munion, was in their case an equivalent for baptism. He perceives correctly that as long as Christ was on earth there could be no church and no Christian baptism, that this institution could not be introduced till after the completion of the work of redemption, the resurrection and glorification of Christ, and the impartation of the Holy Ghost; till then there could only be a preparative baptism corresponding to that of John, and even that performed by Christ's disciples was no other.2 Then he guards himself against the objection, that inasmuch as Christ, while he was on earth, for all the cures he performed required only faith, therefore afterwards only faith and not baptism was needed. On the contrary, he says, after the actual institution of baptism, it was needed as the seal appointed by Christ, as it were, the garment in which faith was attired. Moreover, had Tertullian only confined himself to what he had said respecting baptism as an ordinance of Christ,-respecting its connexion with the historical development of Christ's work—and respecting it as the obsignatio and vestimentum fidei—had he only further developed what was contained in all this, he would have been more in accordance with truth than in attempting to show how much water could effect as a vehicle of divine power.

He then touches on the question of the validity of the baptism administered among heretics, on which he also wrote a treatise in the Greek language; and he maintains the principle held by the African church, that all religious ceremonies can possess their objective validity only in that one visible church which was divinely instituted, and endowed with the operations of the Holy Spirit. He maintains this principle in such a manner as would hardly have been possible after his separation from the universal church as a Mon1 Cap. xii. "Primæ allectionis et exinde individuæ cum illo familiaritatis prærogativa compendium baptismi conferre posset."

2 Cap. xi. "Sed ne moveat quosdam quod (Christus) non ipse tin. guebat. In quem enim tingueret? in Spiritum sanctum, qui nondum a Patre descenderat? in ecclesiam quam nondum apostoli struxerant ? Itaque tinguebant discipuli ejus, ut ministri, ut Joannes ante præcursor, eodem baptismo Joannis, ne qui alio putet, quia nec exstat alius nisi postea Christi, qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat, utpote nondum adimpleta gloria Domini, nec instructa efficacia lavacri per passionem et resurrectionem."

3

Cap. xiii. "Addita est ampliatio sacramento, obsignatio baptismi vestimentum quodammodo fidei."

tanist. We must here particularly notice, that if Tertullian had elaborated on his pre-montanist stand-point that external idea of the church already to be found in Irenæus, yet in this treatise we find an intimation which would lead to a more spiritual form of this idea, when he says, "But since both the testimony of faith and the promise of salvation are confirmed by three, the mention of the church is necessarily added, since where the Three are, that is, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the church which is the body of the Three." Taking these words as our guide, we shall obtain the idea of the church as the community founded on faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; a community originating in an internal principle; therefore not according to the formula in Irenæus," Ubi Ecclesia, ibi Spiritus," but " Ubi Spiritus, ibi Ecclesia."

According to a mode of conception very widely spread in his day, Tertullian distinguishes between the imago and the similitudo Dei: the first includes the unalienable capabilities of man, such as the reason and the free will, for realizing likeness to God; secondly the similitudo, or the actually formed likeness to God in a divine holy life;-in other words, the potential and the actual. According to Tertullian's view, man has lost the latter through sin, by which he is cut off from communion with God, and from participation in a divine unchangeable life; by baptism he is freed from the corruption of nature, and restored to his original purity and likeness to God. He pronounced only that person blessed who preserved the purity communicated to him through baptism. Not that Tertullian ever thought that any man could go on through life in absolute sinlessness; but he meant that such sins were avoided by which the original baptismal grace might be lost, the peccata mortalia. But where this original purity was lost, he supposed only one expedient to be left by which it could be regained, namely, that baptismus sanguinis, the significance of which in Tertullian's Christian scheme we have

1 "Hæreticos extraneos testatur," he says, cap. xv. "ipsa ademtio communicationis." According to this definition, the Montanists might have been called heretics. Indeed this is not altogether convincing, since not all the churches refused communion with the Montanists-since even the Romish church, up to a certain period, accorded to them brotherly communion. In general, the relation of Montanism to the church was a more transient one.

already described. Now this may be so understood as if Tertullian allowed, for cases in which the original baptismal grace had been lost through sins, no other possible means of restoration than the cancelling of sins by martyrdom. From that it would follow that he was attached to those more stringent principles respecting repentance which were among the peculiarities of Montanism, as we have already remarked, and therefore he must have been a Montanist when he wrote his treatise. But we are by no means obliged to understand he passage in this sense, and if other indications of Tertullian's non-Montanism at this period can be found, this passage alone will by no means support the opposite view, that he had embraced Montanism. These words do not necessarily imply more than that whoever had forfeited baptismal grace by his sins, could regain it in a full sense, and be restored to the same purity and innocence only by martyrdom, which had the power, as in the case of catechumens to serve instead of water-baptism altogether, so also in the case of the lapsed after baptism to serve instead of a second baptism. But this view was held by many others besides the Montanists.1

Tertullian next proceeds to the question, By whom is baptism to be administered? and he answers; first of all, the summus sacerdos, — the bishop; then the presbyters and deacons; yet not without the authority of the bishop, on account of the honour of the church, on maintaining which authority depends the maintenance of the peace of the church. "Otherwise laymen also have the right; for that which is equally received may be equally given, unless the word disciples denote at once bishops, or presbyters, or deacons. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden from any; wherefore baptism, which is equally derived from God, may be administered by all. But how much more is it incumbent on the laity to keep themselves within the bounds of reverence and modesty! Since these things belong to those of higher estate, let them not assume the office of the bishopric set apart for the bishop. Emulation is the mother of schisms. The most holy apostle

As a proof of this we may quote the following passage from Cyprian, who was certainly not then a Montanist: "Aliud est ad veniam stare, aliud ad gloriam pervenire, aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emundari et purgari diu igne, aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse, aliud denique pendere in diem judicii ad sententiam Domini, aliud statim a Domino coronari." Ep. lii.

has said, All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.' Let it suffice to use such things in thy necessities, when the circumstances of place, or time, or person, are compulsory; for then is firmness in him that aids admissible, when the case of him that is in danger is urgent, for he is guilty of the perdition of a man if he shall forbear to do that which it is in his free power to do." These words are on many accounts worthy of notice, as determining Tertullian's Christian stand-point, and his position in the development of the church. He belonged, as we have already had occasion to remark, to a boundary-epoch, as likewise did Montanism. Thus he stands at the boundary between the original free constitution of the church, in which the idea of an universal priesthood was dominant, and that of a separate hierarchy. When he distinguishes the bishop as summus sacerdos, there is implied that a transference was already made of the idea of the Old Testament priesthood to the Christian stand-point, that the presbyters were regarded as Christian priests, and the bishops also took precedence of them in a manner corresponding to the position of the High Priest on the Old Testament stand-point. Such a view did not originate with Tertullian, but was adopted by him from the views already held by the North African church of his times. But on the other hand, the idea of the universal Christian priesthood still maintained its place, partly in Tertullian's mind, partly in the consciousness of the laity, so that he himself was obliged to acknowledge it as an existing power. The passage before us shows this. Tertullian presupposes that in virtue of the universal Christian priesthood, all believers who had been baptized had also a right to baptize others, just as all who received the word of God when they became Christians, dared not to conceal it, but were called to announce it to others. Thus he considers the right of administering baptism as belonging to the community of Christians in general, but which, in virtue of the ecclesiastical organization, is first of all committed to the bishop, then to the presbyters and deacons, who exercise this right under the authority of the bishop. To this arrangement the laity ought to submit themselves; but in cases of necessity, when the other organs who agreeably to the established order should exercise this right, are wanting, they might administer baptism, and in certain cases would be

bound to do so. We know indeed that Tertullian, while he allowed this universal right of the laity, made a point of guarding against a wilfulness in the exercise of it to the injury of ecclesiastical order, thereby to prevent divisions which might arise if the laity were disposed to contest with the clergy the exercise of such a right. We can, in this, notice some traces of a re-action of the consciousness of the universal priesthood in the laity against the hierarchy which was then forming. But in what Tertullian says of the duty of the laity, to administer baptism in cases of necessity, we detect the error which has already been animadverted upon, of attaching undue importance to the outward rite, since the sentiment is implied that whoever wanted outward baptism would remain excluded from salvation.

Tertullian expresses himself in very strong terms against the right of females to baptize or to teach.'" How very credible must it appear, that he should give the power of teaching and baptizing to a female who would not allow a married woman even to learn,2- Let them be silent, and ask their own husbands at home."" Could Tertullian have spoken thus as a Montanist? Was it objected to Montanists that they had for teachers a Maximilla and a Priscilla? It might be answered, indeed, that even the Montanists acknowledged the validity of the principle that in general women ought not to speak publicly in their assemblies. Only they maintained, that as the operations of the Divine Spirit were confined to no rule, so also not to this. By the extraordinary operations of the Divine Spirit, prophetesses might be excited whom they were bound to acknowledge and honour in their calling; and they appealed to 1 Cor. xi. 5, where the apostle implies that there was nothing blamable in prophetesses speaking in public'

2

Cap. xvii.

"Qui ne discere quidem constanter mulieri permisit."

3 As a Montanist Tertullian says, De Virginibus Velandis, cap. ix. "Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec offerre, nec ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare;” and lib. v. c. Marcion. cap. viii. “Præscribens (Paulus Apostolus) silentium mulieribus in ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur. Cæterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit quum mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit." Thus also argues Irenæus, who was no Montanist, (for Tertullian expressly distinguishes him from the Montanists, Adv. Valent. cap. v) against the Alogi, the