to prepare (it), says: “a man will meet him bearing waters” (Mark 14.13), - so He indicates the place of Easter celebration with the sign of water. Then, a very significant period of time for baptism is represented by Pentecost, when the Risen Lord spoke among the disciples, and the grace of the Holy Spirit was was given, and hope shone forth for the second coming of the Lord; for then, after His ascension into heaven, the angels told the Apostles that He would come in the same way as He ascended into heaven, namely, (will come) at Pentecost. However, every day is the Lord's day, every hour, every time is convenient for baptism; if there is a difference in solemnity, then for grace it does not matter. Chapter 20. About prayer before baptism. It is necessary for those who have been baptized to pray with strong prayers, in fasting, kneeling, and wakefulness, confessing at the same time all previous sins, so that, in this way, they reproduce the baptism of John: “they were baptized,” he says, “confessing... their... sins” (Matthew 3.6). We should rejoice if we now publicly confess our sinfulness and shamefulness. For by scourging body and spirit we at the same time give satisfaction for (our) past and - in view of future temptations - build fortifications for defense (munimenta) in advance. “Watch,” he says, “and pray that you do not fall into temptation” (Matthew 26.41). But they were tempted, I believe, because they indulged in sleep, so they left the Lord taken into custody, and even the one who was with Him and used the sword (John 18.10) denied three times. Meanwhile, it was preceded by the saying (of the Lord) that no one who is not tempted will inherit the kingdom of heaven (Luke 22.28–29). After baptism, the Lord Himself was immediately beset by temptations when He fasted for forty days. Therefore, someone will say, it would be better for us to fast after baptism. And what is holding back - if not the need for joy and thanksgiving (gratulatio) for salvation? But the Lord, as I believe, in view of Israel (de figura Israelis), took the reproach upon Himself. For the people who crossed the sea and remained in the desert for forty years, although there they were nourished by divine power, nevertheless thought more about gluttony and gluttony than about God. In addition, the Lord, having retired into the desert after baptism and remaining there in fasting for forty days, showed that the man of God will not live by bread, but by the word of God, and that temptations associated with a full and immoderate belly are overcome by abstinence. So, blessed ones, upon whom the grace of God awaits, when you have emerged from the most holy font of the new birth and for the first time stretched out your hands together with your brothers at the Mother, ask from the Father, ask from the Lord, that treasures of grace, a division of gifts, may be given. For he says: “Ask and you will receive” (Matthew 7.7). You searched and found; pushed and open to you. I only pray that when you ask, they remember the sinful Tertullian. You might be interested in: