iHiM I! H li 11 ii!l!l!!lii!!lli!ir II i ;t ll}\r.m\\ ^iiti'iM'tiyyiiiinM'm im BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY. ELEGANTLY PRINTED, AND BOUND IN CLOTD, AT 3s. 6d. PER VOL. 1.THE MISCELLANEOUS WORKS AND REMAINS OF THE REV. ROBERT 1L\LL, with Memoir by Dk. Gkkgoky, an Essay on liis cliaracter by John Foster. 2 8c3. ROSCOE'S LIFE AND PONTIFICATE OF LEO X. EDITED BY HIS SON, witii tlie Cojiyrigbt Notes, Appendices, and Historical Documents, the Episode on Lucretia Bor^'ia, an Index, and 3 fine Portraits, complete in 2 vols. . 4. SCHLEGELS LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, TRANS- lated Irom the Gernnui, with a Memoir of the Author, by J. li. Uobeetson, Esq. 6&6. SISMONDIS HISTORY OF THE LITERATURE OF THE SOUTH OF EUROPE, translated by UoscoE. Complete in 2 vols Portraits. 7. ROSCOE'S LIFE OF LORENZO DE MEDICI, CALLED THE MAGNIFICENT, iiuluding the Copyright Notes and Illustrations, new Memoir by his Son. m r^v tih mvy of trhe t:heolo0ical ^tminaxy PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY BS 2410 .N34 1851 v. 2 Neander, August, 1789-1850. History of the planting and training of the Christian V.2, ^^ij^ 24 '"•''■-^ 25 -~^5 96 27. ;i> " -J 28 •.'i-aj .3 *» •:» MACHIAVELLIS HISTORY OF FLORENCE, PRINCE, AND OTHER ^<^^' Works*. // i/h Portrait. tifi^lVr SCHLEGELS LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE AND THE PlIllAiSOl'HY OE LANGUAGE, translated by A. J. W. Morrison. LAMARTINE'S GIRONDISTS. VOL. 2. Portrait of Madame Roland. RANKE'S HISTORY OF THE POPES, TRANSLATED BY E. FOSTER. toniplelc in :; vols. \ ol. I. Portrait of .lidhis 11., after Itaphnel. COXES MEMOIRS OF THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH, (to form 3 vols.) "P^h'^i Vol. I. With fine Portrait. tfiSor^f^ An Ati.as, of 26 fine larKC Maps and Plans of Marllmrooph's Campalfrns, beinjr all those Sov''"^''' published In the original edition at £12 12s. may now be had, in one volume, 4to. for 10s. Cd. !LSvy\'V'' 'MiS^: 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. SHERIDAN'S DRAMATIC WORKS AND LIFE. PortraiL COXES MEMOIRS OF MARLBOROUGH. VOL.2. Porlmii of tke Duchess. GOETHE'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 13 BOOKS. PORTRAIT. • RANKES HISTORY OF THE POPES. VOL. 2. iruk Index, and Portrait of Innocent X. LAMAflTINES HISTORY OF THE GIRONDISTS. VOL.3. 'With a Memoir of Lamartine, and uSkctcliot' tiie last llevolutiou. COXE'S MEMOIRS OF THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH. VOL. 3. WH^ATLEY ON THE COMMON PRAYER. FRONTISPIECE. RANKE'S POPES. VOL.3. Portrait of Clement VIL MILTON'S PROSE WORKS. VOL. 1. Portrait. MENZEL'S HISTORY OF GERMANY. COMPLETE IN 3 VOLS. VOL. 1. I'orlrail of Charlemagne. MILTON'S PROSE WORKS. VOL. 2. Frontispiece. MILTONS PROSE WORKS. VOL. 3. Portrait of Laud. M^^ZEL'S HISTORY OF GERMANY. VOL. 2. Portrait of Charles V. SCHLEGEL'S /ESTHETIC AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKS, CONTAINING Lotter-s on Cliristian Art, Essay on Gothic Arcliitecture, Remarks on llie Roniance- Poetrj' of the Middle Ages, on "Shakspeare, the Limits of the Beautiful, and on the Language and Wisdom of the Indians. GOETHE'S WORKS. VOL. 2, containing the remainder of his Autobiography, together with his Travels in Italy, France, and Switzerland. SCHILLER'S WORKS. VOL.4, CONTAINING "THE ROBBERS," "FIESKO," "Love and Intrigue," and "The Ghost-Seer," translated by Hekey G. Bohn. MENZEL'S GERMANY. VOL. 3. Portrait of Prince Metternich. SCHLEGEL'S LECTURES ON MODERN HISTORY. LAMARTINES HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1848. V ilk Frontispiece, containing 6 Portraits. JUNIUS'S LETTERS, WITH ALL THE NOTES OF WOODFALL'S EDITION, and important additions. 2 vols. \ ol. 1, containing alt the Original Letters. VASARIS LIVES OF THE MOST CELEBRATED PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, AND ARCHITECTS. Translated by Mrs. Foster. Vol. I. Portrait. JUNIUS'S LETTERS. VOL. 2, containing the Private and Miscellaneous Letters, an Essay disclosing the Authorship, and a very elaborate Index. TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING AND DYING. Portrait. GOETHE'S WORKS. VOL. 3, CONTAINING "FAUST,' "IPHIGENIA," "TORQUATO TASSO," and " EGMONT." Translated l)v Miss Swanwick. With"GOETZ VON BERLICHINGEN," by Sir Waltkr'Scott. NEANDER'S CHURCH HISTORY, THE TRANSLATION CAREFULLY Revised by the Kkv. A. J, W. Morrison. VoL I. NEANDER'S LIFE OF CHRIST. COMPLETE IN 1 VOL. VASARIS LIVES, BY MRS. FOSTER. VOL. 2. NEANDER'S CHURCH HISTORY. VOL. 2. XJnifortn with his Standard Library, ^nctf 3*. 6i., BOHN'S EXTRA VOLUMES. 1. GRAMMONT'S MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHARLES II. Boscoi)el Narratives. Portrait of JSell Gwynne. 2&3. RABELAIS' WORKS. COMPLETE IN 2 VOLS. 4. COUNT HAMILTONS FAIRY TALES. PORTRAIT. With the ^fctlv-^ HISTORY PLANTING AND TRAINING THE CHEISTIAN OHUEOH. ANTIGNOSTIKUS ; SPIRIT OF TERTULLIAN, VOL. IL LONDON : R. CLAY, rurNTKr., BIIEAI" STKEET HILL, -^.^ HISTOEY OF THE PLANTING AND TEAINII^i THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH BY THE APOSTLES. BY DR. AUGUSTUS NEANDER. WITH THE AUTHOR'S FINAL ADDITIONS. ALSO, HIS ANTIGNOSTIKUS; OR, SPIRIT OF TERTULLIAN. TRANSLATED TIIOM THE GEUIMAN BY J. E. RYLAND. IN TWO VOLUr^IES. VOL. 11. LONDON : HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, CO VENT GARDEN. 1851. CONTENTS. BOOK VI. Chapter II. — The Doclrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews. PAGE The author of this Epistle compared with Paul 1 Points of agreement in theirviews .'5 Points of difference — Paul contemplates the Jewish economy as abrogated — In this Epistle it is spoken of as still existing, though only typical 4— G Treating of Salvation in its relation solely to the deseendents of Abraham, though un-Pauline, not contrary to Paul's sentiments 7 The work of Christ — The exaltation of Christ to heaven more frequently adverted to than his resurrection — Allusions to the High Priesthood 8, 9 The sufferings of Christ 10 The consequences of the redemption accomplished by Christ — Their appropriation by faith — Connexion of faith, hope and love — The Alexandrian Jewish Theology— Philo 10—15 Chapter III. — The Doctrine of James. 1. Revelation of faith and works in connexion with his general view of Christi- anity. Comparison of a pretended faith with a pretended love — Works not the soul of failh, but the marks of its vitality 17 A twofold sense of the term Faith — The faith of evil spirits forced and j)assive — that of Abraham spontaneous, and in harmony with the other principles of the mind IS The I'o/Lio? used to signify the doctrine of Christ 20 Unity of the law — Love its fulfilment — Language the organ of the disposition —The Christian life a work 21, 22 Christianity as the vtS/jo? TtXeto? not merely a new law, but a new internal creation 22 The difference from Paul only in the development 23 2. His views of the law compared with the Pauline. His object was to lead the Jews from Judaism to the Gospel — hence he repre- sents Christ as the fulfiUer of the law. Matt. v. 17 ; and allows its observance by the believing Jews, Acts XV. 21 ; xxi. 21 24 Paul acted with greater latitude among the Gentiles — Became a Gentile, Gal. ii. 14, which was not required of James, as his ministry was confined to Jews 25 3. The duty of veracity. James repeats the injunctions of Christ verbally (Matt. v. 12) — Paul enforces the duty from the mutual relation of Christians, Epli. v. 12, and on certain occasions used forms of asseveration equivalent to an oath 25, 26 4. The free self-determination of man in reference to sin — The sentiments of James on this point form an important supplement to Paul's doctiinal statements... 26, 27 Vi CONTEXTS. PAGE CnAPiEH IV.— The Doctrine of John. In John's mind the intuitive element predominates over the dialective— His Christian course emphatically a life in communion with Christ 28 1 . The central-point of his doctrine— Divine life in communion with Christ— Death in estrani^ement from him. The theoretical and the practical are intimately blended in his view— His leading idias are light, life, and truth, in communion with God through the Logos— Death, darkness, falsehood in separation from him 28, 29 Satan the representative of falsehood—" A liar and the father of it"— His personality (note ai)— Truth and goodness— sin and falsehood are one — The children of God, and the children of the world 30, 31 2. Original estrangement of man from God — Opposition of the aapKiKov and TrktuM'iTiKoi'— The consciousness of sin a condition of the new life 31 3. Susceptibility of Redemption. Need of an inward sense corresponding to the outward revelation— Hence faith presupposes a preparatory operation of the Holy Spirit— This divine impulse not compulsory ; but unsusceptibility voluntary and criminal 33,34 Twofold sense of the piirases — eivai en Geoiy and eivai etc Ttit d\t]Oeiai 34 4. The Person and Work of Christ. The life of Christ the manifestation of God in human form — Grace and truth in Christ correspond to love and holiness in God 36 The whole life of Christ a revelation of God — Hence his miracles and the descent of the Spirit only mark a new epoch in his ministry 37 Christ's miracles intended to lead men to higher views of his 5ofa; meanings of the term Faith in John's writings 38 Import of the sufferings of Christ — The idea of reconciliation at the basis — The communication of divine life connected with his sacrifice — and depending on his exaltation to glory — The spiritual maturity of his dis.iples depending negatively on this, but positively on his divine influence — The nvevna 'dftov the result of his glorification 40 5. Faith as the Principle of a New Life. Faith the one work acceptable to God, John vi. 29— Complete surrender to Chri>t One commandment of the Lord, hrotherly love 41 Faiih the victory over the world — A superstitious faith in the Messiah easily changed to absolute unbelief 43 The children of God, and the children of the devil 45 Progressive ])urification of believers 46 Christian perfection — Christian hope 47 fi. Resurrection and Judgment. Peculiarity of John's conceptions — The internal and present predominate — mysticism 48 Judgment something taking place in the present life— the publication of the Gospel necessarily involves a separation of the susceptible from the unsuscep- tible— Judgment opposed to awT^pia — The unbeliever condemns himself — The believer is not condenmed 43 But this judgment, and the spiritual awakening, are preparatory to the final Judgment and resurrection 50 7. The Second Coming of Christ. This is represented by John as internal — First by the coming of the Spirit, xvi. 1.1, then of Christ's own spiritual coming, Hi — Yet a personal visible rcapoiKria is not excluded 51 K. The Idea of the Church. Not literally expressed — Yet metaphorically by " one fold and one shepherd," also the distinction of internal and external communion, 1 Ep. ii. 1!) 53 S). The Sacraments. The institution of Christian baptism not mentioned — But its spiritual element noticed in iii. 3 — lu the same manner the Supper, vi 54 CONTENTS. Vll PAGE The essence of Christianity according to Paul and John — Worshipping God as the Father through the Son, in the communion of the Holy Spirit — This the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity 56 Closing remarks 57 Additions and Corrections made by the Author to the Fourth Edition 58 ANTIGNOSTIKUS. Antignostikus; or the Spirit of Tertullian, and an Introduction to his Writings. 191 Preface to the Second Edition 195 Introduction 191) PAET I. THE FIRST CLASS OF TERTULLIAN'S WRITINGS. Tliose which were occasioned by the relation of the Christians to the Heathen, and refer to their vindication of Christianiiy against the Heathen — Attacks on Heal/ienism — The sufferings a7id conduct of Christians under persecution — and the intercourse of Christians with Heathens. Sect. I. — The writings of this class composed by Tertullian before he joined the Montanists 207 Sect. II.— Treatises of the same class written by Tertullian after he became a Montanist 264 PAET II. THE SECOND CLASS OF TERTULLIAN'S WRITINGS. Writings which relate to Christian and Church life, and to Ecclesiastical Discipline. Sect. I. — Pre-Montanist writings 300 II. — Montanist writings 362 PART III. THE THIRD CLASS OF TERTULLIAN'S WRITINGS. . The Dogmatic and Dogmatic-Controversial Treatises. SECT. I. — Treatises of this class composed before Tertullian became a Montanist 425 II. — Montanist writings 44 5 APPENDIX. Observations on the latter part of Tertullian's Treatise Adversus Judceos 535 I. Index of texts guoted or explained 537 II. Index of Greek Words AND Phrasf.s 545 HI. General Index 547 BOOK VI. THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE. CHAPTEE 11. THE DOCTRINE OP THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. We wish in this place to take some notice of the peculiar doctrinal character of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which we find the leading points of the Pauline doctrine under a pecu- liar form, as held by a man of independent mind, who dif- fered from Paul in his constitutional qualities, in his mental training, and in the mode of his transition from Judaism to Christianity. As to the first point, the author of this epistle seems to stand to the apostle in the same relation as Melanc- thon to Luther j the one quiet and gentle, the other ardent and energetic. As to their education, Paul was brought up in the school of Pharisaism ; in the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we recognise the training of an Alexandrian Jew. Hence arose the difference between the two, that Paul received a more dialectic education, by which his logical faculties were still further developed, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews a more rhetorical one ; though Paul, like Luther, possessed in a very high degree the gift of natural eloquence. Lastly, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have made the transition from Judaism to Chris- tiiinity, not, like Paul, by a sudden crisis, but by a more quiet gradual development, in which the higher spirit concealed under the forms of Judaism revealed itself to him. Accord- ingly, we must consider his twofold relation to the Alexandrian- VOL. II. B 3 THE DOCTRINE OP Jewish, and to the Pauline theology. Several differences in the development of doctrine between these two great teachers of the church, may be explained from the peculiar design of this epistle, which wtis addressed to a community of Christians, who, though faith in Jesus as the Messiah had found ready acceptance with them, were still enthralled in the forms of Judaism/ ' This view we must maintain, notwithstanding the reasons alleged arrainst it by Dr. RJth in his Latin Dissertation (Frankfort, 1836), in which he endeavours to show that this epistle was addressed to the church at Ephesus, consisting of Gentile Christians. As the epistle perrectly suits a church consisting of Jewish Christians, and the diffi- culties attached to this hypothesis are only superficial, so we cannot, on the oilier hand, conceive of a church of Gentile Christians to whom an epistle could be addressed in such a torm and of such contents. And, on the latter supposition, it would not be easy to explain the manifestly close connexion of the didactic and parenetical elements from its com- mencement, since a church consisting of Gentile Christians might be forced by per-ecution to fall back into heathenism, but never from such a cause, to pass over to Judaism. The contents, of this epistle, which tend to show the .superiority of Christianity to Judaism, are therefore by no means adapted to the purpose of encouraging its readers . to constancy under persecutions. Dr. lloth appeals to chap, iii 12 ; but apostasy from the living God need not be exactly a relapse into idolatry; for as communion with God, according to the convictions of the writer, could only be through Christ, so an af)0stasy from Christ mnst in his esteem have been ctjuivalent to apostasy from the living God. Still le.ss can the passage in chap, x, 32 be adduced in evidence, for doubt- less divine illumination appeared to the author as necessarily depending on the gospel ; and a transition from any other religious stand-point, on which man could not be set free from the dominion of the principle of bin, was looked upon by him as a transition from darkness to ligiit. The same remark applies to chap, vi 4. Also, the enumeration of points of instruction for catechumens in chap. vi. 1, does not prove that they were only such as would be imparted to heathens; for by "repent- ance fri^m dead works," the author no doubt understands conversion from all ungodliness, and by niaTi? in this connexion, agreeably to the Pauline ideas, he meant faith in the peculiarly Christian sense; so that fait.h in Jesu^ as the Messiah is included in it, which in articles of in- Btruction for heathens must also, we allow, have been rendered very pro- minent. Besides, for the instruction of Jews passing over to Christianity, it was requisite to define the nature of Christian baptism, in relation to that of John and other hinds of lustration; and the doctrine of the resurrection and of the judgment, though already acknowledged by the greater part of the Jews, must be promulged afresh with many peculiar modifications in connexion with the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah. [Ihus the author enuuierates those universal articles of primary rcligioua instructioii, which needed to lie addres.sod to Jews as well as to Gentiles. Pjom chap. xiii. 9, it does not follow that his readers had never before THE EriSTLE TO THE HEBnE^YS. 3 Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews agree in this, that they both represent Judaism as inadequate for satis- fying the religious wants of man. This is the purport of Avhat is said in chap. vii. 19, that Judaism could "make nothing perfect ; " its religious institutions were not fitted to realize the ideas presented by them to the conscience ; the sacrifices and the priesthood were unable to satisfy that religious w\ant, to which both owed their existence ; namely, to accomplish the removal of the disunion between God and man. Those religious ideas were here represented in sensible images, which were first realized by Christianity. Both Paul and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, place the central point of religion in redemption from guilt and sin, the restoration of communion with God, whence proceeds the impartation of a divine life, the source of true holiness ; and the inability of Judaism to attain this object formed, in the estimation of both, its essential defect. In this epistle (viii. 12 ; vi. 4 ; k. 15) the forgiveness of sms, the communication of a new divine life, and divine power for sanctifi cation, are described as the work of Christ — as the effect of Christianity; it is maintained, that by this new principle of life, the redeemed are able to render true spiritual worship, wdiich comprehends the whole life, so that now the whole soul, animated by a new spirit, becomes a thank-offering for the grace of redemption bestowed upon it (xii. 28; ix. 14 ; xiii. 15) ; and in the same manner Paul contemplates the w^hole Christian life as an act of true spiritual worship. observed the Jewish laws relating to food, and therefore were not Jews, but only, that accoi'ding to the supposition of the writer of the epistle, they no longer as Christians placed their dependence on such outward things. At all events, by "the divers and strange doctrines," some peculiar opinions must be understood which were placed by the false teachers in connexion with the Jewish laws on food. The passage in cliap. xi. 40, can only be intended to mark a later generation (in this case no matter whether of Jewish or Gentile descent), which had not yet come into existence, and therefore would not have attained to a parti- cipation of the Messianic kingdom — if this kingdom had commenced earlier, and thus the development of the human race had been earlier closed. Accordini;- to the other interpretation also, it would have been necessary for the author to have addressed his readers in the second per.-on, lor the rhetorical figure Anakoinosis, on the supposition of the author heing of Jewish dcjceut, whoever he might be. would here be as little employed as in chap. ii. 3, even supposing that the epistle had bcca written by Paul himself. 4 THE DOCTRINE OF But tlicsc two writers differ in their manner of carrying out tlic fundamental ideas which they hold in common. Paul, in opposition to tiie merit of works on the legal stand-point, and especially against the tenet that an observance of the law was absolutely necessary for the Gentiles in order to s;\lvation — develops his doctrine of justification by faith alone, independently of the Avorks of the law. This doctrine, that no one could become righteous before God by the obsei-vance of the law, but only through faith in Jesus as the Messiah and llcdeemer, lies also at the basis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But since the author of this epistle directs his argumentation especially against those who were still captivated by the pomp of the Temple worship, the priesthood and the sacrifices, and were in danger of being entirely seduced from Chi^istianity by the impression these objects made upon them, this gave a peculiar direction to his reasoning, and it aimed at showing that by all this ritual their religious wants could not be satis- fied, but that its only use was to direct them to ihe sole true means of satisfaction. As Paul declared that the law could not bestow the justification which man required, but that it only awakened that feehng of want, which nothing but faith in Jesus as the Ptedeemer could satisfy, so in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is shown, that the mediation requii"ed by man's relation to God and heaven, could not be effected by the Jewish priesthood, but that it only availed to call forth a longing for such a mediation, and thus led to Him who alone could bestow it. But in one respect an opposition may seem to exist between the Pauline views and the doctrinal scheme of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Paul contemplates the stand-point of Judaism as aboliiihed. Eveiy thing in religion is represented as pro- ceeding from faith in Christ alone ; in receiving the gospel a man is in effect dead to his former religious stand-point ; whatever was before the ground of his confidence, novv^ ai)pears to him as an absolute nrdlity. On the contrary, according to the views presented in the Epistle to the Hcbrews,^ the whole Jewish cultus is, it is true, only a hhadowy image of something superior ; but the writer con- siders it as still continuing to exist till everything earthly, and consequently tliis form of earthly worship, shall come to an end, when the I^Icssiauic kingdom being consummated, THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. O a higher order of things shall succeed. Thus wc may here meet with a view, which was originally entertained by converts from Judaism, that the communion with the sanctuary of heaven bestowed by Christianity, would be carried on in this world in combination with the forms of a cultus which typified heavenly things ; that a new higher spirit would continue to operate in the ancient forms of religion. But still this is only an apparent contradiction between the two great teachers ; for it is evident from the train of thought in this epistle, that the writer looked on the Jewish cultus as entirely super- fluous, since it could contribute nothing towards effecting communion with heaven and reconciliation with God, on which everything depended. But since Christianity effected all this, since it bestowed everything demanded by the religious wants of man, of what use was another cultus 1 If, in connexion with such views, the Jewish cultus could still find a place, the only point of junction could be, the representation that the conscientious observance of all that belonged to the Mosaic cultus, would be a preparatory puri- fying and sanctifying process, to qualify for the participation of divine things through the medium of Christianity. This was the stand-point from which Philo, in his work Be Migratione Ahrahami, combats a religious idealism which would have explained away the whole of outward Judaism as superfluous. But in this epistle we can find no trace of at- tributing such a continued preparatory utility to Judaism ; according to its fundamental ideas, connexion with Christ as the true high-priest renders superfluous all other methods of purification and sanctifi cation. If the author of this epistle had some notion that these outward forms of Judaism, whose design was only preparative and typical, would linger in existence till the whole terrestrial economy would be termi- nated by the second advent of Christ at no very distant period, it by no means follows that he considered these forms as of essential importance. We must only bear in mind in what light the author viewed the relation of the present to the futiu'e. This relation was the same in his conceptions as in Paul's. To Christians the future is by faith already become a present. They ascend Avith the confidence of faith into the holiest of holies in heaven, which Christ has rendered accessible to them ; x. 22. They already belong to 0 THE DOCTRIIfE OF the heavenly Jerusalem, and are become the associates of angels ; xii. 23. They have already been made partakers of an eternal unchangeable kingdom ; xii. 28. They have al- ready felt the powers of the world to come. Hence it follows, that, as they no more belong in their inward life to this trans- itory world, but to the higher future world, they are actually raised above the whole stand-point of Judaism. When in ix. 9, it is said, that, in the i^aipog erean^Ktoc (equivalent to ulwi' olroc), there is a sacrificial worship, which yet, like all such outward things, cannot bestow ' the right constitution of the inner life, the purijication from guilt, which man requires in order to become a member of God's kingdom, it must be recollected that Christians do not belong to the cuibv ovroc, but to the cthoi' ijeWojy, and hence all this is nothing to them. When the author speaks of ovitward ordinances,'- ix. 10, which were '■ imposed until the time of reformation ; " it is added, that Christ ^ is He from whom the ciopdcjaiQ emanates, which frees from the yoke of these ordinances, though in its whole extent it will first take efl'ect in the olKovfiiit] lufWouaa. In fact, he contrasts with the Jews who serve an earthly sanctuary (xiii. 10) the Christians to whom the altar in heaven stands open, while it is closed against ^the Jews who cleave to an earthly sanctuary. This is the contrast betw^een those whose worship still adheres to the veil of outward sensible forms, and those who rise at once to heaven. As Jesus suffered without the gates of Jerusalem, so, according to the sjm.- bolical representations employed in this epistle, must those "who desire to belong to him withdraw themselves from the terrestrial Jerusalem, the earthly sanctuary, as from this world in general; xiii. 13. We here find the same principles as in Paul's writings. The author of this epistle does not, indeed, argue directly against the maintenance of the outward forms of the Jewish cultus, nor does he demand their aboli- tion ; but this even Paul would not have done in an epistle addressed to Christians who belonged to Judaism by national descent and education. * Paul would have said that all this could not contribute to their justifration. '^ The pame which Paul asserts of the ccpiciKu tov v6,uov, of the being in Kultji'Clion to the robes is a syrn'ool of the universe, avayKotov yap ^v rhv Ifpccixevov Tw Tou k6(tixou irarp] irapatiKiiTfi} xPW^^i' reAf/orcirw TyjV ap€Ti]v u.c5. The uuivcrsc accoraiiig to me riuLouic idea. JJe Vita Mas. iii. § 14. THE DOCTRIXE OF JAMES. 15 cient evidence to assume that he had the language of Philo actually in his thoughts. It is the description (common to both) of the all-penetrating and cutting sharpness of the Logos. But, in the Epistle to the Hebrews/ we have presented to us a matter of religious experience, the living power of divine truths penetrating, judging, and punishing the soul, the power which lays open all secret wickedness, before which no deception can stand. But Philo understands by the term the power of logical discrimination, especially in reference to the divine reason, that efficiency by which it fixes the limits of the various kinds of existence, arranges the various classes of creatures, and forms compound bodies from the simple elements. CHAPTER III. THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. We proceed from Paul's representation of Christian truth to that of James, which forms a more marked contrast to it than any other in the writers of the New Testament. This is chiefly owing to James's peculiar point of view, and to the difference occasioned by it in the development of the doctrines of justification and faith. But on comparing the two types of doctrine with one another, we shall perceive their essential unity resulting from the Spirit of Christ in both, only that the views of the latter apostle were not so completely disen- gaged from the garb of the Old Dispensation, nor wrought out in the same sharply defined form. The contrast that ^ Hebrews iv 12 ZSiv yap u \6yos toO Oeod, Koi iuepy^]S, Ka\ touw- repos virep waaau fj-dxaipai' diarotjioy, koI diiicvoviJ.evos axP' fiepia/xov i^t'X^s T6 Ka\ irveviMaTos, ap^wu -re Koi /xugXcci/, Kal KpiriKOS ivduiJ.'f}ff€wu Kal ivvoiwu KapS'.as. Quis Rer. divinar. Hceres, § 26, 'iva rhu adiSaKrou ivuofjs Oeoy Texvovra, rds re tuv cujxdTwv /cat irpay/xaToov elfj? airdjas ripixonOai KaZ i)vd>aBaL SoKoixra? (pvasLS, t^ ro^et tuv a-v/xTdvTWP ahrov Xoyw, hs €ts t^v b^urdTT]v aKOVT]Qels a.tciJ.))V, Siaipcbv ovSeiroTe \-i]y€i TO.alaO'qTdndura, tVeiSav Se /-texPt '^'''^ ajSixuiv Kal Keyo-xivwu ajxepdji/ die^4\6ij, irdXiv airo tovtwv, toi Aoya) decop'/iTci els hfivQijovs Kai airepLypdpovs /xoipas upxerai diaipi7v obTOS 6 Tufieus. Pinion. Opera, torn. iii. p. 30, ed. Lips. 1828 16 THE DOCTRINE OP JAMES. here exists we cannot but regard rather as formal than material. This difference is closely connected with the difference in the formation of the religious character of the two ajDOstles, and with the difference in their respective spheres of labour. As to the latter, we must bear- in mind, that James in his peculiar position had not, like Paul, to vindicate an inde- pendent and imshackled ministration of the Gospel among the Gentiles in opposition to the pretensions of Jewish legal- righteousness ; but that he felt himself compelled to press tho practical consequences and requirements of the Christian faith on those in whom that faith had been blended with the eiTors of carnal Judaism, and to tear away the supports of their false confidence. While Paul was obliged to point out to those who placed their dependence on the justifying j)ower of the works of the law, the futility of such works in reference to justification, and to demonstrate that justification and sanctification could proceed only from the faith of the gospel, — James, on the other hand, found it necessary to declare to those who imagined that they could be justified before God by a faith in the Jewish sense as we have before explained it, that such a faith with which their practice was at total variance, was an absolutely worthless thing. ^ ^ It serves to confirm what we have asserted above— that the argumen- tation in the Epistle of James is bj' no means directed against Paul — that the example of Rahab adduced in it, cannot be supposed to relate to any use which Paul could have made of it ; for the manner in which the doctrine of Faith is unfolded in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, could certainly give no occasion to such a line of argu- ment, since in that section, believing confidence is described precisely as a principle which impels to action, and the faith of Eahab is marked as being of a kind that induced her to receive the spies. The very point is here made prominent on which James lays so much stress, and hence we infer that it cannot form an antithesis to his own views. Nor could Paul, in his oral instructions, have made use of the example of Eahab ; for in those passages of the book of Joshua there was nothing he could make use of in support of his doctrine of justification by faith. Nothing is to be found there respecting a iriffris nor of a SiKaiovadai before God, and with those points alone St. Paul was concerned, and for their confirmation he quoted Gen. xv. and Habakkuk ii.; this example of Rahab, which can only be explained from the reference to Paul's doctrine, testifies against the supposed discrepancy in the views of the two Apostles. The citation of such an example can be explained and justified only from the point of view which we have taken. ox FAITH AND WORKS. 17 The apostle affirms, that as a sympathy that shows itself in mere words to the afilicted is worth nothing, so a foith with- out works is entirely vain. Accordingl}", he compares a fiiith that does not manifest itself by works, to a pretended love that is not verified by corresponding acts, to a sympathy that evaporates in mere words. From this comparison, it is evident that as what he here describes as a pretended love is in his judgment undeserving of the name of love, the same may be said of a pretended faith. But as by arguiug against the value of a love that only shows itself in w^ords, he did not intend to depreciate the worth of love itself, just as little could he design to cast a slight on the worth of faith by what he says against the value of a faith that exhibits itself only in outward profession. He considers such a faith which is unaccompanied by works, as dead; it is a faith which is destitute of that divine life which spontaneously produces good works. In reference to this necessary intimate con- nexion between faith and works, James says, addressing a man v/ho depends on this inoperative faith (ii. 18), " Show me how thy faith can exist without works, and I will prove to thee my faith by my works." "As the body without the soul is dead, so" (he says, ii. 26) "faith without works is dead." The comparison is here a general one, without descending to particulars. It is evident, that James could not mean to say that works (the outward act) bear the same relation to faith as the soul to the body, but only (which agrees with the whole train of his thinking) that the absence of works is a proof that the fiiith is destitute of what corresponds to the soul as the animating principle of the body. Works, therefore, are signs of the vitality of faith. We shall be assisted in forming con-ect ideas of his doc- trine respecting fliith, if we examine the examples which he adduces of genuine and spurious faith; on the one hand, the faith of evil spirits in a God, which only fills them with terror, and, on the other, the faith of Abraham. He here applies the same term Tr/ortc to two distinct affections of the soul. In the first case, where the reference is to the faith of evil spirits, the feeling of dependence on an Almighty Supreme Being shows itself as something unavoid- able, as an overpowering force, but it is only a passive state (a 7ra9oc), with which the spontaneity, the free receptivity and VOL. II. G 18 THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. self-activity of the mind by no means corresponds,, the ^Yhole internal constitution of a rational being is opposed to it. The feeling of dependenca on God is something which man cannot get rid of, however much he may desire it. In the second case, faith is not merely something passive, existing indepen- dently of the self-determination of man, but a voluntary recognition of this dependence takes place by an act of the will, and thereby becomes a regulating principle of the whole life. Hence, in the former instance, works as well as the whole tendency of the life mnst scand in contradiction to ■what from this stand-point is called fliith ; in the latter, the imvard tendency of the life proceeding from faith neces- sarily manifests itself by works. That work of Abraham which the apostle adduces, was indeed no other than an expression of that unconditional and trustful suiTcnder to the Divine will, which is likewise by Paul considered as a mark of Abraham's genuine and divinely approved litcawavvr}. But Paul adduces this example with a special reference to its internal importance in opposition to a vain righteousness of works ; James makes use of it in its outward manifestation against an opus operatum of faith ; and in this point of v-iew lie could say that by his ^^pya Abraham proved that he was a IkaioQ ', faith cooperated with his works ; by works his '/r/rrrtc proved itself to be reXeia. When the Holy Scriptures tell us that Abraham's faith was imputed to him by God for righteousness, this can only be understood of a faith which Avas accompanied with good works as marks of its genuine- ness. Certainly James, who believed in the divine omni- science, could not suppose that the outwai'd act was requisite to make Abraham's disposition manifest to God ; but he meant to say that Abraham's faith could not have justified hini before God, if it had not been such as would manifest its inward quality by such works. But Paul would not have applied the same term Triang to two religious stand-points that dift'ei'cd so widely fi'om one another ; he w^ould hardly have designated by this name what James asserts of evil spirits ; he would not have distinguished between a Jides iitformis and a Jides form,ata, but only have designated by this term the " faith that worketh b}^ love." And although in combating the erroneous tendency he would have agreed with. .]an}es, yet his method of combating it would have been ON FAITH AND WORKS. 19 quite different. He would have pointed out, as he has done in several passages of the Epistle to the Romans, the neces- sary, intimate connexion between faith and a moral trans- formation ; he would have shown those persons who professed to believe, that what really deserved the name of iriaTv, was entirely wanting to them. But the elements of such a demonstration are to be found in the Epistle of James, where he speaks of a new birth, a new creation proceeding from faith ; i. 18. Yet it is not his manner to develop what is contained in the idea so systematically as Paul is wont to do, who exhibits to us, if we may so express it, tlie speculative and the practical, as they interpenetrate each other. James is throughout practical rather than speculative. He contents himself with stating experimental appearances, while Paul would profoundly investigate their causes. To Paul the central fact on which everything turns is the relation of man to God, and the great revolution that must be effected in that relation in order that man, by nature estranged from God, may become an object of his good pleasure. Only to the sight of that God who beholds the inmost recesses of the spirit, and to whom the invisible world lies unveiled, is the whole new direction of the life apparent in that internal act of faith which lays hold of redemption, and from which everything must be developed that belongs to the perfection of the Christian life. In the sight of that Being who beholds the invisible, man is justified when he believes ; he is justified by his faith. But James, who contemplates the outward manifestation of things as they are developed in time, takes into account the cooperation of faith and works for the justi- fication of man ; for like Paul he recognises only that faith which works by love and thus originates the new creation in man, as justifying faith, and requires that it should express itself in works in order to distinguish it from whatever else may be called faith. Had James intended to say that works must be visible in order that man may appear just before God, this would have been a material contradiction between himself and Paul. But as surely as James acknowledged God as the omniscient who penetrates into all that is hidden from mortal vision, must he have known that true faitli and. the right state of heart which it involved must be manifest to God, before it could be discernible to man by its outward 20 THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. signs. But one thing is certain ; — the point of "view taken by these two Apostles, the direction of their contemplations, is not exactly the same. There is this great difference in their respective stand-points ; Paul fixes his attention principally on the objectively Divine, the ground of God's election, on Avhich the confidence of man must rest : James concerns himself with the subjectively human, with what man must do on his part, assuming those arrangements and acts on the part of the Divine Being which must form the basis of everything. A contradiction may indeed seem to exist between the two, when the one, as the mark of the stand-point of legal righteousness adopts the phrase, "Do this, and thou shalt live!" while the other, from his own peculiar stand-point, says, " A doer of the work — this man shall be blessed in his deed,"^ and we readily grant that Paid would not have so expressed himself But this contradiction vanishes if we take care to notice the different connexions in which these words are used. Paul speaks of the vo/joq as the summary of individual imperative prescriptions, and of man on the legal stand-point, antecedent to Christianity. James is speak- ing of the new law of life revealed by the Messiah, which he designates the t'oiJOQ reXeioQ in reference to its forming the consummation of Judaism, just as Christ in his sermon on the mount represents the gospel to be the fidfilling of the law. Viewing it in this connexion, he also calls it the " law of liberty," i. 25 ; doubtless from the fact, that those who truly receive it, render a free, loving obedience, issuing from an inward vital principle. He considers this law as equivalent to tlie Xoyoc, the published doctrine of Christ. By this doctrine the law becomes a law of freedom, and a perfect law, inas- much as in the words of Christ the law first finds its full significance, and from faith in Christ the free obedience of love is first rendered to it. Thus the Christian stand- point where the law becomes glorified appears as that of freedom and perfection, in contrast to the earlier stand- point of slavery and imperfection. Since, then, James thus agrees with Paul, although he would not liave made such ^ Paul, from the legal as opposed to the evangelical stand-point, says, 6 iroLTja-as aura. ^rjcreTai eV avTo7s. Janies, from hi,s own position says, 6 ttoi7]t^s cpyov ovtos fxanapios iv tt; iron]aei avTOv iarai. ON FAITH AND WORKS. 21 a contrast as the latter Apostle, between the gospel and the law, we are not justified in tracing modes of expression in James that resemble the Pauline, to the direct influence of Paul, but we must rather refer what both have ir^ common, to the Divine original fountain of the revelation of Christ, in whose words we can point out the connecting link. In refer- ence therefore to the lav/, as the law of Christ, James says what Paul himself must have granted, — that mere knowledge can profit nothing — that it is all-important that this doctrine should not be made an object of mere indolent contemplation, but should evince its power as a law regulating the life — that whoever exemplifies this doctrine in his life, will be blessed in his deed^ — that only he who regulates his life by Christianity can experience in life its blessed effects ; he alone will feel truly blessed in the influence proceeding from Christianity. In relation to moral requirements, James differed widely from the abettors of a Jewish legal righteousness, who laid more stress on a multiplicity of individual good works than on the regulation of the life by one governing principle ; for it is one of the characteristics of this Epistle, and closely connected with his ai-gument on faith, that he traces back belief, knowledge, and action, to the unity of the whole life proceeding from a Divine disposition, and opposes the isola- tion of all those tilings which can only maintain their true significance when comprehended in that unity. Thus he says, Whosoever imagines that the worship of God consists in certain single acts, deceives himself; it consists in the whole direction of a life devoted to God, in pre- serving oneself from contact with all ungodliness. He com- bats the superficial moral judgment, according to which a man believes that he may be excused for transgressing certain commands, if he only avoids certain sins. The law is a unity, and whoever violates it in only one point, is guilty of violating the whole. According to James, the fulfilling of the whole law consists in love ; ii. 8. Hence he particularly speaks ^ eV, in James i. 2o, ought by no means to be translated through. The icrrai implies, that James considered the blessedness not merely as something proceeding from the deed as an outward result, but as some- thing involved in the deed, a feeling that necessarily accompanied it ; ■we are led to think of the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. See Schneckenburgh's excellent remarks on this passage. 22 THE DOCTRINE OF JAMES. against those who were accustomed to consider an offence in words as a mere trifle, or who believed that they conld exercise genuine devotion towards God while they were in the habit of passing uncharitable judgments on their fellow-men. This is a contradiction ; good and evil cannot proceed from the same fountain ; it is of the first importance that language should be the organ of a disposition that regulates the whole life both in word and deed. And in reference to the theoretical part of religion, he says that true wisdom and true knowledge nmst show themselves in the general course of the life. He con- siders the whole Christian life as a work. That perseverance which consists in maintaining the faith under trials must have its perfect work, that is, must consist not merely in single good acts, but embrace the whole of life ; i. 4. Of practical Christianity, he says,- that the iroiriTtjg epyov is blessed in his TTLiTj/TiQ ; i. 25. Although Christianity presented itself to this apostle as the consummation of the law, yet he by no means adopted the Ebionitish notion, that Christ had only perfected the Mosaic law by the addition of certain moral prescriptions, such as are given in the Sermon on the Mount, so that he might be con- sidered simply as the Supreme lawgiver and teacher ; but he acknowledged as the peculiar distinction of Christianity, the im.partation of a new divine principle of life, which by its in- ternal operation produced the fulfilment of the law. He beheld in the Messiah the author of a new moral creation through the divine principle of life which he communicated ; he de- scribes the word of truth ^^ the instrument of regeneration, giving birth to a new creat>'^n ; i. 18. The word (he affirms) must penetrate the very depths of human nature, and by an in- ternal transforming power effect its deliverance from sin; i. 21. But he was very fiar from believing that the Christian could altogether come up to tlie requirements of the law of liberty, which seeks for a free obedience proceeding from love, and could thus be justified by his own course of life. He declares (including himself) that "in many things we all offend;" iii. 2. Every man, he says, must be penetrated by the con- viction, how much he stands in need of the divine mercy that he may be able to stand before the divine tribunal ; and ought to be impelled by this consideration to exercise mercy towai'ds others; ii. 13. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAUL AND JAMES. 23 After what has been said, it cannot be denied tliat there aro difFercnces between the two apostles, in the dogmatic ar"l ethical mode of their instructions ; but still it may be shown, that though the Christian spirit appears more fully developed and more perfectly formed in one scheme of doctrine than in the other, yet the same spirit pervades both. Paul, though ho considered good works as the necessary marks of the new spiritual creation, and the necessary fruits of an actual internal righteousness, would certainly not have expressed himself exactly in this manner, that a man is justified not by faith alone, but also by his works, — that faith and works must co- operate for his justification. He would not only have avoided saying this in reference to the legal works preceding the transformation of the life by faith, (in which James agrees with him,) but also in reference to the works produced by faith ; for he always considered the Triang alone as that by which a man becomes just before God, and the source from which all other good develops itself by an internal necessity ; and the life of believers proceeding from faith is alwaj's alloyed by a mixture of the odpt,, for which reason a justifying power cannot be attributed even to those works which are the fruits of faith. But since James, as w^e have remarked, acknow- ledges the continual defects of the Christian life and the need of forgiveness of sin even on the stand-point of the gospel — since he presupposes that the Christian can only obtain that mercy from God which he constantly needs, as long as he shows mercy to others — all material difference vanishes. Paul approaches nearer to James on another side, where he is less dogmatically exact, and is not led to employ the strong contrasts which are frequent in the controversial parts of his wi'itings, for even according to his own views, works neces- sarily belong to the Christian life as an expression of faith and of the diKuioffvrr] obtained by it, and faith must be verified by the whole course of life ; hence he asserts, on occasions when it was of importance to bring forward this truth, that every man will receive according to that he hath done in his earthly life, whether it be good or bad, 2 Cor. v. 10. Nor is it diffi- cult to deduce this mode of expression from the Pauline prin- ciples, and to show its perfect harmony with them. In the works which proceed from faith, the difference must be veri- fied between genuine and spmious faith, and the difference 24 THE NEW SPIRIT UNDER OLD FORMS, will gradually make itself known according to the degree in which faith has penetrated the life. Although in redemption, justification, and the impartation of a new divine life, by which man is first rendered capable of accomplishing good works, all is an act of grace, yet, according to Paul's doctrine, there is also a rewardable righteousness, and the bestowment of a reward, in proportion as men show themselves active Avhen the new creation has been effected, according as they make use of the grace bestowed upon them. And if such expressions, though strictly in accordance with the Pauline doctrine, were taken by themselves, they might be supposed to be contradic- toiy to it, like those of James, to which they have an affinity. Moreover, as James was altogether a Jew, but a Jew whose views were rendered complete b}^ faith in Jesus as the Messiah, it was his aim to lead his countiymen by the same way which he liad taken himself, from Judaism to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, though without departing from the national theo- cratic forms; hence he did not, like Paul, who laboured among the Gentiles that stood in no national relation to the law, represent Christ as the abolisher of the law, but as its ful- filler ; and this view was countenanced by Christ's own lan- guage in Matt. v. 17.^ The law hence became to him changed in its spirit ; from being imperfect, it became perfect ; from being a law of bondage, it became a law of liberty. But he received the new spirit under the old forms, similarly to many Catholics w^ho have attained to free evangelical convictions, and yet have not been able to disengage themselves from the old ecclesiastical forms ; or like Luther, when he had already attained to a knowledge of justification by faith, but before he was aware of the consequences flowing from it in opposition to the prevalent doctrines of the church. And thus James, though he acknowledged that the Gentiles by fiiith in Jehovah and the Messiah were entitled to the same theocratic pri- vileges as the Jews who observed the law, did not enforce on the believing Jews the non-observance of the law, Acts xv. 21. And what he says to Paul in Acts xxi. 21,^ implies that he would have thought it wrong to have led the Jews who were scattered among the heathen to forsake the observance of the ^ Vide Ncander s Life of Je.sus, (p. 94, Standard Library Edition.) 2 The believing Jews needed no new precepts ; tliey knew what they were bound to observe as Jews. Sec vol. i. p. 118. MODES OP ENFORCING VERACITY. 25 law. Now Paul was so ftir averse from this, that he allowed the Jews to remain Jews, as he allowed the Gentiles to retain everything in their national character and habits which did not contradict the Si)irit of the gospel : he himself d-id not repudiate his Jewish character and education, but celebrated the Jewish feasts with the Jews, when there was opportunity. But since he considered the religious obligation of the law in every respect as abolished, he must naturally have been less scrupulous in its outward observance, and must rather have felt himself bound to depart from it when required to do so by higher considerations, as soon as the observance of the law was in any way incompatible with the duties and claims of his vocation, as for example, when it obstructed his free inter- course with the heathen. Among the Gentiles he lived as one by birth a Gentile ; Barnabas and Peter did the same ; Gal. ii. 14.' James would not have so easily agreed to this, nor indeed was such expansion of sentiment required for his peculiar sphere of labour, since his adherence to the observ- ance of the law rather promoted his success among his country- men, to whom his ministry was confined. With the difference in the doctrinal scheme of the two apostles, their manner of enforcing the duty of veracity is also connected. James repeats the command of Christ to the letter, as it was originally given, yet showing at the same time, that he coiTCctly understood its sense and spirit. Among Christians, no oath ought to be required for a confirmation of- what they asserted, their love of truth and mutual confidence ought to be so great, that their Yea and Nay should be a sufficient pledge. It was their duty to guard from the first against the guilt of falsehood or perjury ; James v. 12. Paid does not mention Christ's command in this verbal form, but only enjoins, in reference to the disposition, that Christians should speak truth to one another, as being members one of another ; and because language was intended for the very purpose of maintaining and exhibiting the spiritual commu- ^ Perhaps the partisans of James, mentioned in Gal. ii. 12, went down to Antioch for the purpose of examining whether the Jews who lived among the Gentiles, allowed themselves to be led into violations of the law, which they were not justified in doing by the resolutions of the apostolic convention ; but it does not follow from this, that they were acting by the command, or even in accordance with the wish of James. 26 GOD NOT THE AUTHOR OP SIX. nion, in which, as members of^the same body, they must stand to one another. From this it was easy to deduce the obhgation which they were under on this point towards society at large, since all men as rational beings, created for the realization of the kingdom of God, might be considered members one of another, and language was in like manner designed for the maintenance and exhibition of this more general relation ; Ephes. iv. 25. And he had confessedly no scruple, when sufficient confidence was not felt towards him by all the persons concerned, and where it was of special importance to obtain undoubting confidence in his assertions, to make use of a form of asseveration which would be deemed equivalent to an oath. As the ethical element predominates in the Epistle of James, so an anxiety for the exclusion of every appearance of charging the causation of sin upon God is very conspicuous, and an emphatic maintenance of the freedom of the will, whose self-determination is the necessary condition of all the operations of divine grace. Let no one excuse himself (is the apostle's doctrine) for yielding to evil, on the plea that he could not withstand its enticements, — that a higher power, a fatality, a divine predestination hurried him into sin. Far be it from God to tempt any man to evil. As no evil can affect Him, the holy and blessed One, so he tempts no one to evil ; but it is the indwelling sinful desire of every man by which he is seduced to evil. This also makes an opening for the temptations of Satan, yet even by his power no one can be forced to sin aguinst his will ; iv. 7. Thus the ground is taken away from every man for throwing off the blame of his sins by pleading the temptations proceeding either from God or Satan ; since to the believer the ability is given, by his own higher moral nature (the image of God in his soul), and the guidance of the Divine Spirit, to withstand his sinful desires and the temptations of Satan ; it must be his own gTiilt if he yield and allow himself to be earned away to the commission of sin. He has only to subordinate his own will to the will of God, and in communion with God to withstand the evil spirit, who will then flee from him ; all temptation to evil will fail before a will that is in real earnest and devoted to God. Only let a man surrender himself to God by a steady determination of his will, and God's HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 27 aid will not bo wanting; i. 13 — 16 ; iv. 7, 8. James, liko Paul, presupposes 'two principles of action in the believer — the image of God restored through Christ, and the sinful desire which still cleaves to the soul, and renders it accessible to temptations from without. When he says that the desire bringeth forth sin, (i. 15,) it is not meant, that the desire itself is something purely natural, or morally indifferent, but it is rather presupposed that the element in human nature, ac- cording to its actual condition, which, when a man does not withstand, but surrenders himself to it, gives birth to the sinful act, is in itself something sinful. But James limits himself, for the most part, to the outward manifestations of the moral life ; he does not, like Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, go to the root of the opposition between good and evil in the depths of the human heart ; yet he forms, even on this side, an important link in the complete develop- ment of Christian doctrine. The manner in which he expresses himself respecting the free determination of the will in rela- tion to a divine causation in evil and good, furnishes us with an important supplement to Paul's doctrinal method, where, (as in discussing the doctrine of election, predestination, and the unconditionality of the divine decrees,) owing to his pecu- liar character, and his practical or argumentative object, only one side of Christian truth is brought forward, and other aspects of it are put in the background. Hence, if we wish to form a doctrinal system from such single passages, not taken in connexion with the analogy of the whole New Testament doctrine, errors must arise, which we shall learn to avoid, by comparing the degrees of development and peculiar schemes of doctrine belonging to the several apostles which serve mutually to complete one another»l ' In reference to all the topics discussed in this chapter, I wish to direct the attention of my readers to an essay by Dr. Charles From- mann. now pastor of the Lutheran church at St. Petersburgh, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, part 1. It will be clear to ihe attentive reader, that in the representation given above, I have viewed the sub- ject, not from the stand-point of a contracted dogmatism which would adjust all contradictions, but from that stand -point which unpre- judiced historical investigation and genetic development enable me to occupy. But I cannot hope to secure myself against the suspicions of the prejudiced, who, of all persons, deem themselves the most free from prejudice. 28 CHARACTER OF JOIIX'S THEOLOGY. CHAPTER IV. THE DOCTRINE OF JOHX. This apostle, compared with Paul, has one point in common with James, that, by his peculiar mental development, he was not adapted and disposed to that intellectual cast of thought which distinguished the dialectic Paul. But if in James the practical element predominated, in John w^e find the intuitive, though deeply imbued with the practical ; he pre- sents contemplative views of the fundamental relations of the spiritual life, rather than trains of thought, in which, as in Paul's writings, distinctions and contrasts are made with logical precision and minuteness. In reference also to the peculiar development of his Christian life, he had not been led like Paul to faith in the Redeemer through severe con- flicts and opposition, nor like him at last attained peace after a violent crisis. He resembled James in having reached his Christian stand-point through a course of quiet develop- ment, but differed from him in this respect, that his higher life had not been first moulded to a peculiar form in Judaism— and that he had not from such a stand-point been gradually brought to faith in Christ, and at the same time had modified his conceptions of Christianity by his former views ; but from the first, the whole development of his higher life had pro- ceeded fi'om the personal observation of Christ and intercourse with him. As the consciousness of his own moral disunion was elicited by the contemplation of a perfect divinely-human life, in which the archetype of man was realized before his eyes, so by continuing to live in communion w^ith this model of perfection, he gained power to overcome that disunion. Hence everything in his view turned on one simple contrast ; — divine life in communion with the Redeemer, — death in estrangement from him. And as the whole of his piety was tlie result of his personal experience and contemplation of the Redeemer, all his views of religion were gTounded on the life of Jesus, and might be considered as so many reflections of it. It was this which gave them a vital unity, so that it was hardly possible to distinguish them into the practical and THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN. 29 theoretical. This is shown in those pregnant words by which his style is marked, — Life, Light, and Truth ; and their opposites — Death, Darkness, and a Lie. As in communion with God, the original fountain of life, which can be obtained only through his self-revelation in the Logos, the spirit of man finds its true life, — as w^hen in this true life, the con- sciousness of the spirit develops itself, the life becomes the light of the spirit, and the spirit lives in the truth as its vital principle ; so by the separation of the spirit from its original, by the disjunction of the knowledge of man's self and of the world, from the knowledge of God, death, miseiy, darkness and falsehood are the result. The human spirit created after the image of the divine Logos, must be enlightened by communion wdth this divine fountain of life ; a life in God, divine life as the true life of the spirit, is naturally accompanied by the i-rue light of knowledge. But since man by the direction of his will has turned himself to the undivine, he has in so doing estranged himself from the som'ce of his true light and life, and is no longer in a state susceptible of its reception. The divine Logos never ceases, indeed, to manifest himself to the souls of men, as Paul declares, that in God they live and move and are ; his light shines in the darkness of the human race, who have turned away from God ; and from its illumination emanated all the goodness and truth that preceded the personal appearance of the Logos ; but this revelation was opposed by an impenetrable intensity of darkness.^ Hence ^ I cannot entirely agree -with the interpretation proposed by Frommann, in his excellent work on the doctrinal views of John ; liCipzig, 1839, p. 249 ; — that John, in the first clause of i. 5, depicts the relation of human nature in its original state to the revelation of the divine Logos, and that, in the second part of this verse, koL t) aKoria, he speaks of that relation since the Fall. According to this, the crKOTia in the first clause, to use the language of the schoolmen, would describe the state of man on the stand-point of 2>ura naturalia as ivformis negative, and from the revelation of the Logos the gratia informans must proceed, which man required for the perfection of his spiritual nature. But in John, we never find the representation of such a mere negative relation of the human spirit to the Logos, as existing apart from communion with him, and possessing a susceptibility not yet sati>fied. "Darkness" always denotes, in his phraseology, an actual opposition against the divine light of the Logos, a predominance of the undivine. It is contrary to the style of his conceptions, that he should suppose the spirit of man, formed after the image of the Logos^ to be 30 THE DOCTRINE OF JOHN. the Logos himself must break through the separating hmits — bring himself nigh to man estranged from God — reveal and communicate himself as the divine fountain of life in the form of an assumed humanit}^, a visible human life serving as a medium for the manifestation of the divine hfe wliich is in him, and for bringing men to a paii-icipation of it. John i. 7 — 14. Satan appeal's as the summit and representative of this self-seeking tendency dissevered from connexion with God, and hence given over to darkness and falsehood ; John viii. 44. He stands not in the truth ; ^ with the dis- in its original state otlierwi:=e than in communion with that divine Bource of life and light. Verse 4 relates to what the Logos was or ought to be, according to his essential nature, to mankind; and in verse 5, John passes on to the state of mankind estranged from God hy the misdirection of their Avill. ^ Frommann maintains, in his work before quoted, p. 832, that Satan, according to John's views, is no other than " the seductive spirit of the world conceived of in concrete personality ; " the priDci})le of evil in the world hypostasized ; and that the idea of a fallen Intelligence is altogether foreign to this apostle. But if this were so, we must ex- plain his language in one of three ways. Either he intentionally chose the form of such a personification; or the prevalent religious conceptions, which had proceeded from an incorporation of the idea of evil, Ijad taken possession of his mind without his making it a subject of special reflection (which is Scheiermacher's view) ; or he really considered Satan as an absolutely evil being who had existed from eternity. There appears nothing to favour the first supposition ; with respect to the second, this doctrine is so closely interwoven with the whole system of John's theology, that we cannot help believing that he had been com- pelled to reflect on the meaning of this representation, and to form a definite idea respecting the nature of Satan and his relation to God. But the admission of an absolute Dualism is utterly irreconcilable with John's theism. There remains then no other alternative but the supposition that he considered Satan as the Intelligence who first apostatized from God. The passage in John viii. 44 contains nothing contradictory to it. The persons whom Christ there declares to resemble Satan in their dispositions, he could not intend to describe as absolutely evil by nature, but as those who, by the repeated suppression of their nature derived from God, had attained this unsusceptibility for truth and goodness, this habitual perverseness. Frommann pays, p. 335, that the fall of a good angel presupposes an original evil principle operating upon him, and that, in order to explain the existence of Satan, we are again driven to the assumption of another Satan. But this objection is obviated by Avhat we have before remarked respecting the necessary inexplicalility of the origin of sin, founded in the very idea of evil. We must again maintain what we have asserted against all attempts to find an absolute Dualism in John. The doctrine of a fallen spirit from whom all evil proceeds, we are justified in presuming MAX ESTRANGED FROM GOD. 31 position that has become a second nature, he can find in tlie truth not a sinL>-le point on which to rest, because there is no truth in him. Owing to his predominant tendency to false- liood he wants the organ requisite to admit and to appropriate the revelation of truth. Where a created spirit yields itself wholly and purely to the revealed God, or the Logos, there is truth. Wherever he dissevers himself from this connexion, and lives, thinks, and acts in this state of selfish separation, there is falsehood. As the truth, according to John, proceeds from the tendency of the whole life towards God, the true and the good are in his view one, as on the other hand, sin and falsehood. When the spirit withdraws itself from the revelation of eternal truth, and suppresses its original consciousness of truth, self- deception follows, and the deception of others. Hence Satan is represented as a liar, and the flither of lies. And thus the universal contrast is formed. Those who are in a state of vital communion with God, who have received a divine life, are born of God, and hence are called the children of God ; and those who live in communion with that spirit from Avhom at first proceeded all the tendencies of sin and false- hood, or who are of the world, belong to the world ; under- standing by the world not the objective world as such, the creation of God, which, as founded in the Logos and as a revelation of God, is in itself something good, but the world in a subjective reference as far as the heart of man is fixed upon it, and is separated from its relation to God, so that the world is treated as a supreme object of regard, while the knowledge of God is entirely lost sight of Since, according to John, participation in the divine life depends entirely on faith in the Redeemer, this forms a new- era of development in opposition to the former prevailing principle, and that state of estrangement from God, and of moral corruption from which believers are extricated. Though we find in John no such ample representation of human nature to be the onlj'- one by which the idea of a Satan can harmonize Avith the strictly theistical conception Avhich evidently lies at the basis of John's theology, if nothin'x can be proved contradictory to this supposition, as certainly nothing of this kind can be proved in it. But such a Dualism as is founded in Hcmclcon's ideaof Sa'nn, we cannot presuppose Avithout hesitation in that of John, but it will be necessary to produce distinct expressions which afford positive evidence of such a conception. 32 EECEPTIVITY FOR REDEMPTIOX. in its estrangement from God, as is delineated in Paul's Avritings, (wliicli may be explained from the peculiarity of his doctrinal method, and the peculiar style of his writings,) still it may be easily perceived that his views were essentially the same, and in perfect harmony with the essence of Chris- tianity. We find here the same contrast between what human nature is, and is able to produce in the state of estrangement from God, and that higher stand-point to which it is raised by the transforming influence of a divine principle of life communicated to it, or, in other words, the rrapKiKoy and the irvevjiariKuv. When John, in the introduc- tion to his Gospel (i. 12), describes the children of God as those who owed this distinction, not to their descent from any particular race of men, and in general not to anything which lies within the compass of human nature ; — when Christ says to JSTicodemus, that what is born of the flesh is flesh ; — such language is, in the first place, oi^posed to the Jewish notion that outward descent from the theocratic nation gave an indisputable right to participation in the kingdom of God and in the dignity of his children ; but this particular application is deduced from a truth expressed in the most general terms, namely, the general position, that the natural man by his disposition is estranged from the kingdom of God, and must receive a new divine life, in order to become a member of it. Hence in John, as well as in Paul, the same conditions and prej)arations are required for partaking in the blessing Christ is ready to bestow on man- kind, the consciousness of bondage in the God-related nature of man, — the consciousness of personal sinfulness — a sense of the need of help and redemption, a longing after a new divine life, which alone can satisfy all the wants of the higher nature of man. We may here adduce the allusion to the brazen serpent (iii. 14), where the Jews, who in believing confidence expected by looking at it to be healed of their wounds, represent those who, under a sense of the destruction that threatens them from their sj^iritual maladies, look to the Redeemer with confidence for spiritual healing ; and all those parables in John's Gospel, in which Christ speaks of thirst for that water of life, and hunger for that bread of life, which he is willing to bestow. Accordingly John, in his first Epistle, says that whoever believes himself to be free from sin, is RECEPTIVITY FOR REDEMrTION. 33 destitute of iipriglitness, and deceives himself; that such a man makes God a har, since he acts as if all ^vhich the earlier divine revelations have asserted respecting human sinfulness, and which is implied in God's sending a Itedeemer to the human race, were false ; 1 John i. 9. But in order that men may attain to faith in the Redeemer, and avail themselves of his aid, the outward revelation of the divine, with all the attestations that accompanied it in the external world, are not sufficient. Without the inward sense for the divine which is outwardly manifested in the person of the Saviour, they can give it no admission into their hearts. The outward power of the divine can exert no compulsive influence, bnt requires the mind to be already in a susceptible state, in order to produce its right effect. Without this, all external revelations and appeals are in vain ; the unsuscep- tible "have eyes but they see not ;" Johnxii. 40. Hence the attainment of faith depends on a preparative operation of the Holy Spirit on men s minds, by which a seuee of the divine is awakened within them, and a consciousness of their higher wants. Thus a susceptibility for what will give real satisfac- tion is developed, so that faith naturally results from the conjunction of this inward susceptibility with the external divine revelation. To this Christ refers when he says to the Jews, (to whom, on account of the enthralment of their minds in earthly things, his words were necessarily unintelhgible and strange,) in order to draw their attention to the grounds of their being offended with him (John vi. 44, 45), that they could not believe, that they could not come to him, that is, attain to ftiith in him, owing to this tendency of their dis- position.^ No one (he declared) could come unto him who was not drawn to him by the Father who sent him ; who had not heard the awakening voice of the heavenly Father in his inmost soul, and followed it. These words have indeed been misunderstood by the advocates of the Augustinian system, as if a divine excitement, independent of all human self- determination, were intended as producing that susceptibility for the divine ; but this would be to impose a sense foreign ^ In contrast to their Ijodily corain,!^ to him, -n-hich was only on account of their bodily necessities, for which they thus sought to obtain relief, the true spiritual coming to him must proceed from a feeling of their real spiritual necessities. voj.. II. D 34 RECEPTIVITY FOR REDEMPTION. to tlie connexion and the design of the discourse ; and greater importance has been attached to a single metaphorical ex- pression than it can have in such a connexion. Certainly the divine impulse must be here contrasted with what is merely sensible and human; and the figurative expressions denote the power with which the divine impulse, when it is once felt, operates on the soul, — the power with which the divine manifests itself to the self-consciousness; but it is by no means said that this divine impulse of an operation of God to arouse the suppressed knowledge of God acts alone, and that man, by his free self-determination, does nothing to promote it. This supposition would be inconsistent with the design of all the passages of this kind, since, taken in their connexion, the vrords are intended to awake men to a sense of their criminal unsusceptibility as the cause of their unbelief. It would also contradict John's declaration of the condemnation that accomj^anied the appearance of the Redeemer and the publication of the gospel ; for this con- demnation implies the fact, that in the different reception given by men to the gospel, their different susceptibility or unsusceptibility for believing is manifested, and thus the difference of their entire disposition and character. According to the doctrinal views of John, a twofold mean- ing is attached to the phrases, elvai ek deov, and elvat U tyiq uXrjdeiag. They either indicate, in the highest sense of the words, the inspiration first proceeding fi'om faith through the divine spirit of life, which is the spirit of truth ; or in a subordinate sense, the general connexion of the human mind with God, the capacity for the true and the divine, that inward susceptibility founded on the developed knowledge of God, which is the preparative for faith. In reference to the latter it is said, in John viii. 47, " He that is of God, heareth God's words;" and xviii. 37, "Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." Hence, though John presents in diametric opposition the idea of the natural man estranged from God, and the man who is born of God, jet according to his doctrine, various steps and transitions must be admitted between the first stand-point and the second, according as the original knowledge of truth and of God which has been suppressed by the sinful bias of the will, more or less prevents men from hearing the voice of God, and following THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS. 35 the di'awings of their heavenly Father.' The shimbering sense of God may indeed be awakened by the immediate impression of the glory manifested in the appearance of Christ ; but it may also happen that a man, by following the drawing of his heavenly Father antecedent to the revela- tion of Christ, uprightly strives after the divine and the good, and such a one is led through the divine to the divine. The confused partial revelation of God which had hitherto illuminated the darkness of his soul, and conducted him in life, leads him to the revelation of the divine original in human form, and he rejoices actually to behold the archetype in its effulgence which had hitherto shone upon him W'ith only a dim and distant lustre; John iii. 21. With respect to John's idea of the work of redemption, that appears most prominent w^hich he had received from, the immediate observation of the life of Christ, and its im- mediate impression on his religious self-consciousness. The life of Christ as the humanization of the divine, of which the design was to give a divine elevation to man, is the self- revelation of the divine Logos (as the revealing principle for the mysterious essence of God) in the form of humanity, appropriated by him in order to communicate divine life to human nature, and to transform it into a revelation of the divine Hfe. John's remarkable words, "The Logos became man, and we have beheld his glory as it was revealed in humanity," describe the nature of Christ's appearance, and what mankind are to become through him who is the central point of Christian faith and life. The same sentiments are expressed in his first epistle, " We announce to you as eye- witnesses, the manifestation of the eternal fountain of life, which was with the Father, in order that you may enter into fellowship with it." He states as the essential marks of this manifestation of the divine glory in human form, that he appeared full of grace and truth; grace, which means the communicative love of God, God as love; and truth, ac- cording to John's conceptions of it, as we have already remarked, is not anything speculative and abstract, but proceeds from the life, and embraces the whole unity of the hfe, and hence is one with goodness and holiness. Truth is ^ The darkness Avliich cannot admit the divine ligiit that shines upon it. 3G THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS, ihe essential predicate of the inward unity of the divine life ; and Christ (in John's Gospel) calls himself the truth and the life. Hence, the ideas of love and holiness are the two divine attributes which (as far as it is possible to reduce John's pregnant words to precise intellectual notions) will most nearly express what he represents as the characteristic of the glory of God revealed in the life of Christ, and agree wdth his using love and holiness in his first epistle as designa- tions of the divine being. ^ God has been glorified in Christ (John xiii. 32), in him as the Son of Man, by whom the archetype of humanity is realized ; — that is, he has exhibited in human nature the glory of God, the perfect image of God as holy love. As man was created in the image of God, and was destined to glorify God, that is, to manifest him in his glory with self- consciousness — this is now fulfilled by the Son of God in human form. The practical revelation of the heavenly Father in the obscure subjective consciousness of man, and his perfect revelation in the appearance of the Son, are mutually related ; the former was a preparation for the latter ; and the latter reflects fresh illumination on the former. As whoever understands that revelation of God which pierces through the thick darkness of the soul, must be attracted by the perfect revelation of the same God in his Son, it follows, that whoever knows the Father must necessarily recognise the Father in the Son, — while the not recognising, or the denying of the Son, is a proof that a man knows not the Father, and is estranged from him. The image of the Father is perfectly exhibited in the Son, in his holy love to man, and in him also w^as first revealed in a comprehensible manner what a being that God is, whose holy personality man was created to represent." Through him God closes up the chasm that separated him from the human race, and im- ^ John does not make use of the second term precisely, but it is im- plied in -what he says; for when he affirms in 1 John i. 5, "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all," as darkness is a designation of sin, — light, by contrast, is expressive of holiness. - After Christ had said (John vi. 45) that all must he led to him by the voice of his Father speaking in their hearts, he guards against a misapprehension, as if this was in itself a complete knowledge of the Father. This only the Son possesses, and he alone can reveal it. The former must be therefore something preparative, a way -mark to more perfect knowledge. THE INCARNATION OP THE LOGOS. 37 parts himself to them in the communion of a divine life; and by that life it is taught that all living knowledge of God can only proceed from life; and thus the apostle was justified in saying, "Whoever hath not the Son, hath not the Father also." The Son is a perfect personality in humanity, in which the eternal personality of God is imaged. Thus by the drawing of the Father man is brought to the Son, and through the manifestation of the Son he is led to the Father. Along with the Son man loves the Father, and with the Father he loves the Son. This is a position which appears with increasing luminousness in the historical development of mankind, and to it history is constantly giving a clearer commentary. John contemplates the whole life of Christ from the beginning as a revelation of the glory of the divine Logos, as in short a connected revelation of God ; and hence the divine in reference to Christ must never be viewed as something isolated and extraneous. His miracles also, as marks of a divine power controlling nature, as witnesses to the pre- sence of such a power, are not explicable from natural causes in the phenomenal world ; they cannot be regarded as isolated or superadded from without, as a new order of facts differing in their essential qualities from the other works of Christ. Only as far as the glory of God which originally dwelt within him, which at the beginning of his public ministry as the Messiah was entirely veiled under the ordinary forms of human life — from that epoch came forth on particular occasions from its concealment, and manifested itself in such results in the world of the senses by which even carnal men might be roused to perceive the presence of the divine — only in reference to this beginning of a new epoch in his ministry for the revelation of the glory of God among mankind, John distinguishes the beginning of the miracles of Christ (ii. 11) as the beginning of the revelation of his glory. When he tells us, that the Baptist saw the Spirit of God descending on the Redeemer, by which he was distinguished as the person- age who would baptize with the Holy Spirit, he certainly did not mean to intimate that Christ, according to the common Jewish and Judaizing-Christian view, was then first furnished with the fulness of divine power for his Messianic calling ; — for John's mode of contemplating his character is most 38 THE MIRACLES OP CHRIST. decidedly opposed to such a representation. According to his own conceptions, since Christ was no other than the incarnate Logos, all that "was divine in former revelations became concentrated in him ; hence, single transitory impulses and revelations of the Divine Spirit could not be attributed to him ; but the Holy Spirit, which illuminated and inspired former prophets partially and occasionally, dwelt in him from the beginning in its totality, and operated by him from this time in those extraordinary signs which were perceptible to common men. It was precisely for this reason, that the Son possessed his divine life, not as something communicated from without, but dwelling in his very being, and essential to it, that the divine fountain of hfe itself was manifested in him, that he alone could communicate divine life to others, John V. 26; and the baptism of the Holy Spirit which he administers, *is no other than the immersion of human nature in the divine life communicated by him, so that it becomes completely imbued with it ; John vii. 39. But as the miracles of Christ appear sometimes in relation to the inward essence of his appearance, to the fo'i'a w^hich proceeded h'om the indwelling of the Logos as simply belong- ing to his uatm-e ; so, on the other hand, they are the marks or signs of the revelation of this indwelling, glory for carnal men, in order to lead them from his appearance in the sensible world to the divine, to excite their susceptibility for the total impression and display of the divine dota revealed in the Son of Man. In this sense, Christ said to Nathaniel, whose faith was founded on these outw^ard signs, " Thou shalt see greater things than these ; from this time thou shalt see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." Greater than all the signs and w^onders which attended or followed it was his advent itself ; for by it the chasm between heaven and earth was closed, it became the bond of communion between both, the medium by which the fulness of the divine power was poured forth on mankind, and in comparison with which the total assemblage of divine com- munications to the human race, all earlier Angelophanies and Theophanies wxre only as so many single rays of the Deity. We thus ascertain the gradations in the use of the term faith by John; he understands by it, either the acknowledg- ment of a higher power proceeding from impressions made on THE SUFFERINGS OF CIIIIIST. 39 tlio senses, from the impression of extraordinary lEiicts in the sensible world, as in ii. 23 ; or the possession of the heart by an immediate spiritual impression of the divine in the life and words of Christ, as was exhibited in Peter's confession; vi. 68. Though John presents, wdth peculiar earnestness, the self- revelation and self-impartation of Christ as the incarnate Logos through the whole of his earthly life for an object of believing appropriation, yet it is evident from various intima- tions, that he attributes the same importance as Paul to the sufferings of Christ in the work of redemption. As far as Christ in his sufferings manifested the love of God to the fallen race of man, and carried the moral ideal of his life through a series of conflicts to its triumphant conclusion — and with self-denying labour completed the work which his heavenly Father had commissioned him to fulfil — the Saviour affirms in reference to these his impending sufferings, that he had, in determination of will, already fulfilled them, xiii. 31 ; that now was the Son of Man glorified, and God was glorified in him. He speaks of his sufferings as the completion of his life devoted to God as a sacrifice, xvii. 19; that he thus devoted himself to God, or presented himself as a sacrifice, for his disciples, that they might be devoted or consecrated in the truth. The realization of the ideal of holiness in Christ's life and sufferings, is here represented as the ground of the sanctification of the human race. Had he not himself realized this ideal, he could not have furnished this principle of sancti- fication for all mankind, which they as individuals receive only by entering int9 communion with him, and by appro- priating the truth which he announced. In John's writings, as in Paul's, we find the idea of Christ's bearing the punish- ment of sin for mankind, and the reconciliation of mankind with God through him, though this idea is not so expressly developed, and though greater prominence is given to the idea of Christ as the dispenser of divine life, and the foundei; of a communion in that life. Thus John the Baptist compares him, as innocent and full of heavenly mildness and patience under sufferings, to a Lamb, on whom the punishment of sin and the guilt of mankind are (as it were) laid and thus carried away;' and the apostle himself designates him in his first ^ We have not entered into the controversy respecting the sense in ■which the Baptist originally used these words, since it id here only 40 N^ECESSITY OP CHRIST's DEATH. epistle, the siu-ofFering, the [Xaff/jioQ for sin. And when Christ had been declaring that divine life would be attained only in communion with him, that as the bread of heaven he was the same for the spiritual life of man which material bread is for the bodily life, he added (vi. 51), that the bread' was his body,^ which he ivould give for the life of the world ; he then repeats the same idea though under a different form, and describes how he must be received in his whole nature, divine and human. We are therefore led to believe, that between these two views, of which one relates in general to the whole being of Christ, and the other to his offering ujj himself for the salvation of men, an internal connexion must exist. The communication of divine life by the Redeemer, — all that his divine life could effect for mankind, depended on this, that as he himself had glorified the Father on earth, he would be exalted in that human nature in which he had so glorified him, above the limits of earthly existence to the fellowship of his Father's glory; that he might from that time, by an invisible spiritual agenc}^ complete among men the work of which he had laid the foundation during his earthly sojourn, that he might now glorify him through the development of the divine life, and the victorious progress of the kingdom of God on earth. Christ himself points out this necessary connexion in that passage of John's Gospel, where he compares his life on earth to a grain of corn which must first be dissolved, and lose its peculiar form, in order that it may not abide alone, but bring forth much fruit. The divine life remained hidden in himself as his own exclusive possession during his sensible presence on earth. There was indeed a natural reason for this, that the apostles, as long as they saw Christ sensibly present among them, and enjoyed on all occa- sions his personal guidance, were dependent on his outwai-d superintendence ; they could not raise themselves above his human personality to the higher point of view of him as the Son of God, to an independent spiritual communion with him of importance to determine the ideas of the apostle John on the subject. ^ This is not exactly the same as his calling himself, in his whole being and appearance, the Bread of Life. 2 To justify this interpretation, 1 refer to Liicke's commentary on these words. THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST's GLORIFICATION. 41 apart from his bodily presence and agency, and therefore had not attained to the independent maturity of the spiritual life which proceeded from the Redeemer. Under these circum- stances, the disciples could not have been fitted for a partici- pation of the Redeemer's life, if his sensible presence had not first been withdrawn. But this negative, the removal of this hindi'ance to the higher influence of Christ on the disciples, would not alone have been sufiicient, if the advent of a new positive power had not also been connected with it. His ascension to heaven was only a necessary preparation, in order to make the disciples susceptible of the divine influences of the glorified Redeemer. In the firm consciousness that he would be able to operate with such power on mankind, Christ said, (John xii. 32,) that when he should be lifted up from the earth, he would draw all men unto him. In reference to this connexion of events, John contemplates the communi- cation of the divine principle of life which would be made by Christ to believers, and imbue the character of each indivi- dual, as well as the life of the collective body, which would bring the Christian life to its full vigour and maturity, the 7rvevfj.a ayior — as a result of the glorification of Christ, which would not take place till that was realized. ' Whatever is required on the part of men for the appro- priation of what Christ efiected as the Redeemer of mankind, John includes in faith. This is that one w^ork which God ' With respect to the question, — in -what sense the words in .Tolm vii. 38 were originally spoken by Christ, they relate not to one definite future transaction, but, as John iv. 14, to a perfectly general position, that faith in him would be for any individual a fountain of divine life, which was represented under the image of living water. But John was justified in saying, that what Christ here spoke could not be fulfilled at that time, since the consciousness of a divine life received from Christ was not yet developed in believers, but would take place at the effusion of the Holy Spirit, which would produce that consciousness ; his language is therefore, in this respect, somewhat prophetic. The New Testament ideas of ^o;?) alduios, and of irvevij.a ayiov, are closely connected ; they are related to each other as effect and cause. Though with faith in Christ the impartation of a divine life was granted to believers potentially and in principle, yet the effect was first manifested after the efifusion of the Holy Spirit. From that era, the divine life resulting from the partici- pation of the Divine Spirit which believers received, streamed forth on mankind, and subsequent history furnishes the correct interpretation to these words of Christ, and verifies their truth. John, therefore, gives an historical commentary rather than a simple verbal explanation. 42 RELATION OF CHRIST'S PRECEPTS TO FAITH. requires, John vii. 29, in contradistinction from the TroXXa fpya of Jewish legal holiness; and from this one internal work, this one act of self-determination, everything will spon- taneously follow which is requisite for the sanctilication of man. But he distinguishes, as we have already remarked, the faith that proceeded from the predominance of a sensuous element, the faith of authority, (wliich as it arose more from an impression on the senses than on the mind, easily gave place to other sensuous impressions, and vanished,) from the faith which, as it proceeds from the inner life, the deeply felt need of a redemption from sin, or from an impression of the divine on the very depths of the heart, produced a permanent effect, the ixereiv {.V T(3 Xoyo) ruv Oeov, e^ftv rou Xoyov fxivovra \v kavTU). This faith (as in Paul) is a direction and acting of the disposition, by which a man smTenders himself wholly to him whom he acknowledges as his Redeemer, and enters into communion with him. By this faith, entrance is made into communion with the Redeemer, and at the same time a participation obtained in his divine life. Whoever believes on him has everlasting life, has passed over fi'om death unto life, is regenerated by the Divine Spu'it, by whom, instead of the former predominant principle of sin, his mind is now controlled, he is awakened to a divine life, and has become a child of God. Hence his life is now developed according to a new form and a new law. What John asserts respecting the relation of Christ's pre- cepts to faith, readily harmonizes with the Pauhne view of the relation of the law to faith. He speaks, it is true, of the commands of the Lord in the plui-al number, but they are all traced back to that one which is the characteristic of the Kaivri ItaQiiKri, the command of brotherly love; and the novelty of this command compared with the commands of the old law, is shown in its enjoining on believers to love as Christ loved, as he gave his life for the salvation of men, to exercise a self-sacrificing brotherly love according to his example. From this reference to the Saviour, it is evident that such commands cannot be intended as are prescribed from without, in addition to believing, but only those which are spontaneously developed from the divine life, which accompany faith, as obligations necessarily involved in it, requirements of the law of the inward life, so many distinct PATTH OVERCOMING THE WORLD. 43 traits ill which the image of the life of Christ exhibits itself to believers. This new command presupposes faith in the redeeming- self-sacrificing love of Christ, and from the know- ledge of this love the impulse is awakened to exercise similar love towards the brethren ; 1 John iii. 16 ; iv. 10 — 19. John says, (1 Ep. v. 3.) that the commands of Christ are not difficult, though they exhibit an ideal of holiness ; but he affirms this, not on account of their contents, but on account of their peculiar relation to faith, and to the inward life of believers; because these commands do not as a mere dead letter oppose the principle of sin which rules in the hearts of men, but presuppose the life-giving spirit of love which develops itself from faith, since both the inward impulse and the power to fulfil them proceed from communion with the Kedeemer, the new divine principle of life. John himself adduces as a proof that these commands are not difficult, this fiict, that what is born of God receives power to over- come all that is undivine, that faith in Jesus as the Son of God has the power of overcoming the world, that in this faith is already placed the victory over the world and all that is undivine ; 1 John v. 4 ; even as Paul declares that a man with this faith is already practically dead to the world. Christ, in the Gospel of John (xvi. 33), requires those who believe on him to confide in his having overcome the world (the whole power of evil) — to be assured that through him it had been brought to nothing; believers, accordingly, by virtue of their fellowship with him, share in this victory, they need no longer to dread the power of that enemy, and hence John could term faith itself " the victory that overcometh the world." But w^hoever keeps not Christ's commands proves by his conduct that he is destitute of that divine .life and communion with Christ, and therefore cannot in a true sense believe on him. Whoever lives in sin, and pretends to believe in Christ and to knovv^ him, is in fact very far from knowing him or believing on him. According to John's conceptions, it is impossible to separate either faith or know- ledge from the life. Whoever knows Christ can know Him only as the Holy Oiie who appeared to destroy the kingdom of evil among mankind, and to take away sin. And whoever has known him and believed in him as such, whoever has received the image of such a Christ into his inward life, can no longer live in the service of sin. 44 FAITH OP THE CAENAL JEWS. Very different from this faith in the real historical Christ, was the superstitious belief in that phantom which men formed of a Messiah in conformity with their own evil in- clinations. An example of the latter kind of faith is mentioned by John in his Gospel, ii. 23, where he says that many believed in Jesus as the Messiah, on account of the muacles which they saw him perform. But since they were not actuated by the feeling of a higher necessity, nor sought and saw in Him a Saviour from sin — since they were not susceptible of the spiritual impression of the divine, but were only touched by an impression on the senses, only such an image of the Messiah could be formed in their minds as coiTcsponded to a desire that was composed of carnal elements. Hence their faith, or rather their superstition, when its carnal expectations were disappointed, was soon succeeded by unbelief Hence Christ would not surrender himself to the enthusiasm with which they professed attach- ment to him, for by his penetrating glance into the secret state of their hearts, he knew that they were still far from that faith which would be capable of fellowship with himself To such a faith, which would require to be purified from the alloy of the sensual element, by awakening the slumbering religious sentiment tlii'ough intercourse with the Redeemer, Christ referred when he said to the multitude who professed to believe on him, (viii. 31,) "If they now really received into their hearts, and appropriated that word to which they had hitherto given only a superficial acceptance, they would thus become truly his disciples — they would know the truth in their inward life, and by its power pervading their whole being, would be progressively freed from everything by which their liigher nature, the religious sentiment implanted in their constitution, had been held in bondage." ^ ^ In this passage, the idea of freedom is presented under a different aspect from what we find in Paul's writings, not in contrariety to legal bondage, but to a political semblance of freedom. True freedom, Christ says, is inward, proceeding from redemption. Till man longs after this, he is still in slavery, though enjoying complete outward in- dependence, since he does not freely regulate himself according to the law of his original and true nature, but is controlled by a foreign principle, by which this his original and true nature is oppressed. But it will easily be seen, that the same general idea of the contrariety between freedom and slavery lies at the basis, as in Paul, and the three- fold stand-point in the moral development of man may be readily deduced from it. CHILDREN OP GOD AND OP AIAB0A02. 45 Though John contrasts the cliildren of God, those who are born of God, with those who belong to the world, to the evil spirit, the children of the ^idl3o\or, bnt only in general terms without an}'- gradations ; yet in the idea of the former, he by no means supposes an equally definite and complete mani- festation in every individual, and is far from excluding various degrees of development. He says, as we have already noticed, that faith involves victory over the w^orld, and that whoever believes in Jesus as the Son of God, by the power of this belief overcomes the world. By virtue of the divine principle of life, temptation to sin can find in the believer no point of connexion, and everything which assails him from without, can only contribute to promote the development of the divine life in him, and the victory of the cause of Christ, which by its nature is all-conquering and tending to perfection; 1 John iv. 4. Whoever is born of God, sinneth not, but preserves himself from all the allurements to sin, and the evil one toucheth him not, (evil can find in him no point of connexion; 1 John v. 18.) Because he is born of God, it is impossible for him to sin; since the seed of the divine life dwells within him, from w^hich nothing evil, but only good can proceed; 1 John iii. 9. But from this description we are not to conclude that the idea and its manifestation perfectly correspond, and that it is intended to exhibit the Christian as sinless. John pre- supposes the contrary, since even in Christianity he still admits the need of forgiveness, and of progressive purification from sin. " If we confess our sins" — is his language, — that is, are penetrated by a consciousness of the sin that still cleaves to us, and are filled with a feeling of penitence, — "God is faithful and just ^ to forgive our sins, and to cleanse ^ Two ideas are here closely connected. The faithfulness of God consists in this, that God in his acts, in the government of the world, shows himself always self-consistent ; he responds to the expectations which he has awakened by his revelation in words, or by his providence in general history, or by the operations of his Spirit in the lives of in- dividuals, and fulfils his promises ; and as he has promised the forgive- ness of sins to those who confess them, he bestows that blessing. His justice is shown by his fulfilling the laws which he established for his own kingdom ; he gives to every one what belongs to him according to these laws ; and thus the forgiveness of sins is granted, whenever the condition is fulfilled on which it was promised. •16 CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. lis from all unrighteousness," 1 John i. 9, We must, there- fore, toke the following view, of John's doctrine ; though the Christian as such, in reference to his life founded on com- munion with Christ, though his divine indwelling life cannot itself be affected by sin, yet as it is engi'afted on a sinful nature which is continually opposed to it, it is always subject to being disturbed by its incursions, from which it can only be preserved by maintaining a constant warfare. The di\dne life, until it has pervaded and ap- propriated man's whole nature, which can never take place during his earthly existence, must develop itself by a con- tinual process of purification : to this subject relates what Christ says in the metaphor of the vine; John xv. His disciples were already pure through the w^ord spoken by him, inasmuch as they had received it as a purifjang principle into their souls; but it w^as needful for its purifying to be manifested by an inward thorough purification of their whole nature. As the vine-dresser cuts off from the fr ait- bearing branches of the vine all the useless shoots, that it may. produce more fruit, so God purifies the whole nature of man by a gi-adual process w^hich develops itself from a life in communion with Christ, in order that the fruit-producing power of the living sap received from him may not be lessened by mixing with the foreign sap belonging to the wild stock of the old nature, but manifest itself in continually richer fruits, the works of a genuine Christian disposition.' In this manner we may easily explain the apparent con- tradiction in John's lang-uage, w^hen he says that whoever sinneth knoweth not Christ, and yet speaks of the forgiveness of sins as needed by every Christian, and ready to be imparted to him. The life of the believer is distinguished from the life of the natural man by this, that it is animated, not by the principle of d^apria, but of the divine life, and hence what is sinful appears only as something still cleaving to him, and therefore always opposed by him. Accordingly, John represents these two states and tendencies of life as totally irreconcilable ; walking in the light is a life devoted to ^ The Pauline doctrine of good works as frnits of faith, and also the Pauline doctrine of charisms as the fruits of human nature when pervaded and purified hy the divine principle of life, find here a point of connexion. PAUL AND JOHN. 47 God by its prevailing tendency ; and to v/alk in darkness is a life devoted to sinful inclinations, and proceeding from a sinful tendency/ We here may observe the unity of John's doctrine with that of Paul. As Paul represents faith, in its idea and principle, as an act by which a man dies to himself, the world, and sin — but yet, in the new life developed by its practical operation, infers a continued mortifying of the sinful principle ; so likewise in John we find the same relation exhibited between being born of God, and maintaining a con- flict with the w^orld and sin. The distinction which is founded on these views between the objective of redemption appre- hended by faith, and the progressive subjective development of the divine life, leads to the Pauline conceptions of liKaw- a'uvT] and ^imiojfTiQ ; John also contemplates the perfectly Holy Jesus, objectively as the intercessor with the Father for believers who are still burdened with sin. As, according to John's ideas, the future is already appre- hended by faith as present, so the divine life in the present is viewed as the commencing point and germ of a creation that ^ It is the object of the First Epistle of John to counterwork the false confidence in the forgiveness of sins, the error that a man con- tinuing in sin can be a partaker of forgiveness ; still a Christian sym- pathizing love towards erring brethren is not excluded. By these brethren, who have a claim on Christian sympathy, he understands those who, though in general they had evinced an earnest desire for sanctifica- tion, had yielded to some sudden temptation. It is true he considers all sin as standing in contradiction to the divine life, the fcoij ; but still a transient decline of this higher life, which has already become pre- dominant over the sinful principle, is to be distinguished from an ab- solute suppression or entire destitution of it. The apostle here refers to such a momentary decline as results from yielding to temptation. It is the Christian's duty to pray for such fallen brethren, and it may be expected that God will revive them again, since it is presupposed that the persons who are the objects of this intercession, have still within them the germ of the Christian life, and are in a state susceptible of such a divine operation. But, on the other hand, John, in describ- ing the acts that proceed from such a sinful state, which is marked by a total destitution of the divine life, a continued spiritual death, employs the phrase afxaprlai irphs ddvarov. To such cases the interces- sory prayers for the forgiveness of sins could not relate, since the persons in question did not belong to the Christian community. But it by no means follows that believers were not to pray for their conversion ; only they were not to consider them as Christian brethren, and pray for them in that sense in which those who were conscious of sin still cleaving to them, prayed for one another. Llicke, in his excellent com- mentary, agrees with this view of the subject. 48 THE INWARD LIFE. embraces eternity. As an anticipation of the future thus exists in the present, there is a necessary reference to a future development and consummation. Whoever behoves in the Redeemer (John declares) hath eternal life — he has passed from death unto life — he can die no more — he can no more experi- ence death. The divine hfe which he has received, can no more be interrupted by death. During his earthly existence there is the beginning of the development of this divine life ; it is a fountain which springs up to everlasting life, which continues to flow onward till it enters the ocean of eternity, John iv. 14. Believers have the firm consciousness that they are the chil- dren of God, 1 John iii. 2, and that they shall attain to the full possession of all the rights and privileges founded on this relation ; but the full understanding of what belongs to the realization of this idea is not yet granted to them — the dignity of the children of God in all its extent can be known only by its actual manifestation. But as in divine things knowledge and life are inseparably united, the perfect knowledge of Christ and God will accompany the perfect formation of the life in their image ; 1 John iii. 2. The same connexion between the life of faith and of hope is here exhibited as in Paul's wiitings. But it is a characteristic of John's views, that a reference to communion with the Redeemer in the inward life and in the present, predominates over the reference to the future and to outward facts ; he dwells upon the elements of the inner life, the facts of Christian consciousness, and only slightly adverts to outward matters of fact, and what relates to the Chm'ch. In accordance with this spirit, he exhibits all the particular incidents in the outward history of Christ only as a manifestation of his indwelling glory, by which this may be brought home to the heart ; he always avails himself of these narratives, to introduce what the Redeemer declared respecting his relation to mankind as the source of divine life. John is the representative of the truth which lies at the basis of that tendency of the Christian spirit, which sets itself in opposition to a one-sided intellectualism and ecclesiastical formality — and is distinguished by the name of Mysticism. The same peculiarity marks his representations of the judgment and of the resurrection. The judgment he con- siders as something present, as a fact inseparable from the redemption of mankind and the publication of the gospel. JUDGMENT AND SALVATION. 49 There follows, as a necessary consequence, a separation between those who with susceptible minds receive the divine, and those who exclude themselves by their unsusceptibility ; those who, with a sense of their spiritual necessities, receive the offered redemption — whether a longing and striving after the divine life had already developed itself in their higher nature — or that the religious consciousness was awakened through intercom'se with the Eedeemer; — and those who, either by the predominance of the sensual element, or by spiritual pride and confidence in a legal righteousness, were prevented from attaining a knowledge of their need of redemp- tion, and from surrendering themselves to the impression of the divine in the appearance, words, and works of the Redeemer. John always considers judgment as the opposite of salvation, o-w-rypm — for the judgment of a Holy God is such that no man can appear before it as guiltless. The ideas of the judgment of God and condemnation must coalesce in their application to man estranged from God by sin. But the revelation of God's love in redemption appears as a deliverance from the condemnatory judgment, and nothing more is required than the acceptance of the offered mercy through faith in the Redeemer. He who will not believe, owing to his predominant sinful tendency, excludes himself from the offered salvation, and the judgment that he pro- nounces against himself is founded on the unbelief which pro- ceeds from the state of his interior disposition; John iii. 17. God sent his Son into the world (that is, caused him to appear among the mass of mankind hitherto estranged from God) — not to condemn the world — (as the Jews imagined that he would pass sentence on the Gentile world), but that mankind, who were under the dominion of sin and estranged from God, might be, rescued through him from impending ruin. Who- ever now believes on him, is not condemned ; he has appro- priated salvation by fixith, and such a one, being certain of eternal life in communion with the Redeemer, need no longer dread condemnation. But whoever does not believe on him is already practically condemned by his own unbelief In this the judgment consists, that men from their love of dark- ness (of the undivine), on account of the sinful tendency of their life, are not willing to admit the fountain of light (this their conduct towards the divine, as it proceeds from VOL. II. E 50 JUDGMENT AND SALVATION their disposition, is a practical judgment). As the gospel' cannot reveal its power for the salvation of men without this process of separation taking place, which John calls judg- ment, the end of Christ's appearance must include with the redemption of the susceptible, their separation from the unsusceptible. , " For judgment^'' said Christ, " / am come into the world, that they ivho see not,'' ^ that is, those who see not, but are at the same time conscious of their not seeing, and are actuated by a sense of their need of illumination, " may obtain their sight," may be cured of their blindness, in reference to divine things ; " hut that they who see,'' who have the means gi'anted them of knowing the truth, but who are not disposed to know it, and who are prevented from hum- bling themselves before the tine light by the self-conceit of their imaginaiy far-sightedness, and though they have eyes to see, they see not, "may be given up to their blindness;" John ix. 39, 40.^ To such a moral judgment connected with the publication of the gospel we must refer what Paul says of the publication of the gospel, that to some it is the savom' of life unto life, and to others the savour of death imto death ; 2 Cor. ii. 16. But the idea of this outward moral judgment, as well as the idea of the continued spiritual awakening of mankind by the publication of the gospel, by no means excludes a final judgment and a universal resurrection ; but the former appears as a symbol and preparative of the latter^ and the connexion of the two is exhibited in Christ's dis- course in the 5th chapter of John's Gospel. At first, Christ speaks of the power conferred upon him as the Messiah to awaken the spiritually dead, and at the same time to judge them according to their respective conduct towards the divine life that was offered for their acceptance. As the Father awakens and calls to life the dead, so also the Son awakens to a true divine life whom he will f for the Father has com- ^ Not without reason the subjective negative particle /x^is used here. 2 As in the instance which gave occasion to this whole discourse, the blind man was made to see by the liedecmcr, and as one spiritually blind, who supposed that he could not see, he was healed of his spiritual blindness and enlightened ; while, on the contrary, the deluded Pharisees showed that, having eyes to see they were blind, since, in spite of facts, thciy denied the truth. ^ This was intended to point out to the Jews, that everything de- pended on the mauucr in which they conducted themselves towards JUDGME^'T AND SALVATION. 51 niittcd to him all the power of judgment, that all may iihow their reverence for the Father, by the manner in which they reverence the Son, He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him.^ " He who receiveth my word and believeth on him who sent me," continued Christ, cor- roborating his former declaration, " hath everlasting life, and cannot come into condemnation, but is passed over from death unto life." By participation in a divine life, he is already removed beyond the stroke of judgment, wiiich can only affect those who arc estranged from God. " A time is coming, and ah'eady is" (inasmuch as Christ by the power of his words had already produced such effects), " when the dead" (the spiritually dead) " will hear the voice of the Son of God" (by the publication of the gospel), " and those who heai', shall live ; for as the Father hath the fountain of life in himself, he has also given to the Son to have life in himself;" (on]y because the original fountain of divine life in the Son has communicated itself to mankind, can divine life be imparted to the dead through him ;) " and he hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is a Son of Man." As man he came to impart divine life to men ; and thus as man to administer judgment to men. Then Christ passes on from the present to the future, from the process of development among mankind, to the last decisive result, and says, " Marvel not at this ; for the horn' is coming in which all vv'ho are in their gi'aves shall hear his voice and shall come forth ; they who have done good to the resurrection of life, and • they who have done evil to the resurrection of con- demnation;" John V. 28, 29. It is owing to the same peculiarity which characterises John as the author of the zvayyiXiov -KvivfxariKoy, that in the last conversation of Christ with his disciples, he does not mention what relates to his resurrection, his return to inflict judgments on the reprobate city of God, and his coming to the final judgment and the consummation of the church, but only the promises of an inward revelation of his Spirit to his him ; and that the communication of the divine life -was not to he confined within the Hmits ^Yhich they wished to assign from their national theocratic stand-point. ' In this consists the judgment, that every man proves by hia con- duct towards the Son what his feelings are toward the Father. 52 PROMISE OP TSE HOLY SPIRIT. disciples, that after his bodily presence was withdi-awn from them, and when they might suppose that they were altogether separated from him, he would reveal himself to them in a more glorious manner, and receive them into his communion, never again to be separated from them. The bodily re- appearance of Christ among his disciples appears, in this con- nexion, only as of preparatory impoi-tance for continued spuitual communion with them, his constant spiritual self- revelation among them ; so this reappearance of Christ for the religious development of the apostles, and the develop- ment of the church in general, was only of such preparatory- importance, and intended to form a transition-point. Thus in these promises contained in John's Gospel, the second advent of the risen Saviour is certainly presupposed, although the fact is not expressly mentioned. It lies at the basis of these 23romises, though they do not distinctly refer to it. And in this respect it amounts to the same thing whether we admit one such reappearance of Christ after his resurrection, or several of the kind.^ In order gradually to prepare their minds, he begins with assming them that the Father would give them, instead of his own sensible presence among them, another helper to abide with them for ever, — the Spirit of truth, who alone could impart the full know- ledge of the truth announced by himself, and who would communicate himself through this truth, as he says, (John xvi. 14,) that his Spirit would glorify him, since he would open to them the meaning of the doctrine he had taught. But since this Spirit is no other than the divine life commu- nicated by Christ, the indwelling of God in the hearts of believers accomplished by him, he afterwards transfers what he had said to them of the coming of this Spirit, to his own coming to them in spirit. He points them to the gTcat day, on which he would see them ag-ain in spirit, when the transient pain of separation from him w^ould be succeeded by the ever- lasting joy of seeing him again and communing with him; when they would need no more to ask him questions, but he ^ But we have in tlie Life of Jesus, p. 772, (p. 471, Standard Library- edition,) proved the opinion to be unfounded, that according to John's Gospel, only one such reappearance of Christ immediately followed his resurrection, and that tiic other reapi)carances of Christ took place after his asccnr^ion to heaven. Christ's return to his disciples. 53 would speak to them concerning the Father openly and without reserve. But though John dwells at length on the spiritual element and on what relates to the revelation of Christ in the hearts of the disciples, he by no means excludes his bodily resurrection and his own prediction of it ; John x. 18. And thus from this scheme of doctrine it cannot be concluded, that John had not learned from the discourses of Christ the doctrine of his personal coming {■n-apovaia) to judg- ment, and for the consummation of his church. The con- trary rather follows from what we have already remarked re- specting the connexion in John's views of the judgment and the resurrection, and the twofold mode of representing them. And what John says in his First Epistle of the signs of the last time, the marks of an impending manifestation of an opposition to Christianity, points to the same fundamental ideas respecting the development of the kingdom of God, as those that occur in Paul's epistles. There are not wanting also some intimations of an approaching personal Trapovaia of' Christ, (1 John ii. 28, iii. 2,) though the peculiarity of John's character is shown by his only giving slight hints on the sub- ject, and not, like Paul, a formal delineation of it. It belongs also to this peculiar tendency of John's mind, that Christ is not represented by him as the founder of a church ; even the idea of an eicKXijaia is not distinctly brought forward, though its existence is implied, 3 John 6. But what constitutes the essence of the idea of a church, the idea of a communion of hearts founded in faith on the Redeemer, of the communion of believers with, one another and with, the Redeemer, a communion of faith and love, was expressed by him most emphatically — for this idea would necessarily pro- ceed from that which was the soul of his whole life, the consciousness of communion with the Redeemer, and of the divine life received from him. Thus we find in John's Gospel a reference to a religious community, to be formed out of all others among mankind, which would listen to the voice of the Redeemer, the " one fold under one Shepherd," a communion which would be founded on the equal relation of all to Christ the common head, and coiTesponds to the Pauline idea of one body under one head, John x. 16. As Christ and the Father are one, so are believers, since through him they are one with the Father, '5i John's idea of the chuhch. by virtue of their mutual participation of the divine life. Thus they form a union to which no other in the Avorld is comparable, and the gloiy of Christ reveals itself among them. They constitute before the eyes of the world a living testimony to the divine call and work of Christ. The communion of the divine life thus manifested, points to its divine origin, John xvii. 21. John also distinguishes between an inward community — the assemblage of those who stand in commu- nion with the Redeemer, and which embraces the whole de- velopment of the divine life among mankind — and an outward community of believers, which it is possible for those to join who have no part in the former. Thus in 1 John ii. 19, he speaks of those who went out from the believers, but in fact (as far as it regarded their principles and disposition) never belonged to them, for had they really belonged to them in their inward life, they would not afterwards have renounced their society. But by this outwardly expressed renunciation, by their opposition to the community of believers, it now became manifest that not all who were outwardly joined to that community shared in its essential qualities, and really belonged to it. We find here, as in Paul's writings, the dis- tinction of the visible and the invisible church. John does not mention in his Gospel the institution of baptism by Christ, but he treats at length of that which forms the idea, the spiritual element of baptism — for to this the conversation between Christ and Nicodemus relates — that moral transformation by a new divine principle of life, in opposition to the old sinful nature of man, without which no one can become a member of the Idngdom of God, that is, of the invisible church. * And this also applies to the Holy Supper. For as what Christ in his conversation with Nico- demus designated by the name of regeneration, has a relation to baptism, so what he represents in the sixth chapter of John, under the image of '' eating his flesh and di-iuking his blood," bears a similar relation to the Supper. Chiist had described himself as the true manna, the true bread from ^ The mcnlion of " tvater" in John iii. 5, is only of secondary im- portance, in order, by referring to a symbol familiar to Nicodemus, to render palpable to his mind that all-purifying power of the Divine Spirit which was needful for every rnan. Hence, in the subsequent part of his discourse, Christ mentions only being "bom of the Spirit." THE lord's suppek. 55 heaven, the bread which is not of an earthly perishable nature, with only an earthly power to recruit the bodily life, but which is of divine origin and nature, capable of imparting divine life, and of satisfying the wants of the inner man for an eternal duration. He describes himself as having come down from heaven, in reference to his whole being, in order to impart divine life to mankini2, so that every one can only by communion with the divine fountain of life, thus appearing in human nature, attain to a participation of a divine life. From stating what he is to mankind in his whole divine and human nature, Christ goes on to declare what he* will give to mankind for their salvation, (corresponding to the bestowment of the manna which was sought for from him) — the surrender of his flesh (his life belonging to the sensible world) for the salvation of mankind. And since his words were so misunderstood by the Jews, as if he had spoken of eating his flesh in a literal sense, he took occasion to express what he had before said of himself as the bread of life, in even stronger terms under an image still more striking, and marking the idea still more accurately ; he represented the eating of his-flesh and the drinking of his blood as a necessary means for the appropriation of eternal life. This eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood he considers equivalent to the life of men, by which the fountain of divine life itself enters into mankind, makes them entirely, its own, as if men had con- verted into their own substance the flesh and blood of the incarnate Logos. He here speaks of the participation of divine life by means of his appearance in humanity, of the impartation of divine life depending upon and accomplished by the historical Christ, while he guards himself against being supposed to speak of his body in a literal sense, by saying, as a key for the right interpretation of his words, " The spirit giveth life — the flesh profiteth nothing f' therefore, he could not have intended to say, that men should make use of his flesh as an object of sense, for, like all flesh, it could not profit the inner man, but that by means of his appearing in the flesh in the sensible world, they should appropriate his spirit as the life-giving principle. " The words that I say unto you, are spirit and life;'"' they cannot be rightly under- stood according to their mere sound, their literal expression, but only according to their contents^ which are spirit and 56 CHRISTIAN THEISM. life, possessing a divine vitality.' Therefore, the symbol, " eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ," relates to the process of imbuing the whole nature of every one who is received by faith into his communion, with the divine prin- ciple of life, which, through him, has become a human prin- ciple in all who stand in communion with him ; the constant humanizing of the divine in which continued appropriation and imbuing, the whole development of the Christian life consists. As regeneration, the commencing point in the Christian life, is represented by baptism, so is this, the sequel of regeneration, the continual regeneration (as it were) of man, the continued incorporation of mankind into the body of Christ, represented by the Supper. Thus John and Paxil agree, and on this subject complete each other's views. The essence of Christianity, according to John, is comprised in this, that the Father is known only in the Son, and only through the Son can man come into communion with the Father; 1 John ii. 23; 2 John 9. But no one can be in communion with the Son without partaking of the Holy Spirit which he promised in order to renew human nature in his own image; 1 John iii. 24. Both John and Paul place the essence of Christian theism in worshipping God as the Father through the Son, in the communion of the divine life which he has established, or in the communion of the Holy Spirit, the Father tlirough the Son dwelling in mankind, animated by his Spirit, agreeably to the triad of the Pauline benediction, — the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, (2 Cor. xiii, 13;) and this is the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity in the connexion of Christian experience. It has an essentially practical and historical significance and foundation; it is the doctrine of God revealed in humanity, which teaches men to recognise in God not only the original source of existence, but also of salvation and sanctification. From this trinity of revelation, as far as the divine causality images itself in the same, the ^ AVe cannot agree witli those who think that Christ has here given the interpretation of his own Avords, and that he wished to say that, by his flesh and blood, nothing more was to be understood than his doctrine in reference to divine life-giving power. By arap^ and oI/jlu, he certainly meant more than his p-Zmara. These words of Christ contain only the canon -of correct interpretation, and leave the application to his hearers. DEVELOPMENT OP THE CHURCH. 57 reflective mind, according to the analogy of its own being, pursuing this track, seeks to elevate itself to the idea of an original triad in God, availing itself of the intimations which are contained in John's doctrine of the Logos, and the cognate elements of the Pauline theology. As, accordingly, James and Peter mark the gradual trans- ition from spiritualized Judaism to the independent deve- lopment of Christianity, and as Paul represents the independent development of Christianity in opposition to the Jewish stand-point, so the reconciling contemplative element of John forms the closing-point in the training of the apostolic church, and now from the classical era of original Chris- tianity, we must trace a new tedious development of the Church, striving towards its destined goal through manifold trials, oppositions, and conflicts. Perhaps this gi'eater process of development is destined to proceed according to the same laws w^iich we find prefigured in the fundamental forms of the apostolic church in their relation to one another, and in the order of. their development. 58 ^VDDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS MADE BY THE AUTHOR TO THE FOURTH EDITION. P. G, note 2, add, " It is stated, in Luke xxiv. 53, that the disciples ' iver'e continually in the temple', and hence it might be plausibly inferred, that this was the case on the morning of this High Feast ; yet possibly, when Luke wrote his Gospel, he had not obtained precise information respecting the parti- culars of this event, or only gave here a short summary of it," P. 10, 1. 22, after " interpretation" add, " But we shall be led to a different conclusion, after reading the description of the occuiTcnces in the church at Corinth, which we find in the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, or the account in the Acts of the Apostles of the wonders on the day of Pentecost. An unprejudiced examination, as we shall show more fully in the sequel, can leave no doubt that the extraordinary appear- ances in the Corinthian church are to be attributed not to speaking in foreign languages, but to speaking in an ecstatic and highly elevated state of mind. The account in the Acts would certainly, on a superficial view, lead us only to the notion of foreign languages, and several passages might with- out violence be explained to mean nothing else than that the author of the acconnt referred to the use of such foreign lan- guages. But should our supposition be correct, that the same notion of the gift of tongues is applicable to all the appear- ances of this kind in the Apostolic age ; and if we must set out from one principal passage for determining this notion; then we should make use of the passage in the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, in order to explain all the rest, as a record which gives direct evidence on the subject, and, on account of its greater clearness and distinctness, with far more propriety than the account in the Acts, which is defective in clearness and distinctness, and in its existing form could not ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONa. 59 have proceeded immediately from an cj^e-witncss. But the assumption that the fact denoted by ' speaking in other or new tongues' must have been the same from the beginning, we cannot consider so certain as to be applied to every single passage in spite of all the difficulties that present themselves. Not unless the exposition of all the passages taken separately lead to the same fundamental flxct, can we regard such an as- sumption as sufficiently justified. Now although, as follows from what has been said above, the ancient opinion that the apo- stles were furnished in a supernatural manner with a knowledge of languages for the publication of the Gospel, cannot be main- tained ; yet, by the account in the Acts, as long as w^e explain it by itself alone, we might be led to that same view, only a little modified. And we do not venture to decide a jyriori, that the communication of such a supernatm-al gift of tongues was an impossibility. It must be our special business, first of all, to harmonize the flicts as they are reported in the his- torical records, for not till then can we examine how they are related to the known laws of the world and of human nature ; those laws according to which we see the Divine Spirit and Christianity operate on all other occasions. If we compare all that is known to us in this last respect, we shall never find that the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit takes the place of the intellectual faculty, or infuses in an immediate manner that knowledge which might be attained by the natural application of the understanding and the memory. According to the same law by which that is not commu- nicated by the light of the Holy Spirit which can be discovered by the intelligent use of the art of interpretation, it was not the office of this Spirit to communicate a complete knowledge of languages. The apostles learnt languages when they needed them, in the same manner and according to the same laws as any other persons,, under the guidance of that Spirit who endowed them for their vocation in general. We may indeed find examples of immediate intuition, or tact, or feeling, which, in certain moments, allows that to be knowni which otherwise it would take a longer time to acquire by a continued effort of the understanding. In other cases it happens that one person by a certain intuitive power or immediate feeling knows what another must acquire in a more tedious way. But although the apostles were obliged to learn languages in 60 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. the common way, yet we do not venture to assert that, at the time when the new creation called into being by Christ first became consciously known to the disciples, something veiy different from the ordinary course of things might not happen. We could imagine that the great divine event by which a higher spiritual life would be communicated to all, and all the contrarieties proceeding from Sin, or connected with it, among the nations of the earth, were to be removed, would also be outwardly manifested by breaking down the limits of national peculiarities and languages : by virtue of the con- nexion— which as yet we are far from perfectly comprehend- ing— between the inward and outward life of the Spirit, — between the inward view or thought, and its outward expres- sion, language, such a sudden elevation might result. A symbolical prophetic wonder, to shadow forth, how the new divine life which here first of all manifested itself would claim all the tongues of mankind as its own, — how by means of Christianity the separation of nations would be overcome. In one brief interval there would be a representation of what is grounded in the essence of the redemption accomplished by Christ, — which it would require a course of ages to develop in the use of ordinary means. " This view we should certainly be compelled to adopt, if we could venture to make use of the account in the Acts as the report of an eye-witness, and a narrative derived from one source. Without doing violence to the words, we cannot fail to perceive, according to Acts ii. 6, 11, that the person from whom the account, as there given, proceeded, regarded the dis- ciples as S2)eaking in various foreign languages which had been hitherto unknown to them. But we have here hardly an ac- count from the first hand, and we find means, indeed, to dis- tinguish the original account of the transaction from the modification given to it in the later composed narrative. If those who came from distant parts heard the Galileans speak in foreign languages, which must have been unknown to them, this must have appeared to every one, even to such as were wholly unsusceptible of the divine in the event, as something striking, although such an one had felt too little interest for the deeper meaning of the transaction, and had been too thoughtless, to reflect on what formed the groundwork and cause of so inexplicable a phenomenon. But now, though, ADDITIONS AND CORHfiCTlONS. 61 previously, mention had been made of speaking in unknown, foreign languages, yet the persons who are introduced speaking in the following verses (12 and 13), express their astonishment only as respecting something, which surprised the sober-minded pai't of the spectators, so as to leave them in doubt what it meant, while others, the altogether rude and carnally-minded, supposed they witnessed only the signs of intoxication. All this suits very well, if we take it as describing the impression made by the announcement of the novel things relating to the kingdom of God, uttered in a state of elevated emotion. Such utterance must have so affected the different classes of bearers that some must have been amazed by what they could not comprehend, while others would throw ridicule on the wdiole affair as a mere exhibition of enthusiasm. And what the Apostle Peter says in ii. 15, in answer to that charge, seems rather to confirm this explanation than the other. Why should he have referred to the fact that it was not the time of day in which men indulge in drinking, when he could have brought forward proofs suited to enlighten the carnal multitude, that an effect like this, the ability to speak foreign, unknown languages, could not be one of the effects of in- toxication 1 " And if we look at the first words w^ith which the narrative of these great events begins, we shall find ourselves not com- pelled by them to form such a representation as is derived from vv. 7 — 12. It is said in v. 4, ' And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.' By these ' other tongues,' which differed from common human tongues — tongues as they were new-created by the power of the Holy Ghost, we are by no means obliged to think of foreign languages. We find, even in that narrative, elements which point to something else than what we should infer from vv. 7 — 12. And those words themselves cannot literally be understood of j)m'ely distinct foreign languages. It is certain that among the inhabitants of the cities in Cappadocia, Pontus, Lesser Asia, Phrygia, Pam- phylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya and Egj-^t inhabited by Grecian and Jewish colonies, the Greek language was at that time for the most part more current than the ancient language of the country. There remain out of the whole list of languages only the Persian, Syriac, Arabic, Greek and Latin 62 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. languages. Unquestionably, therefore, the description is rather rhetorical than purely historical. " If we compare some other passages in the Acts in which this Gift of Tongues is mentioned, there appears in these ac- counts nothing of the kind w^hich we find in the former passages. As speaking with new tong-ues was one of the first marks of the consciousness that proceeded from the new divine life communicated by Christ, one of the most prominent marks of the new Christian inspiration, so this was every^vhere repeated where that event of the first Christian Pentecost was renewed, where the Christian life and consciousness first showed itself, as when, during the preaching of the Apostle Peter, faith germinated in the already prepared hearts of the Gentiles, and they received the first divine impression of the power of the Gospel, (Acts x. 4:Q ;) or just as the disciples of John at Ephesus were first instructed fully respecting Christ and the Holy Spirit imparted by him, and received Christian baptism, Acts xix. 6. In such situations and circumstances, the power of speaking in foreign languages would have been v/ithout object or significance. Whenever the consciousness of the grace of Redemption and of a heavenly life springing from it was awakened in man, his own mother-tongue, and not a foreign language, w-ould be the most natural channel for expressing his feelings ; otherwise, we must suppose the exertion of a magical power gaining the mastery over men, and forcing them to express themselves in foreign tones hke unconscious instruments ; a thing contrary to all analogy in the operations of Christianity. " In the first of the two passages we have just quoted, (Acts X. 46,) ' speaking with tongues ' is connected with ' magnify- ing God,' which intimates the relation between these two acts, — the former being a particular mode of the latter. In the second j^assage, (Acts xix. 6,) ' speaking with tongues ' is followed by ' prophesying ' {irpo(priTevuv) ; and as by this (the full explanation of which we reserve for the sequel) is to be understood, addi-esses in a tone of spiritual elevation, it may be regarded as something allied to the former. " Proceeding from this point, we shall be led to the following conclusion. The new spirit w^hich filled the disciples, of which , they were conscious as a common animating principle, created for them a new langnage; the new feelings and intuitions ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 63 reveailed- themselves in new words; the new wine required new bottles. We know not wlience the origin is to be deduced of this designation, taken as it is from the life, and corresponding to the nature of the fact. Yet a true tradition might form the ground-work of the critically-suspected passage at the close of Mark's Gospel, so that Christ himself may have marked the speaking in new tongues as one mark of the operations of the Spirit, which he imparted to his disciples. At all events, we find what is related to it in meaning in the discourses of Christ, — the promise of speaking with the new power which would be imparted to the disciples by the Holy Spirit, and of the 'new mouth and wisdom' (Luke xxi. 15) that he would give them. From the beginning, this speaking with tongues might not be employed for the instruction of others, but only be an immediate involuntary expression of the heart impelled by inward pressure to reveal itself in words. We have no reason for taking any other view of the first Pentecostal day. Peter's discourse gave the word for others, the epfxr]vda of the new tongues, or the added Tvpo^r^TEvuv. Thus it was perhaps something annexed to the original use of this designation when, as the various degi'ees of Christian elevation became separated from one another, the " speaking in tongues " was used especially to designate the highest degree, that ecstatic state in which the thinking faculty is less consciously active '•' On reviewing the account in the Acts of the Apostles as it lies before us, we certainly recognise in it, according to what has been snid, a predominant ideal element, which has infused itself into the construction of the history, and modified it. If we assume as a possible case, that the peculiar essence and aim of Christianity had represented it visibly in a symbolic wonder, we shall now be compelled at the close of our inquiry, to regard this not as the purely historic and objective, but to transfer it to the subjective point of view, so that the con- ception of the fact according to this idea, has in this particular instance been involuntarily altered. If any persons are dis- posed to call this a mythical element mingling with the historical, after the preceding explanation of the idea, we shall not dispute about a name. Only we must once for all declare, that such single unhistorical traits can by no means be employed to stamp the whole narrative in which they G4 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. occur as unhistorical or mythical. By tlie consequential application of such an arbitrary princijDle of criticism — that, in general, where anything is found unhistorical or mythical, no real history is to be recognised, — very little history would be left ; the greater part of history must be sacrificed to a destructive criticism, which is quick to descry everywhere some departures from the strictly historical." P. 20, 1. 11 from the bottom, after "ideas" add, " Christ did not as a teacher propound a certain number of articles of faith, but while exhibiting himself as the Redeemer and Sove- reign in the kingdom of God, he founded his church on the facts of his life and sufferings, and of his triumph over death by the resuiTCction. Thus the first development of the church proceeded not from a certain system of ideas set forth in a creed, but only from the acknowledgment of one fact which included in itself "all the rest that formed the es- sence of Christianity — the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, in which w^ere involved the facts by which he was accredited as such by God, and demonstrated to mankind ; namely, his resurrection, glorification, and continual agency on earth for the establishment of his kingdom in Divine power." P. 26, 1. 6, after "property" add, "On comparing the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, we must either saj^, that in the passages which treat of the community of goods we are not to interpret everything literally, since in an artless naiTative by an eye-witness whose feelings were excited by the objects before him, such delineations might easily mingle ; — • or, that in the narrative given in the Acts, the various grada- tions in the form of this community of goods — the eccentric relation accruing from the first glow of Christian enthusiasm, and the later hmitation of the community of goods produced by circumstances, the return of things to their wonted channels, could not be kept distinct from one another ; that things of different kinds were mingled together in the naiTa- tive, which might easily happen in an historical representation collected from various sources. Whichever of these two suppositions we prefer, it is plain that no one can be justified, merely on account of this difficulty, in suspecting the historical authority of these accounts. " At all events, the community of goods practised by the ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. G5 first Christians, whatever form we suppose it to have taken, was something that was formed from within ; it was the natural expression of a spirit which bound them all to one another. Ever^^thing here must have proceeded from the power of the one Spirit, must have depended solely on the free act of the pure disposition ; nothing was effected by the force of outward law." P. 28, 1. 5 from the bottom, "faith," add the following note. " I can by no means assent to Baur's assertion in his work on the Apostle Paul, p. 22, that the Apostles are delineated in the Acts as super-human, and as it were magical beings. I cannot approve of his exposition, in con- sidering the passage in Acts v. 13, as strongly supporting his views, understanding the words Xonrolc, 'the rest,' to mean the other Christians of whom none ventured to join themselves to the apostles, but were kept at a distance by reverential awe. By the aTvavreQ in v. 11, can only be understood the collective body of believers, in distinction from the apostles. The Xonrol distinguished from the aTrarree can only be those who were not Christians, afterwards called Xaug, ' the people,^ who reverenced the Christian community on account of the Divine powers displayed in it, a view which is confirmed by a comparison with ii. 47." P. 29, 1. 13, after "take place" add, " Eveiy unprejudiced reader of the New Testament cannot fail to perceive that such an expectation filled the souls of the apostles ; and it could not be other^dse. The gaze that is fixed on a distant object can as little measure time as space. To one whose look is directed on the object of his anxiety, the distant appears nigh at hand ; he overlooks the windings of the way, which separate him from the object of his anxious expectation. But gi'adually the objects separate themselves which at first were mingled together in the perspective. So it was with the prophets who gazed on the Messianic times from the Old Testament stand-point ; and so it was with the apostles, as they directed their looks to the second advent of Christ. Christ himself has left no distinct information respecting the time in which this decisive event is to happen, but has ex- pressly informed us that it belongs to those hidden things which are known only by their fulfilment. It would require the comparison of the discourses of Christ with one another, VOL. II. F 66 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. and. deep reflection on their contents, in order to understand the course of his kingdom's development, and to judge aright respecting the nearness or distance of its end. If, on the one hand, many isolated expressions of Christ which present the points of gi'catest moment relating to the progi^ess of his king- dom in perspective exhibition, may be so understood, as if that last decisive period were at hand ; on the other hand, his parables indicate a slower process of development ; as if it would not suddenly, but gTadually, and working outwards from within, pervade and penetrate the life of humanity. But naturally these isolated, brief expressions are most easily recol- lected, and absorb the attention. The contents of the parabolic intimations are learnt gradually, and are better understood from the history itself. It belonged to the essence of Chris- tianity, that it should represent itself at first, not as a new principle for earthly history, not as destined to form a new cultus, and to give a new form to all earthly relations ; it was not the idea of a renovated ti77ie that Christianity first attempted to realize, but everything appeared only as a point of transition to a new, heavenly, eternal order of things which would commence at the second advent. Hence, at first, every- thing earthly inust have appeared as ready to vani^, as quickly passing away, and the eye was fixed only on that future heavenly kingdom as the unchangeable state, to which believers in spirit and disposition already belonged. It would only by degrees be rendered apparent that the process of the world's transformation coming forth into outward appearance would not be effected suddenly at the advent of Christ, but must make its way by internal changes in a gradual develop- ment. Thus the disciples must at first have contemplated the whole outward system of Judaism from this point of view, and in this relation to the approaching kingdom of Christ. Its whole cultus appeared to them as an institute which must continue to exist, till all things would become new. But here also, as the renewing effect of Christianity was to proceed fi'om within, the true light had not yet risen upon them." P. 41, 1. 8,'after " affected" add, " But instead of the Phari- sees, the Sadducees came forward as persecutors of the Gospel which was spreading in every direction w^ith unrestrained power. The earnestness and zeal with which the disciples testified of the risen Saviour, and of the hope of a future ResmTection founded ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 67 on him, must have rendered them hateful lo this sect. A predominant negative tendency will always be suspicious and mistrustful of popular movements which proceed from a posi- tive religious interest, and from a state of elevated feeling- relating to the invisible world ; and fi'om suspicion, it is easily roused to active hostility. The Sadducees also were noted for their harshness and inhumanity. And since they could not venture to oppugn directly and openly the doctrines of the Pharisees, they must have welcomed the opportunity of attack- ing, under another pretext, a sect zealous for those doctrines, and rapidly spreading, and upon whom they could bring the authority of the Sanhedrim to bear. But what served to render the Christians hateful to the Sadducees, must have contributed to render the Pharisees favourably disposed to- wards them." 1 P. 44, last line of the note, after " history" add, " The same remark applies to Baur's objections, page 18. An exact account of wliat took place in the Sanhedrim, we cannot indeed expect. This we know, to begin with, that we have not before us a formal legal deposition. But the want of such a document can be no reason for rendering the whole transaction doubtful. Can we pronounce the historical narratives of the ancients to be incredible, because the speeches they contain are composed in accordance with the sentiments of the persons to whom they are attributed ? But in the ancients we recognise in their composition the art which lets every one say what he might have said from his standing-point and in his own character. In the accounts now under consideration, this objectivity of historical art is wanting, and where original accounts, such as frequently occur in the Acts, in the discourses of Peter or ^ This is contrary to the opinion maintained by Dr. Baur, who, in his vrork on Paul, p. 34, will not allow any historical truth in the account contained in the Acts, of the persecutions excited by the Sadducees against the Christians, and calls in question generally the truth of the account respecting these early persecutions. He sees in it nothing but a connexion formed clprio7'i {nur eine apriorische combination). " Since the discourses of the disciples," he thinks, *' could contain nothing more important than the testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, no more em- bittered and decided opponents of 'it need be imagined than the Sadducees, the avowed deniers of the doctrine of a Resurrection." We must here, as in relation to other points, recognise the objective his- torical pragmatism (a consideration of events in their actual causes and eflfects) which this kind of criticism would change into the subjective. GS ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. Paul, do not form the basis, we cannot be surprised, if in these artless narratives, the principle that was believed to animate the proceedings against the Christians should be put into the mouths of the actors as their subjective maxim. Lastly, the conduct of the Sanhedrim is by no means so marked by delusion and want of sense as to render the narra- tive palpably unhistorical. From their standing-point the Sanhedrim could not recognise a miracle in the cure of the lame man. And yet, as they had no means at hand to ex- plain the whole as an imposture, and to convince the people of it, they were obliged to hush up the affair if possible, without arousing afresh, by more violent and forcible measures, the popular enthusiasm which they w^ished to allay. But, indeed, every plan will prove at last to be devoid of sense, which is undertaken as a reaction against a movement in men's minds founded on perfect justice and undeniable truth, — a folly which earthly rulers are still apt to repeat." P. 44. 1. 2, "before the Sanhedrim," add note: — " Baur is certainly right, when in the words cIq 'lepovaaXijfi, Acts iv. 5, he finds an implication that the members of the Sanhedrim were not all then present in Jerusalem, p. 16. But when he detects here a design on the part of the inventive historian, to insinuate how very important the affair was regarded by the authorities, we cannot agree Avith him. Who- ever wrote with this design would certainly not have satisfied himself with such an indication, but would have expressed much more strongly what he wished to be noticed. Tn this form of expression we see nothing more than that it was known to the reporter, who, from his proximity, was best acquainted with the events, that a part of the members of the Sanhedrim were not then residing in the city, and were perhaps scattered about the adjacent country, and that his knowledge of this circumstance unconsciously affected his phraseology. So that, on the contrary, in this little turn of expression we find a mark of originality and the absence of design. P. 44. 1. 8, " before them," add note : — " Baur is also dis- posed to see something unhistorical in the appearing of the lame man after his cure, with the two apostles, before the Sanhedrim. But whichever may have been the case, whether lie was seized in company with the apostles and brought forth at the same time, or whether he appeared by the special ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 69 orders of the Sauliedi'im, because the corpus delicti related to him ; iu either case there is nothing improbable. The San- hedrim, or a party in it, might wish to try whether the}^ could not succeed, by a pei-sonal inspection, or cross-examina- tion of tlie man, to elicit something which might be turned against the apostles, or tend to allay the popular ferment. Finall}', the presence of the man who was made whole, at tliese proceedings, has nothing to do with the main point on the decision of which the whole nai'rative stands or falls." P. 4.). 1. 21, '• Chi-istians," (note.) Baur considei-s that what I haA-e here regiuded as possible, and probably suffi- cient to explain the whole transaction, is a gross violation of historiciil wTitiug, p. 21. ''' Nothing can be more blameable,'* he says, ^"than an historical method which, instead of ex- amining a matter openly, freely, and thoroughly, arbitrarily introduces fictions in the place of historical truth." But such a method I believe myself never to have been chargeable Avith. I have only oifered this as a conjecture, to which I attach no great weight. The exiiniple of a Nicodemus, which, indeed, will lind no fiivour at the tribunal of a criticism that is founded on a system of tictions, proves that there might be secret fi-iends of the cause of Christ in the Sanhedrim, and in the Acts (ch. vi. 7) it is remai'ked that " a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith'' Lasth', the representa- tion I have given of the tran&.iction stands in no need of such a supposition in order to free the whole of the naiTative from the charge of internal improbability. I wish the intelhgent reader to decide for himself, which of us, Dr. Baur or myself, lies most open to the charge of substituting arbitraiy fictions for historical truths. P. 46, 1. 1, ''two thousand,"' (note.) We must here notice Baur s assertion, that the numbers in the Acts appear alto- gether unhistorical. Baur reasons thus, p. 37 : — The number of behevers mentioned in Acts i. la, (''about an huudi'cd and twenty") is manifestly false, for it contradicts the statement of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 6, that Christ, after his Resur- rection, appeared to more than five hundi*ed bretlu'en at once. '* If this small number be manifestly incorrect, then the large mnnbei-s which afterwai'ds occm* in the Acts ai*e not more trustworthy, and we must come to the conclusion that the §mall number preceded the large ones only to give a more 70 ADDITIONS AND COERECTIONS. vivid impression of the rapid and important increase of the church, which makes each class of numbers, the small and the great, equally suspicious." Even if Baur's supposition were correct, the con-ectness of the conclusion he draws from it is by no means evident ; for of this artificial design in the use of small and large numbers in order to render more illustrious by the contrast the Divine in the rapid spread of the church, I can find no trace in this simple, artless re- presentation, nor of all those little trickeries which Dr. Baur palms upon the author of the Acts ; and I think that the natm-al construction of this book must make this impression upon every ingenuous and unperverted mind. But the sap- position itself I cannot allow to be valid. I see no contra- diction between the account in the Acts and Paul's statement ; for the reference in Acts i. 15 is not to the sum total of the whole Christian church, but merely to the number of those who were assembled in that place. When Baur fuilher main- tains, that the persecution raised against Stephen will not allow us to suppose that the church was so large and im- portant, I cannot comprehend this, for it is by no means clear that all the Christians in Jerusalem must have been affected by that persecution. P. 46. 1. 5, "gospel," (note.) Dr. Bam- charges me with a grave fault in my historical investigations — that I have not mentioned the wonderful deliverance of Peter from prison. He finds here the inconsequential attempt to set aside an anti- supernaturalist principle, a dishonourable concealment of diffi- culties. He maintains that the alternative is necessary, either to confine oneself to a simple, Hterally true relation, or allow historical criticism, if we believe it cannot be got rid of altogether, to exercise all its rights. Certainly, if my work were exegetical, a commentary on the Acts, I must necessarily occupy myself with the examination of that special point, what opinion is to be formed respecting the appearance of the angel, and Peter's wonderful release — what relation the sub- jective conception in the narrative of the Acts bore to the objective of the actual fact. But as an historical writer, I was justified in making a selection from the nan-ative, of what appeared suitable to a pragmatical object ; I was nowise bound to treat every point with equal fulness. The deli- verance of Peter from prison was no very important Hnk for ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 71 me ill the pragmatical connexion of the histoiy. But since Dr. Baur has desired that I should express myself on this point, which I had passed over in silence, I find no reason why I should not express my opinion with the utmost frank- ness. I am not troubled at the reproach of partiality, nor inconsequence, nor indecision^ nor weakness of faith. I am not prevented by a. priori grounds from admitting the angelio appearance ; but the account is not sufficiently definite and exact to accredit such a fact, and in the words of Peter, spoken before the Sanhedrim, no allusiofi to such a release is found. But if I acknowledge a break in this historical connexion, and an obscurity hanging over the narrative, it by no means follows that there is no historical truth at the basis, and stiU less, that everything was so put together in order to magnify the apostles : nor can I admit that this is the consequence of that obscurity which I acknowledge. I would rather say, that the fact of a release by a special divine guidance, to us un- known, became involuntarily transferred into the appearance of an angel of the Lord who freed Peter from prison. As to the alternative laid down by Dr. Baur, I admit it, and avow that criticism must be granted its full right in these investiga- tions. But in the way Dr. Baur appHes it, I cannot recog- nise its full right, but only an arbitraiiness against which, in accordance with my convictions of the duty of an historical inquirer, I must declare myself, in its application not only to this, but to any other historical question. This criticism, pro- fessedly so free from assumptions, proceeds on assumptions which I must reject as unfounded ; and hence the opposition which exists between our modes of treating the history ot Christianity. P. 46, 1. 20, " Gamaliel," (note). Baur, in p. 35 of his work above referred to, considers the introduction of Gamaliel as somewhat unhistorical, and the words ascribed to him as a fabrication. What was really historical could only amount to this, that at that time the view prevailed among the rulers of the Jews that it might be best to leave the cause of Jesus to its own fate, in the certain presumption that in a short time it would be seen how little there was in it. On this presumption the speech was framed which the liistorian puts into the mouth of Gamahel. But Ave find nothing at all which can justify such a re-casting of history. The speech ascribed 72 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. to Gamaliel is so characteristic and individual, that it makes us so much the less inclined to call in question the fact that it was actually spoken, and spoken by Gamaliel. It perfectly suits the stand-point which this teacher of the law, as he is represented in the text, occupied among the Jews. The man who could form an intelligent judgment of Grecian lite- rature, was also capable of rising to this higher historical stand-point in his judgment of Christianity. That Paul, who was at first animated by a fanatical fury against Chris- tianity, proceeded from his school, is no argument to the contrary; for it is allowed, how little right we have to judge of teachers by their scholars. Let it be recollected, too, that this was before Stephen made his appearance, which p'aced Christianity in a far more odious light to the party of the Pharisees. And if the mention of the example of Theudas is an anachronism, which did not proceed from Gamaliel, yet it by no means follows that the text, the leading idea of the speech, was derived from him. The characteristic opening ■words of Gamaliel, by the sharp impress they bear, might easily be amplified, and it would be very natural that Gama- liel should appeal to examples from history in support of his advice. This is what we consider as certain. Baur maintains that if the narrative in the Acts of what had preceded these transactions in the Sanhedrim be correct, Gamaliel could not have uttered such words ; for history, to the evidence of which he appealed, would have akeady determined the question. Here then is the dilemma, either Gamaliel did not utter this, or all which is here told of the miracles of the apostles, and the extension of the Christian church, did not really take place. But we cannot acknowledge the correctness of this dilemma. No external evidence is sufficient to effect in man a complete conversion of his religious and intellectual stand-point. Although the power w^ith which Christianity diffused itself, and what he had learnt of the wonderful cures performed by the apostles, would strike Gamaliel with asto- nishment, yet they were not sufficient to lead him to acknow- ledge Jesus as the ]\Iessiah, and to that point he must have come already, if the evidence of history had been all that was needful to decide the question for him. P. 49, 1. 2, after "important" add, "Although what we say is disputed by persons occupying two opposite stand-points, ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 73 — those who in a rude and lifeless manner advocate the supernatural in Christianity, alid those who deny everything supernatural, — yet we cannot give up an idea which is of importance in relation to the development of Christianity from the beginning — namely, that the supernatural and tlic natural, the Divine and the human, always work together in harmony." P. 49, 1. 10, /or "knowledge" read "consciousness." P. 49, 1. 17, after {diroKaXv^Lo) add, "Thus we perceive how^ the mixing of the theocratic element which had served for the development of the Hebrew nation, with Grecian culture, must have served to prepare the way for under- standing the truth revealed by Christ; for tlms the coarse and narrow Jewish spirit was refined and expanded so that it could follow more easily the development of Christian truth when it broke through the limits of Jewish nationality." P. 50, 1. 11, after "perception" add, " If in the Acts of the Apostles we had a narrative composed on philosophic prin- ciples, after the manner of the classical historians of antiquity, tracing the whole series of things to their origin, and disthi- guishing the various tm^ning-points in actions and events, we might be able to determine more exactly the position w^hich Stephen occupied, — his relation to Paul in the development of Christianity. But since the accounts in the Acts are not of this sort, and contain many gaps, nothing is left for us but to adopt that divining process, by which many passages in history have been placed in their true light, which by skilful comparison and combination can learn from mere fragments the structure of the whole, and, where only effects are pre- sented to the eye, can educe and lay open their principles and causes. Stephen disputed much, as we are expressly told in ch. vi. 9, with the foreign Hellenistic Jews, and we may justly assume that the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and of his work as truly Messianic, formed the subject of these disputations — that Stephen used the Old Testament, in order to lead the Hellenistic Jews to this acknowledgment, and that consequently these disputations would relate to the exposition of the Old Testament. Great imtation was excited against Stephen, such as had never till that time been called forth on the question wdiether Jesus was the Messiah. The Sanhedrim had believed that it was^ necessary to check tho 74 ADDITIONS AND COrvRECTIONS. spread of the new sect ; but of an upstir among the people in relation to it, no trace had yet been seen; something new, therefore, must intervene by which the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus would become so offensive to those who adhered to the established religion. And this probable supposition is confirmed by the charge brought against Stephen by the parties v;}io were thus irritated : ' We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God,' Acts vi, 11. For the first time since Christ personally had ceased to be the object of the attacks of the Pharisaic party, had such an accusation been heard against a Christian ; for hitherto the believers, agreeing with the Pharisees in the strict observance of the Mosaic Law, had given occasion for no such charge. Evidently, it was not the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, but the manner in which Stephen spoke of the Messianic work of Jesus, and of the effects that would be produced by Christianity, that was the occasion of this charge of heresy. The charge of uttering blasphemy against Moses would lead us to infer that Stephen wag the first who presented the Gospel in opposition to the Mosaic Law, and had spoken against its justifying power and perpetual validity; and this, to the Jews, who made all justi- fication and sanctification to depend on the law, and believed in its indefeasible validity, must have appeai'ed as blaspheming the divine authority of Moses. It woidd also appear to them as blasphemy against God, in whose name, and as whose ambassador, Moses appeared, and who had promised an ever- enduring validity to his law. Stephen, we may presume, as Paul at a later period, endeavoured to prove from the pro- phetic passages of the Old Testament, that too much was ascribed to the law from the ordinary Jewish stand-point, and that the Old Testament itself pointed to a higher stand-point, to which it was only preparatory. This view is confirmed by the charge brought by the Sanhedrim against Stephen, which we shall notice presently in our historical representation. The whole religious stand-point of the Old Testament is founded on the principle that religion was held within the bounds of space and time, and must neces- sarily be connected with certain places and times. The con- troversy against an over-valuation of the law must hence have led Stephen to controvert an over-valuation of the temple. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 75 By him it was first acknowledged and expressed, that a per- fectly new stand-point in the development of the kingdom of God was to be created by Christ — a purely spiritual worship embracing the whole life of which faith in its founder would be at once the foundation and centre. He referred, probably, to the expressions of Christ Avhich related to the impending destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the founding of a new one by himself, as well as to other intima- tions of the great transformation of the world, which were contained in the words he uttered, since with the Temple the Avhole form of the Old Testament cultus must come to an end. But if our supposition be correct, how can we consider that the charge brought against Stephen deserved to be called a false one 1 In the same sense, in which it might be after- wards said of Paul, that his enemies unjustly accused him of blasphemy against Moses, against the Temple of the God of the Old Testament. While Stephen was convinced that, taking into account the ultimate aim of the Old Testament development, he only honoured the Old Testament and God as therein revealed, he was charged with an inimical design ; and since his opponents understood in a different sense what he said, from what he intended, he could, in this respect, designate their accusation as false. Moreover, it is possible, that the materials which the author of the Acts made use of in this part of his narrative, proceeded from a person who could not comprehend the stand-point to which Stephen was elevated, and hence could not distinguish Stephen's real meaning from what his enemies charged him with. Stephen's defence ' would also have taken quite a different form, if he ^ But here the question arises whether we have the discourse of Stephen in all essential points as it was spoken, or a free version of it by the author of the Acts. The latter is advocated by Baur. But we must maintain that if the author of the Acts had been so skilled in historic art as to be able to transport himself to Stephen's stand- point, and to invent such a discourse in his style and character, his own historical composition would have been altogether different. He would then, from the first, have drawn a clearer representation of the man, and of his importance in relation to the subsequent development of Christianity, which would have rendered it needless for us to attempt it by means of a conjectural combination. The manner in which these things are here narrated, stands in most striking contrast to that artis- tical dexterity which is presupposed in the invention of such a discourse. Certainly it cannot be supposed that if such a writer had wished to represent in the person of Stephen, the collision that then first took 76 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. could have explained the charges brought against him as entirely founded on misapprehension — if he had not acknow- ledged a portion of truth as the ground-work which he could not retract, but Avas on the contrary prepared to maintain with earnestness. After this prehminary justification we proceed with the narrative." P. 50, 1. 15, "stand-point," add note, ^'To which Baur of Tubingen has properly di'awn attention in his ingenious essay, De Orationis hahitce a Ste2?hano, Act. c. vii. co7isilio. In trying to establish a divine objective or historical prag- matism in the relative position of these two champions of the Christian faith (for which I am under obligations to Dr. Baur, who probably first drew my attention to it), I cannot agree with Dr. Schneckenburger, who thinks he has detected a subjective pragmatism purposely framed by Luke. In the simple representation given by Luke from the notices of single facts lying before him, I cannot discover any direct intention to exhibit Stephen in his public character and in his disputations viith the Jews as a protot}^e of Paul. (See Schneckenburger's work on the Acts, pp. 172, 184.) If such had really been his design, it would, I think, have been more strongly marked, after the manner of his times. Indeed, the views ascribed to Luke of becoming the apologist of Paul in opposition to the partizans of Peter, are of too artificial a cast, and too little supported by his own language, to induce me to approve of such an hypothesis." P. 51, 1. 15, "what Stephen really said," (note.) Baur properly compares what the false witnesses said against Christ. (Matt. xxvi. 61.) See my "Life of Jesus," p. 281, fourth edition, (p. 181, English translation.) But when Baur, in his book on Paul, p. 56, would find it no historical truth, but only a designed imitation of the history of Christ, transferring to Stephen what in Matt. xxvi. GO, is said of Christ, we cannot grant our approval. We can discover no trace of such a design. " But," says Baur, " since false witnesses appeared against Jesus with the same accusation, so false witnesses probably were not wanting here ; " as little also can it be place between the spiritual worship of Christianity and the stand- point of the Jewish cultus, still involved in carnality, he would so have concealed his real desig-n, that it would only be apparent at the end. A plan so artificial and carefully adju>ted could hardly have bcci;;i undertaken by a Christian of that primiiive ^gQ, AftDlTlOlJS AKD CORHECTIONS. 77 supposed how tlicir witness should be here nothing but faliic- liood. But there is no contradiction in this, that an accusa- tion may be false in the sense in which it is put forth by those ^v]\o make use of it, and yet a tiaith may lie at its basis. But if the author of the Acts has not disting\iished and developed more clearly in what sense the accusation is false, and in what sense it contained truth, instead of detecting a design in this, we should rather note the w^ant of historical skill, and of a regular development. P. 51, 1. 17 from bottom, " Blasphemy," (note.) Baur is disposed to find in this whole representation of the pro- gress of the transaction, something unhistorical. How can it be supposed, he thinks, that Stephen would be accused in this tumultuous manner by the Sanhedrim, who listened to him at first so quietly, but then are described as all at once breaking out upon him with such fuiy 1 This tribunal must have compromised its dignity, and by such an extra-judicial infliction of death, have exposed itself to the heaviest respon- sibility before the Roman governor. As we can form no consistent notion of such an act of the Sanhedrim, it is far more probable, that everything proceeded only from a tumultuary movement of the people, who seized Stephen in their fanatical excitement, and dragged him forth to be stoned. Since the author of the Acts wished to give the transaction great importance, to represent in Stephen the image of Christ, since he wished him to deliver a discourse, he must for these reasons bring him before the Sanhedrim, and he must, how- ever improbable it may be, let them take a part in the tumultuous proceedings against him. "VVe gi'ant, that in the description given in the Acts there is a want of clearness and lumiuousness in particular points, but this can decide nothing against the credibility of the whole. Although we should not dispute very strongly whether Stephen was sacrificed to popu- lar fuiy, or appeared before the Sanhedi'im itself, still we find a pledge for the latter in this : that the discom-se handed down to us bears the impress of one actually delivered, and presupposes such a tribunal before which it was delivered. It may indeed be thought that the fanatical Jews dragged Stephen before the great assembled Sanhedrim, or that the Sanhedi'im was assembled for the examination of this cliarge ; for we are surely not justified in admitting, that everything that is narrated in the Acts respecting Stephen happened in 78 .ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. one clay. Xow, hitlierto, no occasion had been found to accuse the Christians of apostasy from Judaism ; nothing was known of them, which could make that accusation credible. It might, therefore, happen tliat the better members of the Pharisaic party in the Sanhediim Vv'ere not exactly prejudiced against Stephen. When he appeared before them, the Divine, which expressed itself in his whole appearance, at first made an impression that commanded the regard of a part of the assembly ; and then the manner in which he began to speak of the dealings of God with their forefathers was suited to testify his piety, to counterwork the accusations brought against him, and to dispose his hearers in his favour. Also, though we who have the whole discourse before us know what its aim was from the beginning, yet it is not clear that his hearers could so soon apprehend it. And this serves to explain how it could happen that they heard Stephen patiently, till he came to the words in which his Christian feeling ex- pressed itself so powerfully and unresei-vedly, regardless of consequences. Here, then, fanatical fury broke forth ; they would not listen any longer to the blasphemies of Stephen. He was dragged out, and now the punishment began which the infuriated people inflicted on him. Thus we shall be able to lay down correctly the connexion of these transactions, and find nothing which justifies the denial of their historical truth. P. 52, 1. 2 from bottom, /o?' "relinquish" read "discharge." P. 54, 1. 2, "could not complete," add note : — "We must always maintain against Baur that Stephen's discourse is left unfinished, that he could not complete the plan he had sketched ; that just when he had reached the principal point, for which all that went before was preparatory, he was interrupted ; unless, perhaps, the discourse as we have received it, is imperfectly reported." P. 55, 1. 20, " Lord Jesus, receive," (note.) I can find no gi'ound whatever to discover (as Baur has done) in Stephen's manner of speaking and acting, instead of the image of Christ as impressed by his Spirit on his genuine disciples, nothing but the impression of the subjective fiction which makes Stephen a copy of Christ. To support the latter view, it is urged that such words as Stephen used occur in Luke xxiii. 34 and 4G. This agTcement could not be merely acci- dental, but points to the same source. But I do not perceive ADDITIONS AXD CORRECTIONS. 79 that tlic literal agTeement which exists here, cr.n only be so explained, since the agreement may be very naturally accounted for on the ground that the Spirit of Christ, expressed in those words of Christ -which arc transmitted to us by Luke, so expressed itself in Stephen. That false testimony against Christ, of which the false testimony against Stephen is to be taken as an imitation, does not in so many words appear in Luke. P. 56, 1. 3 from bottom, after "destruction" add, " As we have frequently observed, that the hostilities waged against a truth when first brought to light, with which its publishers have had to contend, have very much contributed to render their consciousness of it more clear and complete, and to make them better acquainted with the consequences that flow from it, — so here also the opposition of Pharisaical Judaism must have had a powerful and beneficial influence in relation to freer views of the Gospel among the Hellenists." P. 57, 1. 13, "Restorer." (Note.) ^^%'^ or ^n?;?. See Gesenius's Dissertation i)e Samaritanorum Theologia, (1822,) and his Carmina iSamaritana, p. 75. P. 58, 1. n, for "this intelligence," read "the highest intelligence." P. 60, 1. 17. " The information," &c. In the fourth edition, the former part of this paragraph is as follows : — " It must have occasioned great surprise to the church at Jerusalem to hear that Christianity had first gained an entrance among a people who vrere not considered as belong- ing to the theocratic nation. Not that any such scruples could be felt, as were excited at the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles, since the Samaritans, in common with the Jews, practised circumcision and observed the Law of Moses. Moreover, Christ himself had set the example by his personal ministry among the Samaritans, and had so far counteracted the prejudice against them. Yet the disunion between the Jews and the Samaritans was so great that the former could not view without some mistrust the form- ation of a chm-ch among the latter, and believed that they must ascertain the manner in which the Gospel operated among them before they could acknowledge the new believers as Christian brethren. There must have been a special reason for the mission of the Apostles Peter and John to Samaria. If we were disposed to infer the object of their 80 ADDITIONS Als'D CORRECTIONS. mission from the effects that it produced, as if these gifts of the Spirit could not be imparted by a deacon, but required the superior agency of the apostles, we should proceed on an ungrounded supposition — and to infer the design from the consequences, is, as it appeal's in this case, always very uncertain. With much greater right we may admit, that a kind of mistrust was the cause of this mission. This mistrust must have related either to those among whom Philip laboured, or to himself the labourer. It might cer- tainly be the latter, as Baur allows, — a consequence of the continually increasing opposition between the Christians of- Palestinian and those of Hellenistic descent and education, a symptom of which would be, that the old church could not fully trust the freer mode of thinking among the Hellenistic • preachers, which already began to be formed from Chris- tianity. But with greater certainty we are justified in regard- ing this mission as owing to the national distrust felt towards the Samaritans. Both gi'ounds of mistrust might indeed be blended together, yet we find in the naiTative no point of connexion for the first. At all events it is evident, that the manner in which the Gospel gained entrance among the Samaritans must have appeared to the two apostles as defective. Jesus had indeed been acknowledged as the Mes- siah, and baptism had been administered in his name, but the believers as yet knew nothing of the Holy Ghost ; for what this might be could only be known from inward experience, and this was still something foreign to the Samaritans. They had received the baptism of water without receiving the baptism of the Spirit. The cause of this may be traced to the manner in which they became believers ; for according to the universal law of the development of the Christian life, the effects of faith are conditioned by its quality, and this again, by the mode of its origination. Among the Samaritans, living faith in the Redeemer appears to have been still want- ing. Since it was not a feehng of the need of redemption founded in the consciousness of sin that had led them to believe, their faith does not appear to have proceeded from the right religious and moral principle. It Avas at first in their minds only an undefined and obscure longing after fresh and higher revelations, and this longing was still more per- verted from its true aim by the deceptive arts of the Goes Simon, which, from the partial satisfaction they gave, led them ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 81 still further astray. The superiority of Philip, which was evinced iu his works, had moved them afterwards to believe him ratlier than Simon, to place more confidence in his words. Still this was a faith which proceeded from impressions on the senses, and depended on the person of him whom they had beheld performing such wonderful works. What Philip announced to them, and they had been moved to acknowledge as true by outward appearances, still remained to them some- thing external. The Christ whom he preached was to them only an outward object of faith, and had not yet passed into their inner life. The operation of the Holy Ghost was still something foreign which astonished them in the effects pro- duced by another person. Certainly the two apostles would perceive that what Philip had effected was only the beginning, and that still more must take place, iu order to found a true Christian church. We have not a full account in the Acts," &c. P. 62, note 1, after " basis " add, " But the narrative in the Acts is clearly distinguished by the genuine historical impress from all those fancies, so that no one, unless his mind be so far perverted as to have lost all perception of the difference between fiction and historical reality, can fail to recognise it." P. Q)Q, 1. 10, after "occasion" add, " But before we proceed any further, we must take notice of what has been urged from two different stand-points against the credibility of the account in the Acts which we here follow, and against the internal probability of the whole narrative.' The stand-point which Peter afterwards occupied in relation to Paul and the preach- ing of Paul among the heathen, must testify, on the contrary, that he had attained to views similar to those of Paul in a peculiar, independent manner. It has been asserted, indeed, that Peter's vacillation, such as he exhibited in his conference with Paul at Antioch, cannot be explained on this ground ; but that every difficulty will be removed, if we suppose that Peter was forced to admit an independent development of 1 By Gfrorer, in his work, " Die heilige Sage," 1 Abth. s. 444, and by liaur, in his often-quoted work on Paul. The first proceeds on the supposition that the Acts consist of two distinct parts, and that the first part was composed by a follower of Peter ; and Baur, on the sup- position that the whole was pervaded by a henotic or conciliatory design ; but they both arrive at similar results, VOL. II. G 82 ADDITIONS AND CORIIECTIONS. Christianity among the Gentiles, by an impression from with- out in opposition to his own stand-point and mode of thinking, by the personal superiority of Paul and the acknow- ledged facts of his ministry. But is it, then, really probable, that men who were wedded to the mode of thinking which made participation in the salvation of the Messiah dependent on the observance of the Mosaic Law, should allow themselves so easily to be moved, solely and entu^ely by the mental supe- riority of an individual who, from the difference between his own stand-point and theirs, must have been so far less fitted to operate upon them, or by an adduction of facts which testified of the similar effects of faith in Gentiles and Jews, to the admission of a principle which ran counter to the whole system of their deeply-rooted convictions 1 We know full well, how hard it is to conquer inveterate preju- dices by an appeal to external facts — ^liow strongly men are disposed to explain away, or to interpret in their own favour, all facts which may testify against their pi-ejudices. And would a man of Peter's strongly marked individuality, be the kind of person to be induced to give up his principles, by an influence proceeding only from without, apart from any point of internal connexion in his own comse of development 1 A far more natural explanation it will be, if we can show a pre- paration for such an acknowledgment on the part of Peter through the medium of his own inward experience. The first poixit of connexion lay in the essence of the truth announced by Christ, and in his own words, which led to such an under- standing. If this be admitted, it will be self-evident how a development proceeding from Peter's own Christiam conscious- ness might gradually prepare him for such an acknowledg- ment. But this development from within might also be supported by outward facts, which might easily be forth- coming, if, before the entrance of Paul on his apostleship, the publication of the Gospel had anyhow come into contact with the Gentiles ; when it would be perceived that among them also the hearts of men invited and admitted it. But, of course, Cln'istian truth cannot gain full possession of the inner man without a struggle. Everywhere we shall be prepared to expect in the development of Christianity a co-operation of the supernatural and the natural. And when we find an account handed down which corresponds to all these points, we cannot hesitate to acknowledge the impress of nature and ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 83 of truth. Idea and history are brought into unison with each other. Moreover, Peter evidently occupies a middle position between James and Paul, and this intermediate stand-point will therefore necessarily correspond to his own course of de- velopment. " If we examine it closely, what Paul says in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians respecting his relation to Peter, and that apostle's relation to Judaism, is so flir from contradicting the view we are advocating, that it perfectly agrees with it. If we carefully weigh what Paul there says, we shall be led directly to assume such a course in Peter's development, as we have already traced. " When Peter, under the influence of the Jewish Christians at Antioch, was led to abstain fi'om free intercourse with the Gentile Christians, Paul did not consider it necessary first of all to con\ance him of the truths that were opposed to his line of conduct, but taking for granted his theoretic agTcement with him, only accused him of the contradiction between his principles and his conduct at that time. He could not express himself more strongly in order to mark how freely Peter had hitherto acted in reference to the Mosaic Law ; Gal. ii. 14, ' If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as the Jews?' It is evident from these very words of Paul, that Peter had expressed by his actions the conviction that salvation did not depend on the observation of the law ; that he had felt no scruple to live wdth the Gentiles as a Gentile, as Paul, in v. 16, avers, speaking from his own stand-point and that of Peter as identical ; ' Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ.' In v. 18 he charges him with seeking to restore what he had already de- stroyed ; which can only refer to that renunciation of the Mosaic Law which was involved in Peter's former line of con- duct. Here, therefore, such a revolution is presupposed in Peter's views as cannot be sufficiently explained by the in- fluence of another person on his mind. If everything had proceeded from the influence of Paul idone, should we not find a hint refeniug to it in some part of the Pauline Epistles ? Had not Paul, when he declared that he needed not first to learn the tniths of the Gospel from the apostles in Pales- tine,— that from the beginning he had acted independently 84 ADDITIONS AXD CORRECTIONS. in the publication of tlie Gospel — the most natural oppor- tunity for making this claim, that Peter hrst through him had learnt the true nature of the Gospel in relation to the Mosaic Law, and to do homage to the principles first of all laid down by himself as the only coiTect ones ? " The narrative in the Acts fm-nishes us here with the only right clue to the course of Peter's religious development, and which we are compelled to seek by the subject itself The nan'ative is in fact drawn from the life, and contains in it all the elements from which a natural vivid representation can be formed, although the author himself has been at no pains to make it such.^ It cannot be called an arbitrary manufacture of history, if we employ the same operation of which every historian must make use where he has to form a vivid historical representation from an account which does not develop all the points that are requisite for a perfect under- standing of the facts. Necessarily he must amplify several things which are not literally contained in the account lying before him, but which are indicated by the given outlines, if he would unite everything in one picture according to the laws of analogj^ So in the account given in the Acts, the leading principle is to give prominence to the supernatural and the ^divine ; that is here the side that belongs to historical truth ; as to the natm-al circumstances and natural connexion of causes and effects, to which the narrator does not direct his ^ Even Baur lias acknowledged that the notion of a mythical com- position is not admissible here. He thinks that he has detected a designed fabrication for an apologetic and conciliatory object that lies at the basis of the whole book of the Acts. But as we cannot in general find in the simple character of this book any ground or point of con- nexion to support the charge of such a fraus pia pervading the whole of it, so we think that in this particular part, whoever views the nar- rative with an unprejudiced eye, must decide against Baur's unnatural artificial construction of it. The vision that happened to Peter, which related to the rights of the Gentiles to a participation in the kingdom of the Messiah, was copied (according to Baur) from the appearance of Christ to Paul, for the purpose of accrediting his call as an apostle to the Gentiles, (p. 78,) and contained the legitimation of those rights. Such things may, indeed, be imagined if persons are disposed to fashion the materials lying before them according to their arbitrary preconceptions, or if they can look at everything only through spectacles of their own making, and see in all things the reflection of their own odd fancies. But whoever is not labouring under the complaint of spectral ap- pearances, will certainly find nothing whatever in this whole narrative which can justify such a comparison. ADDITION'S AND CORRECTIONS. 85 attention, wc must endeavour to fill tliem up according to the iridications contained in the account itself. ''The impulse once given to the fm-ther spread of the Gospel beyond the bounds of Judea could not stop. Thus we find churches founded in the west on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, though of their origin we have no distinct account. Possibly, the happy effects of their visit to the Samaritans induced both the apostles, or at least the energetic Peter, to extend their missionary labours. Or it might be, that the scattering abroad of the believers, occasioned by the persecu- tion against Stephen, led to the founding of these churches. At all events it was natural — since the apostles were at first the Patriarchs (so to speak) of the whole church, and in the original community of believers ever^^thing was under their guidance — that the newly-founded foreign churches should also stand, according to this analogy, under their superin- tendence. And in virtue of the gift of church-guidance pecidiar to Peter, recognised and actually claimed for him by Christ himself, the business of taking the oversight of the younger churches must have been specially committed to him. A visitation journey of this kind led him to the churches founded in the west, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.' He was still accustomed to labour only among the Jews ; yet he had already, as we have seen, visited a peoj^le not belonging to the theocratic nation, the Samaritans, who had experienced the operations of the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Already he would have heard of the preaching of the Gospel among the Gentiles by the scattered Hellenists, and of the receptibility which was found to exist in the hearts of the Gentiles ; perhaps, atso, he had had an opportunity, in the course of his ministry among the Jews who lived in the midst of the heathen world, of noticing ' Acts ix. 31. Baur's assertion (p. 40), tliat this was undertaken in order to counterwork the more liberal principles spread abroad by the Hellenists, we cannot regard as properly supported, since no trace of it can be found in the narrative itself. Nor does it by any means follow, because there is nothing said here of laying on of hands and the communication of the Holy Spirit, that the mention of these things in connexion with the ministry of the apostles among the Samaritans ia unhistorical. xVlthough both journeys come under the common category of visitations, yet the difference — a difference of object and in the mode of operation arising from the different class of persons, in one case the Samaritans, in tbe other the dispersed Jews, among Avhom the foundation of the Church had been already laid — is not on that account destroyed. 86 ADDITIONS A2TD CORRECTIONS. traces of tliat deep concern with which many Gentiles Hstened to his preaching. And what he actually witnessed might bring to his remembrance many things which Christ intimated in his discourses. Thus there might be a preparation for the entrance of new light into his soul, though it could not pene- trate all at once. There was necessarily a conflict in his soul between the rays of the new light, and the darkness arising from his earher habits of thinking. But now a divine call, reached him from without, and co-operated with what was taking place within his breast. " As among the Gentiles, at that time, there were many noble-minded men, dissatisfied with the ancient superstition, who longed with conscious or unconscious anxiety after a divine revelation which might impart the confidence of religious conviction^ raised above the strife of human opinions, so we recognise in the centm-ion Cornelius a representative of this better class of Gentiles, an historical image from the life, and no mythical personage. He belonged to the Roman cohort which formed the ganison of Csesarea Stratonis, a town on the sea-coast, thirty-five miles from Joppa. This man appears first, like many of those among the Gentiles who were filled with a sense of their religious wants, and were seeking after the truth, to have turned fii'om the popular polytheism to the worship of Jehovah in Judaism, and thus to have reached a theistic stand-point which formed a bridge for him to Christianity." P. 68, 1.. 13, after " enigmatical" add, " The Proselytes of the Gate, who bon-owed the general principles of Theism from Judaism, but held them in an isolated state, separated from all that gave it vitality, found in it consequently not enough for their religious necessities. But they were roused by the felt deficiency to search and examine. With this, the expecta- tion of the Messiah, which easily passed over to them from the Jews, was fitted to harmonize, and would assume a form * A prophetic longing, sucli as is contained in those words in Plato's Phaedon, although it might no^ be so strictly intended by the philoso- pher, where it is said, that " taking the best and hardest to be refuted of human opinions, a man must venture on the voyage of life, carried over on this, as on a raft, unless he can be carried over more securely and free from danger in a more trustworthy conveyance, or some divine word :" T(iv yovv fiiXriarov rwv avBgcoTTiuwv \6'ycov Aa^6vTa Kol Svcre^eXeyK- roTUTOv, inl rovTov oxoififvov, Icairep iirl olid Christian realism as it was represented in Paul, could impress itself more distinctly on the hard substance of rugged Phari- saism, than on the tender yielding material of Hellenistic culture. And yet it was not unimportant that in Paul there should be a portion of the Hellenist element amalgamated with the Palestinian and Pharisaic. What had been partially effected in the development of Stephen and the Hellenists, down to the mission of Peter to Cornelius, was concentrated here. If in the method by which Peter, the advocate of the contracted Palestinian conception of Christianity, was led to more liberal views, something analogous may be imagined to the method in whicli Paul was converted from the most violent opposi- tion to the Gospel to the reception of it in its most compre- hensive form, we may be allowed to consider the latter as an objective type of the process of historical development according to the same law and with the same great outlines, and not as the arbitrary fiction of any human mind. " With what we have just now remarked, is closely con- nected one principal distinction of the Apostle Paul in the historical development of Christianity. It was not merely that churches were founded by him among the heathen, and that the sphere of his labours was so extensive ; but by him especially the fundamental truths of the Gospel were deve- loped in their living organic connexion, and formed into a compact system. The essence," &c. P. 78, 1. 14, after "it" add, "The more definite the object of the author of the Acts might be in noticing the change of the apostle's name from Saul to Paul from this period — if, as Baur assumes, it was an imitation of the alteration in Peter's name (p. 93) — so much less likely is it, that he would have stated the fact without making any remark upon it." P. 80, 1. 8, after "literature" add, "But might he not at a later period have been induced, while exercising his ministry among people of- Hellenic culture, to have made himself better acquainted with Hellenic literature? The man who felt himself impelled by the glowing zeal of love, and who knew how to become, as to the Jews a Jew, so to the Greeks a Greek, in order to win them over to the Gospel — might, for promoting 90 ADDITIOXS AND CORRECTIONS. that object, read many writings of the Grecian philosophers and poets. It may, indeed, be asked, whether he would have time amidst his prodigious and varied labours for such a purpose, having in addition to work for his livelihood? But can we venture to measm-e Paul by the common standard? It would not be easy to say what was not possible to such a man. Yet we must not draw too large a conclusion from the few passages of ancient authors which occur in his writings. It is true we shall find in him such expressions respecting the relation of Christianity to the cultm-e and philosophy of the ancient world, to which the history of Grecian philosophy gives the best commentary, and which may give evidence of a deeper acquaintance with it. But what in others would be the result of study, might in Paul's case be sufficiently accounted for, from the deep insight of his universal Christian knowledge of the world. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians and in the Epistle to the Romans he had several opportu- nities of making use of his knowledge of Grecian literature, if he had been famiUar with it. And we know that an Apollos was his superior in Grecian cultm-e, and that he speaks of himself as ^rude in speech.' (IdKorrjg rw Xoyw) 2 Cor. xi. G, compared with others." P. 81, 1. 1, aftei' "aliment" add, " The three great teachers of the chm'ch who were especially called to testify of the oppo- sition between flesh and spirit, natm-e and grace, the natural and the supernatural, the merely natiu'ally human and the Christian — these three heroes of the Gospel, Paul, Augustin, and Luther, had in common, a nature fervid and containing a fulness of power which could not be easily compelled, but would resist so much the more strongly the reins and the yoke, or any violence done to it. But while in an Augustin the unbridled rude nature manifested itself in the outbreak of lust and passions unchecked by any higher power, and thus he was taught the power of sin, it was otherwise with Paul as well as with Luther. The strict discipline of the law to which he had been subjected in the school of the Pharisees prevented the power of sin from breaking forth outwai'dly; it was driven back inwardly. Cci-tainly he belonged to the earnest upright Pharisees who strove after the righteousness of the law with their whole souls. In the sight of men he appeared as righteous, blameless. As he himself could affirm that, * touching the righteousness which is in the law,' he was ADDITIONS AKD CORBECTIONS. 91 'blameless,' Phil. iii. 6, and 'in the Jews' religion lie was above many of his equals in age/ Gal. i. 14." P. 85, 1. 25,/or" because unusual," &c., read " because these not imusual," &c. P. 86, 1. 11, afte7' " Redeemer" add, " But this inward trans- action may be conceived of in two ways, the difference of which is determined by a difference in the conception of Christianity itself, and of the person of Christ especially, and by the still more general difference in the mode of contem- plating God and the Universe. It may be so understood as to exclude the supernatural altogether, while everything is con- sidered only as the result of a natural, psychological develop- ment. For the living Christ, who reveals himself to the spirit, is substituted the power of an idea which through him is excited in the human spirit, or to the shining forth of which in the consciousness of the spirit the first impulse has been given by him. What represented itself to the spirit of Paul, as Christ, was only the symbolical vision of this idea involuntarily transferred to a definite person, who served as a foil for it. What appeared to the spirit as something external, was nothing else than the reflection of what proceeded from his own inward being. Such a conception as this, which makes Christianity and Christ totally different objects from what they were to Paul, which regards as self-deception what inspired him, what was the soul of his life, his tliinking and his acting, and gave him power for everything — such a con- ception we must most emphatically reject. But something altogether different is a spiritual inward revelation of Christ as a real fact, in the same sense as Paul would regard it, and as Christ promised to his disciples ; not the conscious arising in the mind of an idea, but a revelation of the same Christ, by whom in his earthly manifestation the salvation of man- kind had been effected, in his glorified personality, with whom believers must come into a real relation. But if we regard this as a spiritual inward transaction proceeding fi'om the contact of the higher self-consciousness with the living Christ, and that what represented itself to the outward senses was only as a reflection of that revelation which took place in the inner man — by a conception thus understood, the divine and the truth of the event would lose nothing. At all events, that inward revelation of Christ is always the chief thing, and however we may conceive of the appearance as outwardly 92 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTICXS. recognisable to the senses, yet still this was only the medium in order to lead to that inward revelation of Christ, to prepare him for that real spiritual communion with tlie living Christ, from which his whole apostolic efficiency proceeded ; as among the earlier apostles the reappearance of Christ after liis resurrection was only the preparation for the ever-enduring communion, into which they would enter with Christ. The perceptions of the senses," &c. P. 88, 1. 1, afte)' " Christ " add, " But if we allow that from these words of Paul nothing can be concluded with certainty, excepting an inward revelation of Christ which he was con- scious of having received, yet we can by no means grant that all his other expressions respecting this transaction are to be explained according to this passage, and consequently that there is nothing more than that pure internal revelation to form the basis of everything else that he reports. By men- tioning in this passage only the one point of highest interest, he by no means excludes all others ; but it suited his purpose and aim to make one thing prominent, since he wished simply to point out the independent source from which he drew his knowledge of Christian truth. And in this respect, the way in which Christ appeared outwardly to him was a matter of comparative indifference. It is evident, that whatever of that kind might have happened, there was no occasion to mention it here. But it is another important point which Paul brings forward in 1 Cor. ix. 1, when he adduces his having seen Christ as a pledge of his genuine apostolic dignity. It could be only such a seeing of Christ, which could have this im- portance attached to it. It belonged to the apostolic calling to testify of Christ the Risen One from a personal sight of him. Because Christ had been seen by Paul, he stood in this respect on an equality with the other apostles; and in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians he evidently places the appearance of the risen and glorified Saviour, which was vouchsafed to himself, in the same category with all his other .appearances after his resurrection. Hence we see how important it was for him, as well as for the other apostles, to be able to testify from per- sonal experience of the great fiict — the basis of Christian faith and hope — the real resurrection of Christ, and his glorified personal existence. Hence the image of the. glorified Christ is present to his contemplation when he testifies of the revelation of the glory of God in Christ, and si^eaks of that perfect con- APDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 93 formity to his imago to which believers will hereafter attain. But may not what we have before said of the case of Cornelius be made use of as an argument against the objective reality of this appearance of Christ 1 May it not be said — As Cornelius could only testify of his own subjective experience of what ho believed that he had seen, so it might have been with Paul. As flir as he tells us of his experience, he is trustworthy ; but it does not appear from this that he was capable of distinguish- ing between the objective and the subjective. Hence we are not at all justified in supposing anything else than the inward vision. But the comparison is not altogether correct. In reference to what was communicated to Cornelius, it is not a point of importance whether it was a real angelic appearance, or a vision. The importance of the transaction, in itself, and in a religious view, remains just the same. On the contrary, the importance of what was seen by Paul, consists in this — that he could testify from his own beholding aiid experience, that he actually saw the risen and glorified Christ, which was the foundation of his whole religious faith. His believing con- fidence would have arisen from self-deception, if we admit that he had here confounded the objective and the subjective. We cannot bring ourselves to admit this, if we hold in due esteem this belief of Paul, and what he effected by means of it for the salvation of men. Besides, we are justified in placing greater confidence in a Paul than in a Cornelius, for forming a correct judgment respecting himself. Paul, who knew by experience the state of ecstasy, could well distinguish it from the state of waking and thoughtful religious consciousness, as we may learn from the passage above quoted in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. "But in truth, a transaction of this kind can never be proved in a manner that will be universally satisfactory. In order to recognise it in its reality, a peculiar stand-point to view it from is necessary ; and whoever is a stranger to this, must struggle against admitting the fact. For history in general, there is no such thing as mathematical demonstration. Faith and trust are always required for the recognition of historical truth. The only question is, whether there is sufficient ground for it, or more which prompts to doubt. The decision depends upon the consistency of the facts, and of the whole department to which they belong. The demand for doubt is stronger in proportion as the nature of the transactions in 94 .VDDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. question, and of their appropriate department, is something foreign to the spirit of the inquirer, and as these facts are less capable of being decided according to the standard he is familiar with, and are more out of the circle of his experience. This remark applies particularly to transactions which follow other laws than those of the common course of nature, and in which something supernatural is involved. Whoever thinks that everything must be" explained by those la'vvs, is neces- sitated to acknowledge nothing supernatural by the whole stand- point from which he contemplates the universe ; such an one ^vill feel himself compelled to refer the history of Paul's conversion to those common laws, and to deny every- thing that opposes them ; it would be in vain to dispute with him about special points, when the absolute contrariety of his whole stand-point has predetermined the course of his examination and its result. Especially in the explanation of the transaction of which we are here speaking, it is of con- sequence in what relation the inquirer is placed to that on which the essence of the Christian faith rests, .and with which it stands or falls — the fact of the actual resurrection of Christ. Whoever acknowledges this, occupies a stand- point where he can have no motive to deny the super- natural in the history that is connected with that fact. Such a person can have no gi'ound for mistrusting the expressions of Paul respecting this appearance to him of the risen Saviom*. But whoever from his own point of view cannot acknowledge the actual resuiTCction of Christ, is so far incapacitated for admitting the objective nature of this appearance to Paul, and must from the first stand in a hostile relation to it. " But it is always most important, that we should not sepa- rate what God has joined together ; that we should not tear asunder the connexion between the objective and the subjective, the divine and human, the supernatural and the natural." P. 91, 1. 4, after " Arabia" add, " The question here arises. With what view, and for what object, did Paul visit Arabia ? He might find an opening for preaching the Gospel among the numerous Jews who were scattered over Arabia, and devote his activity to that object. He would here first of all appear as an apostle to the Jews. But the reason might be, that he felt himself impelled to prc])are himself in quiet retirement for the gi-eat office entrusted to him by a Divine call. On merely internal gi'oimds the question cannot be decided. It ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS, 95 is equally possible, that the man of glowing zeal and un- wearied activity felt himself impelled to testify among tlie Jews of that truth to which ho had hitherto been an enemy, as that after such an astonishing conversion of his inner life, a season of contemplative repose would form the transition- point and preparation for his gi^eat activity. And the con- nexion in which this statement occurs in the Epistle to the Gala- tians, is not decisive of the question ; for either view equally suits the antithesis in that passage, that Paul did not go up to Jerusalem in order to make his appearance under the sanc- tion of those who were apostles before him." P. 92, 1. 5, after "Jerusalem" add, " As to the object of this journey, it follows from what Paul himself states, in his Epistle to the Galatians, (i. 18,) that the main object at least, was not to form a connexion with the Christian church and Jerusalem, but to become personally acquainted with the apostle Peter. This does not exclude what we are told in the Acts of his intercom-se with the whole church, and his dis- putations with the Hellenists ; only these did not form the object for undertaking the jom-ney, but only something additional while carrying out his original design. But it may be asked, Why was Paul anxious to become personally ac- quainted with Peter? If Pet'^r was more allied to Paul by the fire of an outwardly directed activity, yet, on the other hand, there appears the deep inward element, the con- templative tendency of John's spirit as more in alliance with Paul. Hence Paul might desire to be personally acquainted both with Peter and John, But the characteristic qualities of John's mind appear not to have been prominently brought into action till a later period, Peter, in virtue of his peculiar ^upiafxa Kvi3epi'i](7eioc, and the position in which he had been placed by the Lord himself, had from the first taken the lead in all that related to the government of the church. He was especially active in promoting the spread of Christianity — a sufficient reason why Paul, before entering on his public ministry, should wish to confer with him in particular. If Paul had akeady attained a clear insight into the principles according to which he founded the Christian church among the Gentiles, a subject closely connected with them, namely, the relation of the Gospel to the Law, might form the topic of discussion between them. Among the reasons which might 96 ADDITIONS AXD CORRECTIONS. lead him to wish for a personal acquaintance with Peter, this might be one, that he wished to know more exactly what he thought iijDon this subject. Although it w^as not till Paul had already gained an independent sphere of action, that a full conference took place between them on the relation of the different spheres of apostolic service and mode of operation, yet this does not render it impossible that at this first interview between Peter and Paul, they conversed on what was essential for the founding of a Christian church. Now if, as is very likely, the conversion of Cornelius had already taken place, we may also presume that Peter by what then occurred was prepared to acknowledge the principles laid down by Paul. But if the contrary was the fact, the con- ference with Paul might be one of those influential cir- cumstances by which the conflict in Peter's mind that terminated at the conversion of Cornelius, was brought to its final result. In the first case, Peter might have acted as a mediator between Paul and James, the brother of the Lord, who in this respect stood furthest from him. It is remark- able, that these were the only leaders (Coryphaei) of the church with whom he at first came in contact. "But here another question arises. Was it purely acci- dental, that Paul met with but one apostle and one apostolic man 1 Did he avoid an interview with the collective church and with the rest of the apostles '? On either supposition we must regard the narrative in the Acts on this point as eiToneous. But what design could Paul have had in so acting 1 Shall we seek for the reason in what he says in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he wished to avoid the appear- ance of not having from the first entered independently on the preaching of the Gospel, and of having been instructed and furnished with full powers for it by the apostles 1 But this appearance would be as much supported, if not still more so, by seeking a conference with the pillars of the chm-ch. If Paul had wished sedulously to avoid everything which might favom' such an appearance, he would not have gone at all to Jerusalem. Only one supposition remains, that Paul did not show himself openly, but merely conferred in secret with Peter, on account of his pei-sonal safct}', in order to defeat the plots of his embittered enemies among the Jews ; and that thi'ough Peter he met with James in the same private manner. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 97 Tills supposition is confirmed by Paul's representation in tno passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, to the eftbct that, for fourteen yeai's (or eleven years after this journey) he had been quite unknown by sight to the churches in Judea, and that they had only heard of him by report. But this would lead us to explain several thing-s in the narrative of the Acts respecting this visit of Paul to Jemsalem as untrue,^ since in that case all could not regard the account that Barnabas^ introduced Paul to the apostles in general, as perfectly acciu'ate, since Paul, according to his own statement, met only with Peter.^ If Paul at that time, in order to evade the plots of tlie Jews embittered against him for his apostasy, had been induced to remain in secret with Peter without showing himself openly, it follows that the report of the change that had taken place in his character must have already been widely spread in Jerusalem, But this being presupposed, it cannot be admitted that the Chiistians in Jerusalem were filled with mistrust against him, nor could he have needed the friendly offices of Barnabas in order to gain admission to the church. It is also highly improbable, that the conversion of such an adversary, which w^as accomplished, too, in so remark- able a manner, should not have become known after so long an interval among the Christians in Jerusalem. And if only such a concealed visit of Paul to Jerusalem be admitted, the disputations between him and the Hellenists could not have taken place. Certainly, this supposition has several things in its favour, and admitting it, the credibility of the Acts in all essential points would still remain unshaken. From this one mistake, that the visit of Paul to Jerusalem instead of ^ Here we must also in truth acknowledge that Baur's doubts are not altogether unfounded, although we cannot acknowledge the decisive tone of his assertions to be equally well-founded, and at all events can only admit an accidental error of tradition, which nowise aftects the general truth of the narration, and implies no designed fabrication for , a special purpose. 2 According to an account not sufficiently authenticated, in the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, {Hist. Eccles. ii. 1,) Barnabas had been one of the seventy disciples. 2 But this erroneous statement involves only an ignorance of parti- cular circumstances; for as soon as it was known that Paul had made his first visit to the church at Jerusalem, without an acquaintance witli the peculiar circumstances under which it took place, the assumption might be easily made, that he was then introduced to the apostles in general. VOL. II. H 98 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. a private, was represented as a public one, other mistakes would follow without occasioning what might justly be called an essential deviation from historical truth. Meanwhile, we do not ventui^e to maintain this, since many adjustments can be conceived between the two accounts, according to which they supply each other's deficiencies. " We cannot so certainly contradict the assertion, that Paul's conversion must have been already generally known in Jeinisalem. It may lessen the difficulty if we consider that the young man Saul could not at that time have attained to such great eminence, that the greater part of those thi'ee years after his conversion had been spent in retirement in Arabia, and that his return was rendered difficult by political occurrences — the war with King Aretas. But it was also possible, that Barnabas aided him by his good offices, though they might not be required for the precise object of removing the mistrust of the believers. He might have applied to him as to a Hellenist, one of his old acquaintances, and through him have been introduced to Peter. In itself it is perfectly natural that he should first resort to those Chris- tians who stood nearest to him by descent, and probably by early connexions. Thus it might easily happen that, although he had not yet come in contact with the whole Chm'ch, he had had intercourse with many Hellenists, and through them was involved in those disputations which led to the persecutions afterwards raised against him. " But in reference to these disputations of Paul with the Hellenists, questions suggest themselves which we must examine before we proceed any foi'ther with the consideration of his life and labours : — the question, whether Paul from the beginning occupied that peculiar point of view which he held afterwards on the opposition between the Law and the » Gospel, and in accordance with this had resolved to present Christianity to the Gentiles in its independent development, separate from Judaism, or whether such a tendency was formed in his mind by the opposition his preaching met with from a hostile Judaism — the question, from what influences the development of this peciiharly Pauline element is to be deduced ; and this question, again, is connected with the more general one, respecting the sources to which Paul was indebted for his knowledge of Christian tnith. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 99 " Tn passing over from the stand-point of Pharisaism, it might very easily happen that dependence on the authority of the Mosaic Law as a matter of perpetual obligation would be at the same time given up. This might happen in the instances of such conversions as were effected in the way of ordinary instrumentality. But it was altogether different with such a conversion as Paul's, which was not brought about by any such instrumentality, but in an immediate and sudden manner by a violent crisis. Here then could be no connecting link, but only an absolute opposition. We may suppose that the powerful spirit of Paul, disposed to meet in violent oppo- sition, would forsake the natural course of development, and be impelled, like the later ultra-PauHnians, to a direction alto- gether hostile to Judaism. " We have already remarked, that the influence of Hellenism on a man who in early youth had been trained in the schools of the Pharisees, cannot here be taken into account. In general, we must not proceed on the supposition that the liberal spirit was universal among the Hellenists. If, as appears from Philo's writings, this was not the case even at Alexandi'ia, where the Hellenic element of culture exerted the greatest influence and power, so much less are we justified in supposing it to have been with the Hellenists generally, among whom we cannot admit the jDredominance of the element of Grecian culture in an equal degree. It was what might be expected, when a number of persons had devoted themselves so much to a foreign element of culture, as to become estranged from the Jewish, that others would be so much more mistrustful of all application to what was Hellenic, and the opposition to the abuse of freedom would drive them more violently to unreason, servitude to the letter, and illiberality. As we find among the Alexandrian Jews three parties, we might expect a similar variety among the Hellenistic Jews. The family of Paul, from which sprang the pupil of Gamaliel, was probably attached rather to the more contracted, than to the liberal class. Ananias, the teacher of Paul, when he professed himself a Christian at Damascus, was universally respected on account of his legal piety, and such a man would be very far from leading Paul nearer the direction which the apostle's mind afterwards took. We mio-ht sooner think in this connexion of the 100 ADDITIONS AND COKRECTIONS. influence of the liberal-minderl Christians, sucli as proceeded from the midst of the Hellenists in consequence of the impulse given by Stephen, and of the influence of the new ideas called forth by the martyr Stephen ; but we do not know, whether Paul soon after his conversion came into a social circle where influences of this kind would act upon him, and at all events we have no proof of it. But even apart from the Divine element, if we only consider the great originality of Paul's mind, we must not attribute too much to determining influences from without on such a man. Moreover, there was the extraordinary nature of his con- version, in which the Divine element so powerfully pre- dominated, by which, in virtue of that immediate communica- tion with Christ, he v/as placed on a level with the other apostles. Hence also that Christian originality which marked the apostles in consequence of their personal con- nexion with Christ, must be also ascribed to him, if to any one. And that it was so he testifies, declaring that he received the Gospel not from men, nor was instructed in it by men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ ; that as soon as God had revealed his Son in him that he might publish him among the Gentiles, he at once sought not human counsel, nor visited the apostles at Jerusalem, but betook himself to a spot the furthest from all such instruction, w^iere he must derive all his knowledge from an entirely different source. " In order rightly to understand the whole force and mean- ing of Paul's expressions relative to that internal transaction of which he alone could testify, we must first of all under- stand what he means by the term a7roiidXv\pig. Everything good and true must be finally traced back to the Father of lights, from whom all light beams forth for tlie spiritual world ; his revelation in all must be acknowledged ; and especi- ally is this idea applicable to all that is original and immediate in the consciousness, where from the hidden depths of the spirit, by virtue of the root of our existence in God, the light of new creative ideas springs up in the soul. Thus, if Paul had not more distinctly defined the idea of revelation, we might say that from the stand-point of religious intuition, looking only at the Divine causality, and not regarding natural iustrumentality. he had derived from Divine revela- ADDITIONS AND COllRECTIONS. 101 tion what proceeded from within by the development of reason. But if Paul knew this idea of revelation in a general sense, and exjDressly distinguished from it another more limited idea, then we must reject the supposition that lie only by a peculiarity of religious dialect called that revela- tion which from another point of view might be otherwise named. He had in fact a peculiar word to designate that general idea of revelation which applies to all consciousness of religious and moral truth, to which the miud is led by the contemplation of creation, or by entering into itself, by con- science and reason ; the word ^a v£|Oour, which he uses for this purpose in the well-known passages in the first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. But when he speaks of what can be known neither from the contemplation of creation, nor from tlie existence of reason or conscience, but only by a com- mimication of the Spirit of God, differing from all these, and newly imparted, he uses the word diroKaKviTTELv. Paul, it is true, also uses the more general designation, the word (parepovv, for that which cannot be known by the natural medium ; but no passage can be pointed out, in which the word ciTro^u- \v7rreiy is used in the more general sense. " Tholuck, indeed, in the last edition of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 72, has appealed to Phil. iii. 15, as a passage to which this construction of the idea will not apply. And, certainly, there is some truth at the basis of what he says. No doubt, Paul in those words was not thinking merely of such an advance of insight into Christian truth as proceeds from an immediate operation of the Holy Spirit; but instrumentality by a process of thought animated by the Holy Spirit is not excluded. There is, without doubt, in these words, a reference, not merely to new knowledge, such as must be communicated at once by the light of tho Holy Spirit; they rather suggest that Christians who are still immature ought to learn more thoroughly, and better understand, the contents of the Clii'istian truth already com- municated to them, by further meditation carried on in the divine illumination which they have akeady received, or more fully animated by the Divine Spirit, whose organs they have become ; as, for instance, the relation of the Gospel to the Law, and the " consequences developed from faith in the justification obtained through Christ. But still tlic word 102 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. aTTOKaXuTTTEiv here retains its fundamental meaning, inasmuch as the insight spoken of, does not proceed from natural reason, but is obtained only by the new light of the Holy Spirit. Here also there is an illustration of the difference between the words ta and (ppovqaL^, that the former refers to the eternal and divine, but the latter to the useful for man. But the contrast here made by that great teacher, closely depends, with his whole mode of contemplation, on the relation of the Divine to the human, and on the boundaries of morals. In common language, certainly the distinction between the ideas aa(t>o£ and (pfjoviiioQ often vanishes, and the former term is used to designate any knowledge or skill in the department of practice. " In the First Epistle to t»he Corinthians Paul distinguishes by the name of " the wisdom of the perfect " a more profound development of Cln-istian truth, by means of which it is shown that what natural reason represents as foolishness, con- tains in it inexhaustible treasures of wisdom. But the same Paul also uses the word (ro(pia in cases which relate altogether to the practical, and where it corresponds rather to prudence. Both senses meet in the idea of Christian wisdom, of which we shall speak in the chapter on doctrine. "If we revert to the peculiar idea of wisdom, and endeavour to investigate what Paid designates "the wisdom of the perfect," shall we not obtain an accommodation between the theoretical and the practical, by which cotpia is distinguished from yvCj(TLQl The idea of wisdom bespeaks an object- furming activity of the mind, and hence refers to those acts by which the ideas originating within arc brought forth into ADDITIONS AND COIIRECTIONS. 117 outward visibilit}-. As, according to Paul, the highest ohjcct of creation in reference to this world can only be attained by the redemption of mankind, so the Divine 'wisdom reveals itself especially in the manner in which this is effected, and the various generations of men are brought to a participation in redemption, by the various stages in the course of develop- ment under the Divine guidance which brings all things to tlie same end. (Rom. xi. 33 ; Eph. iii. 10.) Thus the wisdom of the perfect has for its functions and object, to produce the conviction that in the relation which the development of humanity bears to the appearance of Christ, and to the redemption accomplished through his sufferings, the Divine wisdom reveals itself, and hence that preaching which appears as fooHshness to those who are without the pale of Chris- tianity, gives the most abundant disclosures of the Divine wisdom — and that in the unveiling of that hidden design of redemption all the treasures of wisdom are contained. With this idea what is represented in the Epistle to the Hebrews as the doctrine of perfection, may be placed in con- nexion. And thus the \6yoQ ao^iaQ may be applied to a special department of knowledge distinguished from the general idea of gnosis. But the wisdom that guides human life and determines human action must form itself according to the doctrine of Divine wisdom ; the new mode of treating all the relations of life proceeds from that v*'hich ' the wisdom of the perfect' teaches us to recognise as the central point for the whole moral formation of life ; so therefore, the ethical element, the more practical, in distinction from the more theoretical gnosis, would here find its point of connexion." P. 162, 1. 33, note, for "longing for," read "attaining." P. 163,1. 16, "Hades," add note, "See the Shepherd of Hernias, iii. ch. 15. Fabricii cod. Apocryph. p. iii. p. 1009. [lib. iii. simil. ix. p. 428, ed. Hefele. Tub. 1847. K-arf/3j;(Tav oi/j' //er civTbjy slq to voojp) kul iraKiv areptjaav.j P. 164, 1. 15, afier " weight," begin a new i^o.ragraph thus : — " Even if in 1 Cor. xv. 29, a substitutionary baptism for the dead is intended, as indeed appears to be the most natm-al interpretation, yet this could not be made use of, by way of analogy, to support the existence of infant-baptism. For if the interpretation alluded to be correct, yet we cannot so understand it, as if the Christians imagined that their 118 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. deceased relatives who died in unbelief could be benefited by a substitutionary baptism ; for according to this supj^osition, Christians need not care so much for converting the living as for baptizing [or baptizing for] the dead. And certainly I'aul would not have used, even as a mere argumentum ad Iiominem, a superstition caiTied so far beyond all bounds. He could not even have mentioned a superstition productive of such a distortion of Christianity without strong expressions of his disapprobation. We must rather form such a conception as the following of the state of the case. It seems that at that time, in Corinth, an epidemic had been raging which in many instances had terminated fatally. When those who had already believed were taken away by death before they could receive baptism, as they otherwise would have done, their relations were baptized in their stead, since they knew that they could themselves submit to baptism, and avow Christian conviction in the name, and according to the intention of the deceased. But then, faith, as the necessary condition of baptism, was presupposed to exist in thpse persons in whose stead they allowed themselves to be baptized. Paul might indeed for the occasion have borrowed an argTiment from the conviction lying at the basis of such a custom j but he would probably have taken care to explain himself, at another opportunity, against this custom itself, as he did in reference to females speaking in their pubhc assemblies. " If the alteration in the conception of baptism, in the confounding of bajptism and regeneration, had already at an early period spread widely, we should so much more expect the early introduction of infant-baptism, which might so easily proceed from such an alteration. If this were not the case, we might well conclude, that other powerfid causes counter-worked the influence of such an alteration — in part, another important point in the conception of baptism derived from the Apostolic times — in part, the not yet supplanted consciousness of the non-apostolic institution of infant- baptism." P. 171, 1. 14, aft 67' ^' Jews," add the following paragraph : — " It has been asserted by Dr. Baur, that such conduct would have been a contradiction of Paul's principles, and therefore this account is unhistorical, and that such a fabrication owes its origin to the pretended conciliatory attempts of the author ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 119 of the Acts. But we can see no proofs whatever of this con- tradiction. The same Paul who so strenuously opposed the circumcising of Titus, because it would have appeared a practical confirmation of the principle that a participation in all the privileges of the kingdom of God depended on cir- cumcision— this same Paul could yet allow Timothy, the son of a Jewess, and brought up in Judaism, to be circumcised, in order thereby to procure an easier entrance for him among the Jews ; and since here circumcision was founded on de- scent, it could not be made use of to justify a dogmatic con- clusion, as might have been the case with the circumcision of a Gentile. And with respect- to this method of Paul's acting generally, which is often ascribed to him in the Acts — that among the Jews he observed Jewish practices, and lived alto- gether as a Jew; we believe in this respect, as well as in others, it can be shown that what the Apostle himself asserts in his Epistles concerning his conduct, leads us to presuppose examples of such a kind as are recorded in the Acts. What are we to understand, when Paul says in 1 Cor. ix. 20, that ' to the Jews he became a Jew in order to gain the Jews — to them that are under the law, as under the law, that he might gain them that are under the law?' Must we not from such words conclude, that he, without prejudice to his inward freedom from the Law, believed that in the outward observance of it he could place himself on a level with the Jews — that he felt himself compelled so to act in order to pave the way more easily to the hearts of the Jews, whom he wished to gain over to the Gospel? Are they not exactly such acts which gave his Jewish adversaries the opportunity to set his conduct in a false light before the Gentiles, and to accuse him of incon- sistency? Certainly, from what we find in the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, we shall be obliged to assume that he acted exactly as we are told was the case, in the Acts of the Apostles. We make these remarks here once for all, in order not to return again to this ground of suspicion against the Acts." P. 174,1. 14, /or "Jews" read "Gentiles." P. 175, 1. 7, after "Macedonia" add, "If we admit that Luke speaks in his own name in Acts xvi. 10, it would follow that Paul first met with him again at Troas, and received him into the company of his missionaiy associates. His 120 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. medical skill might be very useful to gain an opening for pub- lishing the Gospel among the Gentiles, as we now find it in modern missions to the heathen. Even the gift of healing would not render this useless ; since that gift was applicable only in particular cases where its possessors were prompted to employ it by an immediate Divine impulse, or a feeling excited in their minds. But the case will be different, if we admit that the account in chap. xvi. 10, was taken un- altered from the journal of Timothy, and therefore he is the speaker who describes himself as one of Paul's com- panions in the publication of the Gospel." P. 175, 1. 5 from bottom, /or "Literales" read "litorales." P. 176, 1. 12, "somnambulism," (note.) Even if we were not in a position to understand sufficiently the incident here narrated from the representation given in the Acts, yet this could not justify us in regarding it with Baur as a designed fabrication, with which everything else in the chai'acter of this book is at variance. Do we not find in history many an enigmatical appearance which yet gives us no right to call in question the truth of a narrative] We see no reason in all that Baur says, that can induce us to surrender our view of the matter. We recognise the same principle acting in this prophetess as in the fjiavriKq of the ancients, and in their oracles, in which certainly not everything can be accounted for as a deception. That from our well-established stand-point, which is neither that of crude supernaturalism, nor that of Dr. Baur's rationalism, we are fully justified in disting-uishing between the objective and the subjective in the account, we need not point out after the foregoing investigations. P. 176, last line, note 3, add, "In contradiction to Bam-'s interpretation of my words, I must remark, that I have made this comparison by no means in reference to the effects resulting from a conversion — that I by no means assumed that the female in question, by her conversion, had lost the capability of putting herself into such a condition; but my only point of comparison was this, that, generally, that capa- bility opJgJit be lost." P. 177, last line, note 1, add, "What Dr. Baur has said against the view I have taken of this transaction, may appear well-founded from the stand-point of his arbitrary aut-aut, ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 121 which is very convenient to his whole party for the contradic- tion of what will not suit their presuppositions, but will be at once dismissed by those who take the trouble to enter into the connexion of the idea presented to them." P. 178, last line of text, "depart," (note.) According to Baur, p. 152, the person who fabricated this narrative in order to exalt the Apostle Paul above Peter, wished it to be understood, that only the impression of the earthquake as a supernatm-al evidence of the innocence of the prisoners had induced the Duumvirs so to act, which would certainly be an internal mark of improbability. But verily, whoever made it his business so to magnify his heroes, and to set everything in the light of the wonderful, would not have expressed himself so vaguely that a reader would only guess at such a connexion, but would have set the point of view in which the transaction was to be regarded, straight before his readers. But when Baur, in reference to our filHng up of the con- nexion, thinks that so important a circumstance could not possibly be passed over by a faithful historian, we shall cer- tainly gi'ant that he would have given such an explanation if he had been a pragmatical narrator, and had placed himself alto- gether on the stand-point of his readers, and had made a point of telling them all they wished to know. But this is not the case; the naiTator's only concern was what the Duumvirs did, not the reasons which induced them so to act. P. 185, 1. 5,for "those" read "that." P. 185, 1. 8, "laws," add note, "Baur imagines (p. 482) that he has detected something unhistorical in Acts xvii. 6. ' How could it be said of Paul and his companions, since it was for the first time that they had visited these parts, that they had thrown the whole oluovfxEvr] into confusion'?' But is it not natural, that impassioned accusers, who wished to make the most of the object that roused their enmity, should use the language of exaggeration? 'What a long time in- tervened before Christianity appeared so politically dangerous to the Komans as is implied in the words aVeVavn,' &c. Certainly it was a long interval before Christianity appeared as a religion dangerous to the state in the sense in which it was so esteemed in the second century. But it was something quite different when the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah was so misrepresented, as if a worldly kingdom was 122 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. intended, and as if another ruler was to be set up against the Roman Emperor. Such an accusation had ah^eady been made against Jesus himself, and in the first age of Chris- tianity no other Avould be found. At a later period, quite different accusations were brought against the Christians from the stand-point of the Roman civil law." P. 188, 1. 15, for "this" read "their." P. 188, 1. 22, after "superstition" add, "What the Athe- nians alleged, in order to throw ridicule on the new religion announced by Paul, shows plainly what he made the chief topic of his addresses, and by what method he handled it. He did not begin with the Old Testament, as if he had been instructing Jews, nor represent Jesus as the Messiah spoken of by the prophets. Hence his hearers were very far from seeing in him an advocate of the Jewish religion. He testified of Jesus as the Saviour of all men, accredited by God, and of his reappearance after being raised from the dead to an existence raised above all death, as a pledge of the same eternal life for aU who were wilhng to accept the offered sal- vation. This was doctrine adapted to the religious wants of aU. The Athenians confined their attention to what the apostle constantly declared to them of Jesus and the resur- rection, without troubling themselves about the consequences involved."' P. 192, note 1, 1. 18 from bottom, after "particular na- tion" add, "The stand-point of the ancients for contemplating the world, wanted the idea of a unity of mankind, not only as to their origin, but also as to their peculiar nature and the end of their development. There was wanting generally the unitive and teleological point of view which Christianity first brought to light. While every thing, in a certain sense, points to a beginning, from which the development of the existing race has proceeded, men have fancied themselves in a circular course, without an end between the dissolution of the ancient race and the beginning of the new, an alternation of passing away and becoming ; vide Plato's Timseus, vol. ix. ' When Baur regards this whole narrative taken from the life, only as a fabrication made with reflective design, I need only, without weary- ing myself and intelligent readers with a refutation of particulars, since the same game is constantly repeated, appeal to what I have already said against this whole method, which makes a subjective pragmatism out of an objective one. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 123 ed. Bip. p. 291. Politicus, vol. vi. p. 32. Aristotle, Mctapliys. 1. xii. c. 8. vol. ii. ed. Bekker, p. 1074. Polyb. Hist. 1. vi. c. 5. § 5, 6." P. 194, 1. 18, after "again" add, " But this result cannot bo regarded as any impeachment of the wisdom of the speaker. He could only do his part to prepare his hearers for the new truths he wished to communicate, and, as much as possible, to obtain a favourable hearing. But after all, he could not help giving offence to those who were too much attached to their Hellenic point of view, to admit of a receptivity for any- thing higher. This could in no way be avoided, or he need not have published the Gospel at all." P. 194, last line note 4, add, "According to some, the name of this Dionysius gave occasion to the whole fabrication of the appearance of Paul on the Areopagus ; we recognise in such an opinion the same strange, topsy-turvy criticism, which, in- stead of fincUng in the Montanist Paraclete a reference to St. John's, would rather find a reference to the Montanist Paraclete in the Gospel of John, as a later piece of patchwork ! " P. 198, 1. 11 from bottom, after "kind" add, "This view I must even now, in the fourth edition, maintain in opposition to Dr. Baur, (p. 371.) I must still assert that the disputes which broke out in the Jewish assemblies, whether Jesus was the Messiah, could not attract the attention of the Ptoman authorities, and that thsir banishment affected not Jews and Christians, but only Jews as Jews." P. 202, 1. 8, "immortality," add note, "The passages in the First, Epistle to the Thessalonians that relate to the expectation of Christ's second Trapovaia have altogether the impress of this first age, looking forward with intense longing to his speedy return. Only in this first period could such exhibitions of enthusiastic excitement, as were actually wit- nessed in the church at Thessalonica, in connexion with this expectation, make their appearance. Only then could such an apprehension arise, that those who were "asleep" (1 Thess. iv. 13) would be so far inferior to those still living of that generation who would be witnesses of* Christ's second advent. Whoever, at a later period, would have wished to write such an epistle under Paul's name, would certainly not have encouraged the expectation of Christ's advent being so near — an expectation which would have already been cor- 124 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. rected by the intervening period. Rather woidd such a person have had a special interest to admonish them, not to expect this advent too soon, that they might not be mistaken if it were postponed to a later period. The manner in which the second advent of Christ is spoken of in this epistle, instead of being, as Baur imagines, a mark of its spm'iousness, is rather the surest and most palpable proof that this epistle could have been written at no other period." P. 203, 1. 4, " imparted to them," add note, " All this must certainly give the impression of a person who writes from the fresh lively recollection of his own recent expe- riences ; and not the impression of a designed recapitulation of the Acts, and an imitation of the Pauhne epistles, a mark of spuriousness which Baur is disposed to find, p. 481." P. 203,1. 14, "with confidence," add note, "What Baur says against the genuineness of the First Epistle to the Thes- salonians, which bears on the face of it so decidedly a Pauline impress, shows us how hard it is to satisfy these modern critics. If similar expressions to those in the other Pauline epistles occur, they must be borrowed from them. On the contrary, if there are turns of expression which do not occur in the other Pauline epistles — this is an indubi- table sign of an un-Pauline origin. But one should sujDpose that precisely the conjunction of what is allied to the Pauline epistles, with other things which are not elsewhere found just so expressed in Paul, provided there be nothing evidently at vai'iance with the Pauline characteristics, would be rather an evidence of genuineness ; for an individual wlio had the Pauline epistles before him, and wished to -^Tite another after them in Paul's name, would have shown himself more as a slavish imitator. Baur would find something thoroughly un-Pauline in the circumstance that the churches in Judea are presented as a pattern to the Gentile Christians ; espe- cially he could not speak of those persecutions without refer- ring to himself as a chief partaker in the only ones which could here be taken into consideration. So moreover, that extreme general hostile tone towards the Jews, which alludes to the odium generis humani cast upon the Jews, appears to him altogether un-Pauline. But if this had been interpolated by another person, it would be difficult to reconcile his being so hostilely disposed towards the Jews with liis pointing out ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. l25 the churches in Judea as patterns for imitation. Only in a spirit so original and unfettered as Paul's could both meet together. Now, the persecutions which the Cliristians in Judea had suffered at various times, and of which he might have been in part an eye-witness on his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, were in his fresh and lively recollection. In this view he could name no Gentile church as an object of imitation. How natural that he should here name the parent church, since he was always animated with the conviction that believing Jews and Gentiles ought always to be bound together in one Christian community ! The recollection that at an earlier period he had been so violent a persecutor of the Christians, could least of all prevent his so expressing himself, for, as he says, he had since been made a new creature, and all things had become new. ISTor do I know how Paul could have delineated more strikingly than in that manner, the ungodliness, the inhumanity, and the envy of the Jews towards the Gentiles, of which in his last missionary journey he had such frequent experience. The passage where he represents the believers among the Gentiles as imitators of the primitive church in Judea, was a natm^al occasion for mentioning that the same Jews had killed Jesus and the prophets, and had everywhere persecuted himself as a witness of the Christian truth by which the Gentiles also would partake of salvation. In the accidentally chosen expression ei:cuo^dvru)v may be traced the fresh recollection how he had been driven out from the cities where he preached the Gospel, through the influence of the Jews who had instigated the Gentiles. At a later period, when Paul was brought more into collision with Jewish Christians than with Jews simply, he had less occasion for so expressing himself Criticism ought not merely to consider the Pauline epistles as a whole, but study them chronologically, and carefully distinguish the various stages of Paul's literary activity. In reference to peculiarities of style, turns of thought, and dogmatic deve- lopment, a difference will here indeed be perceptible, and it will be seen that the Epistles to the Thessalonians have exactly those characteristics which belong to the first stage, w^hile his other epistles of which the genuineness has been dis- puted, have on the contrary the characteristic peculiarities of the last sta2:e." 12G ADDITIOXS AND C0RRECTI0X3. P. 203, 1. 14, after "with confidence" add, "As this epistle contained so many pecuharly important lessons, exhortations, and wai'nings for different members of the church, Paul must have been earnestly desirous that it should be read by all. Whether he wished it to be read before all at their public meetings, or that all should have an opportunity of reading it privately, cannot be determined precisely from the words in ch. V. 27." (Note.) " This ^ish appears perfectly natm^al on the fii-st occasion of writing to them, as in every letter which is intended to meet the wants of tuvchj members in a commu- nity, and I do not see in it the marks of an importance attri- buted to letter-writing not suitable to the times, nor with w^hat propriety Baur could say that 'this must have been written according to the views of an age which did not see in the letters of the apostle the natural medium of mental inter- course, but a sanctuary to be approached with all due reverence, so that their contents were to be known as accu- rately as possible, particularly by means of public reading,' &c. This is indeed ' not seeing the wood on account of the trees!' How naturally the words in ch. v. 27, are con- nected with the preceding request 'to greet all the brethren! '" P. 204, 1. G from bottom, after " this opinion" add, " I cannot perceive the justness of Bam-'s remark, p. 49, ' How could Paul rationally attach any weight to such a criterion of the genuineness of his epistle, which as soon as it was once known to be such, would be used so much the more for the purposes of forgery V Paul's Greek wi'iting was probably not so easy to be imitated. Also in the words xao-/; tVioroX// (iii. 17) I cannot find, with Bam-, a mark of spuriousness. It by no means follows, that the author had falsely indicated Paul's custom to add something in his own handwriting to his epistles. If Paul had otherwise added such closing words in autograph in order to testify his love to the church, yet he might have been induced by the peculiar circumstances of this church to make use of this for another purpose as a criterion of its being his genuine epistle. Or he might first of all have been induced with this view to make such a closing addition, and afterwards, when this view had been lost sight of, still on other accounts to have retained the practice. But he must have foreseen that he would have occasion to wiitc several other letters to the churches. We are not at all ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 127 justified in asserting that- the greatest part of Paul's corro- spondencc has been handed down to us." P. 204,1. 21, "principles and opinions," add, "That some- thing of this kind happened so early in the church at Thes- salonica, while on the other hand we find no trace of it in the later epistles of Paul, is explained by the peculiar circum- stances of that church, the excited state of its members, that one-sidedness of the Christian spirit which directed its attention only to the future, that limitation of mental vision which did not equally take in the whole of Christianity, but gazed alone on the second advent. Such a one-sided religious interest would easily be seduced to call all means good which would gratify its indulgence. In later times Paul had far more to do with adversaries who disputed his apostolic authority than ■with false friends who sought to avail themselves of it for their own ends. His later false adherents were more sober, and free from the enthusiastic tendency of the Thessalonians. Thus everything is explained by a perfectly consistent and genuine historical impress, bearing marks of the peculiar circumstances of this chm*ch. What purpose would it serve of the author of a forged epistle to warn them of other epistles also forged in Paul's name 1 " P. 205, 1. 28, "to the very last," (note.) In the marks of this last epoch v/hich are specially noticed in this Epistle, w^e find proofs of their proceeding from this division of the apostolic age, rather than a later period. At a later period, the specification of heresies as omens of the approach ot Antichrist would certainly not have been wanting. P. 207, 1. 10 from bottom, " temple at Jerusalem," add note, " If it had been of so much importance to the author of the Acts for his apologetical or conciliatory pur- pose, as Baur maintains, to notice Paul's journeys to the feasts at Jerusalem, why should he allude so slightly to the journey of which we are here speaking, (xviii. 18, 22,) so that it has given occasion to moot the question, whether he actually visited Jerusalem at that time ? Here, certainly, nothing less is shown than such a purpose. Baur assumes, (p. 194,) that the words which are favourable to his opinion (xviii. 21.) are decidedly genuine, though, to say the least, they are very suspicious. But these words, even admitting them to be genuine, by no means testify such a purpose 128 ADDITIONS AND COllRECTIONS. in the Acts, and contain nothing irreconcilable with the Paulino stand-point ; for all turns upon this point, hovj the necessity he speaks of is to be understood? and of this nothing more is said." P. 216, 1. 10 from bottom, "imagination," add note, " See an example in Josephus, how by such operations the Poman army of the Emperor Vespasian were filled with amazement. — Antiq. yiii. 2." P. 217, 1. 21, "John the Baptist," add woiQ, "The appearance of these disciples of John at Ephesus bears the impress of historical truth, whether we regard the account itself, or compare it with what we know from other som'ces to have been the position of John and his disciples in refer- ence to the Yarious tendencies of the age. The obscurity that attaches to the narrative of these disciples cannot be taken as a mark of the unhistorical ; it belongs rather to the peculiarities of that uncertain transitional stage which had been formed from a mixture of impressions respecting John the Baptist, with the scattered accounts received of Christ. No man can form an image expressed in clear and well-defined lineaments, out of a misty, indistinct appearance. The deficiency is not to be attributed to the historian, but is owing to the peculiar character of historical development at such a period. Instead of our being able to detect an imaginative subjective element, an artistic attempt at historical composition, in this representation, we find, on the contrary, nothing more than the raw material of facts, and miss enth'ely the historic art of genetic pragmatism. But criticism after the newest fashion professes to have discovered a trickery here which will account for everything. The historical basis is only this, that ApoUos, who had been con- verted to Christianity from the school of the Alexandrine Jews, in consequence of his Alexandi'ian education had already acquired a more liberal conception of Christianity. He had occupied a solitary, isolated position between the Paulinians and the Judaizers, until by means of Aquila and Priscilla he had become better acquainted with the Paulinian doctrine, and had been induced to connect himself with the Paulinian party. Such was the origin of the fiction which made Apollos one of John's disciples, who was first instructed in Christianity by Aquila and Priscilla. This would not have ADi)ITI0:>^3 AND GORnECTlOxS. 123 happened, if the author of the Acts had not reqiurod the dis- ciples of John for his machinery. For Paul, as well as Peter, was to acquire distinction from the fact, that by the magical effect of the imposition of his hands on persons of a different religious stand-point, on passing over to Christianity they would be made partakers of pretended higher spiritual gifts. This had already taken place among Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles ; only the disciples of John were left, and these also must serve as a foil, in order that the same fabrication which at an earlier period had procured such honour for Peter in the family of Cornelius, might now glorify Paul among John's disciples as a counterpart to him, and who was not to be regarded as his inferior. Whoever can satisfy himself Vvdtli this unnatural tissue of plan-making so very contradictory to the impression which such a book must. make upon every unperverted mind — he is welcome to do so!" P. 218, 1. 20, "inspiration," add note, '-'Whoever is capable of transporting himself into the apostolic age, will assuredly not fail to perceive the historiciil impress in this narrative, and will not attempt with Baur to regard the Trpocpi-irevetv and yXioaaaig XaXely as merely mythical desig- nations of mental communication tlirough Christianit}^ The phenomena of the higher life are wont to wear peculiar marks in difTereut ages. Thus the phenomena of whose qualities we have already spoken belong to the peculiar marks of the inspiration proceeding from the new divine life when it took possession of men's souls. There are not want- ing analogies in history of general religious awakenings or " revivals,'" though we need not, therefore, mistake the dif- ference in reference to the greater or less purity in the deve- lopment of the divine life. We are also by no means in- duced to attribute a magical effect to baptism or the laying on of hands, but we must only regard both as individual points in the connexion of the whole, as combined with the whole preceding spiritual operation on the minds of the disciples of John. Have we not then, here, perfectly definite historical marks which exclude everything mythical 1 Does not the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians refer to such phenomena which everywhere accompanied the development of the Christian life? Does not Paul appeal to such opera- tions of the Pneuma among the Galatian churches (Gal. iii, VOL. II. K 130 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 2, 5.) which distinguished the new creation of Mth from the old legal stand-point, and does he not recount, moreover, the cvvdfxEig which were efficacious among the Galatians? We well know, indeed, that the communication of the Spirit contains more than this in itself, but still these marks are not excluded. Those phenomena, so far from belonging to the department of the mythical, rather necessarily belong to the historical image of this memorable age." P. 225, 1. 10, after "disposed" add "to boast." P. 229, 1. 8, for " and it presented" read " and presented." P. 234, 1. 11 from bottom, after " among the Jews" add, " Some persons might easily be induced to find in 1 Cor. x. 7, a confirmation of that view of the Christ-party. But how- ever they might be led by the similarity of the expression to refer this passage to the Christ-party and to make use of it according to this supposition, yet we must dis2:)ute the cor- rectness of such an application ; for evidently the reference here is not to a party like those who are named in 1 Cor. i. 12, but only to the leaders of a certain clique who maintained that they stood as preachers of the Gospel in a special rela- tion to Christ, and wished to take the precedence of Paul; those judaizing party-leaders who by their obtrusive urgency and intermeddling believed they could acquire greater repu- tation than the apostle for activity in the cause of the Gospel. But if such men boasted personally of their special connexion with Christ, it by no means followed that a party attaching itself to them might feel justified in transferring to itself collectively what they claimed for themselves as individuals." P. 242, 1. 13, after "1 Cor. xv. 33" add, " If this view be thought too venturesome, since in the two Epistles to the Corinthians no other distinct trace of a direct combating with such a party can be found, it only remains to be said, that there were certain persons ol rov Xpicrrov of whom Paul knew nothing worse than that, instead of making common cause with all those whom they ought to have acknowledged as members of the one body of Christ, made even their wish- ing to belong to Christ alone an affair of party, and so in- stead of putting an end to all party feeling by a reference to Christ, created a fourth party, which by its opposition to the other parties would be hurried unavoidably into much that ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 131 was one-sided and erroneous. We should find the first ap- pearance of this kind in the fact, that the wishing to join themselves to no party was made an affaii' of party. And thus by the reference to such a party, Paul might be in- duced to say, — AVas Christ divided? that they could think of calling themselves alone after Christ, and dare appropriate to themselves a name that belonged to all. In this way a better explanation woidd be obtained, how it is that no further distinct reference to such a party occurs in his epistles." P. 247, 1. 19, " object," add, " As Christianity taught men to acknowledge that the realization of the kingdom of God in humanity was its highest office, 4:hat it was the highest good to which everything else was to be referred ; so also it allowed marriage and the family constitution to be re- garded as something on the whole belonging to the moral problem of humanity and to the representation of the king- dom of God; but it also acknowledged cases, in virtue of a disposition that subordinated all other things to the king- dom of God, in which the individual moral problem of a life devoted to spreading the kingdom of God might in- volve an exception to the general problem, which is denoted by evrov^Lor^og ctd Tijy jjacrikeiav Twy ovpaviJp (Matt. xix. 12). P. 248, 1. 20, " higher life/' add note, " Gal. iii. 28, ovK ei'i lipaev kcu OijXv ev XpifTTM 'Irjaov. . On the contrary, Aristotle says, Xelpoy t] yvvr) rov cipcpog, Magn. Ethic, i. 34, ed. Bekker, p. 194. P. 2o2, 1. 12 from bottom, for "distinction" read "des- tination." P. 261, 1, 13, after "perfection" read, "But in order rightly to understand what he says on ithis subject in con- nexion with this period of the development of God's kingdom and with Paul's peculiar stand-point, and to form a correct judgment according to the laws of Christian ethics, we must attend to the following considerations. The soul of Paul was animated to an extraordinary degree with a glowing- desire to carry to all men quickly the message of salvation. His single life, which allowed him to extend his ministry in all directions without delay and to gain his own livelihood without any hindrance, was an important means for the execution of his plans. It constituted, in fact, an evVouxta/zoj: 132 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. cid -jjV }3affi\eiav riot^ ovpapcJv, which the Lord had evidently designed for him. As he was withheld by nothing in the publication of the Gospel, but lived wholly for the cause of the Lord, it appeared to him the happiest condition ; and looking at it from the stand-point of his own peculiar endowments and vocation, he wished that all men could share this glorious and happy life dedicated to the Lord. In addition to this, he had not yet found realized his idea of Christian wedlock in which man and wife are both dedicated to the Lord alone, and are joined together in a life animated and sanctified by the Spirit of the Lord. From this pro- ceeded what he says of tiie obstacles presented by the married state for fulfilling the duties of the Christian life. He has evidently in his eye not an union, such as would corre- spond to the idea represented by himself in this epistle and in the Epistle to the Ephesiaus, in which both parties were as one in fellowship with the Lord and viewed and treated every- thing in the light of this fellowship, but of a divided state of the soul between a regard to the Lord on the one hand, and to the world and the wedded associate on the other. And thus what he says of the injurious effects of marriage is derived from its want of correspondence to the Christian idea of maniage. And he might so much the less think of the extension of the kingdom of God by the natural propagation of the human race, since he expected the second advent and the end of the world as events near at hand, — a view of things necessarily arising from the first stage of the develop- ment of God's kingdom. But if he was disposed on this side to recommend a single life, it only makes his pastoral wisdom and consideration more remarkable in deeming it needful to limit this recommendation, and in warning against the injurious effects of a forced celibacy not aided by peculiar endowments, amidst the threatening contagion of moral cor- ruption in such a church as the Corinthian. He placed the essence," &c. ^ P. 263, 1. 12, for "relation" read "relations." P. 263, 1. 21 from bottom, aft.er "slave" add, "Moreover, ypfjirOai rfj covXel^ would be a very singulai' mode of expression, Bince the apostle might have said much more simply, ^Ke- main a slave.' But the expression /jluXXov xpiiam might be very well used when speaking of an opportunity of obtaining ADDITIONS AND COKRECTIONS. 133 fi'cedom : and if Paul ^wished to say that in ciusc any ono could obtain his freedom he should remain a slave, lie would have suggested a more approj^riate reason, for in what he does say we lind absolutely nothing that can serve as a con- firmation of it. The fact that the slave as a Christian shares true freedom with his fellow-Christians, and that he who is free partakes in this bond-service of Christ with the slave who is a Christian, contains no reason why a slave, when his freedom is offered him, should not accept it. Nor can this be inferred from v. 20, for in that nothing more is said than that i\o one should arbitrarily withdraw" from the relations of life ;. I which he finds himself ; but it does not follow from this that w^hen an opportunity is presented by God of entering into more favourable earthly relations, a man is not to em- brace it. Such an exhortation, without any further con- firmation of it, would be only an arbitrary dictation on Paul's part. But if he said, ' Whoever can be free, let him avail himself of the opportunity,' there was no occasion to support it by any further reason. He only guarded him- self against a misapprehension which might have arisen from too broad an application of the principle lie had laid down." P. 266, 1. 1, after "made" add, "But it is striking that in the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians we can find no intimation that Timothy had visited them in the interval, — nothing that relates to the manner in which he was received by the church. This may be explained in tw^o ways ; each has its difficulties, and w-e do not believe that complete cer- tainty can be arrived at. " It might have happened that Timothy had been prevented from coming to Corinth, and then Paul would be induced, as Timothy had returned to him without any news from the Corinthian church, before his departure from Ephesus, to send Titus to Corinth that he might operate on the minds ot the converts there in a manner suitable to the impression made by his epistle, and bring back news of the state of things among them. We must then assume that he sent no fresh letter by this new messenger, or at least only sent with him a few lines as his credentials, since, having written so full a letter to the Corinthian church before, he thought it ynueccssary on the present occasion, In this way it can be 134 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. explained that we find in tlie Second Epistle to the Corinthians no hint of an intervening epistle after that first. " But the second supposable case is this — that Timothy actually came to Corinth, but communicated to the apostle very sad and distressing accounts respecting the disposition of a part of this church. In consequence, Paul was induced to send Titus to Corinth with a second ej^istle referring to the occuiTences in the Corinthian church, of which he had been informed by Timothy, and since enough had been spoken of this intervening visit and of Timothy's reception in this last epistle, no more was said on these points in our second epistle, which was strictly speaking the third, and in all the fourth. In the decision of this question all turns upon this point, whether the often-mentioned wi'iting in our second epistle according to the marks notified in the passages referred to, can be what we call the First Epistle to the Corinthians, or whether we are obliged to suppose another which would be that sent by Titus. Paul says at the beginning," &c. P. 267, 1. 19, after " 1 Cor. iv. 8—19 ; vi. 7 ; x. f ' add, " Do not in fact several severe passages occur in this epistle which might have awakened in the heart of Paul, so full of fatherly love towards the church, the apprehension that he had uttered something which might wound them too deeply 1 Is it not a striking agreement when in this epistle so much is said of an individual on whom Paul had passed so severe a judgment, and exactly in our first epistle such a case occm's afiecting such an indi\ndual 1 Will not this serve as a proof that we are required to think of this very epistle ? This epistle was also well suited to- call forth in the Corinthians that sense of their criminality and that sorrow that lead to salvation, as Paul says of that epistle in 2 Cor. vii. 9. " Still, we must not trust too much to this plausible appeai'ance. Although the case here mentioned seems to be the same with that which we find in the first epistle, yet on a closer examination of particulars, some important marks meet our notice which point to a difierence. Paul guards himself, ii. 5, against the supposition that he felt personally injured. * But if any hath caused grief,' he says, ' he hath not grieved me, but in part, that I may not overcharge you all.' He therefore represents what had taken place as ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 135 not affecting himself personally, but rather as an injury done to the whole church. But in reference to that offender of whom we are informed in the first epistle, there was no reason what- ever that he should so guard himself In that whole affair there was absolutely nothing personal. If he took it so to heart, it would only reflect credit on him from every quarter. It manifested his flxtherly care for the salvation of that indi- vidual and for the welfare of the whole church. When, moreover, he speaks of a pardon to be granted by himself and the church, this certainly suits far better a wrong done personally to the apostle in the exercise of his official power, than to a sin for which the divine forgiveness was to be chiefly sought, and not a forgiveness dependent on the will of a man.^ Paul, in speaking (vii. 8) of the wholesome effects of the epistle in question, reckons among them (v. 11) that an opportunity was given to the church, of proving their complete freedom from blame in the affair. But in the case of that offending person no blame could attach to the church excepting their having omitted to show their abhor- rence of such conduct by excluding him from church- communion. On the other hand, what is said would find its immediate application if the main point was, contumacious behaviour of an individual against the apostle of a kind in which others might have appeared to take a share. Further, Paul says in v. 12, that he had written in this tone to them, ' not for his sake who did the wrong, nor for his cause that had suffered wi'ong, but that they might have the opportunity of showing to one another their sincere attachment for him.' ^ ^ We know indeed that it can be explained by referring everything to a re-admission to church-communion ; but the striking part of the expression will not in that way be rendered prominent ; and the other explanation is far more simple and natural. 2 Internal grounds do not render it necessary to depart from this objective and generally accredited reading. Certainly the zeal of the church for Paul's authority would first of all be expressed among them- selves in their mutual behaviour towards one another. This it was which Titus must first observe among them as the effect of Paul's epistle. But that Paul had cause to recognise this zeal as not assumed, but as genuine and sincere, may be inferred from the phrase "before God." Thus this reading gives a very suitable sense. Also, what follows in verse 14 agrees very well with it, where Paul says that he Avas not ashamed of what he had boasted to Titus respecting the Corinthian Church, but that his boasting was found a truth. Paul had previously 133 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. That expression dciKtli' Avas in itself not suited to mark a sin as such. And if he was sj^eaking of a vicious person as such^ the principal thing as fer as regarded that person would be to lead him to repentance. He needed not to avoid the appearance of being too zealous in such a cause. No one, as "vve have said, could blame him for that. But every thing agrees very well with the supposition, that the case Nvas one in which Paul was personally injured. Under such circum- stances there was occasion for guarding himself against the reproach that he had been carried away by personal feelings. And thus he could affirm, that he had been moved to write not from a desire to retaliate on the person who had done him wrong, nor from concern for his own honour or the honour of him on whom the wrong had been committed ; but he wished to give them an opportunity to clear them- selves of all share in this matter, and to evince their zeal for his person and his apostolic authority. " It remains to be noticed that the affair of that immoral person occupies only a very small part of that first epistle, and many other subjects are treated of far more fully. By what is said in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians of the letter in question, we shall be led to suppose that it related wholly or principally to that one affair. " If we compare all these marks with one another, we shall certainly be disposed to favour the second of the above- named suppositions. We shall be led to believe, that Timothy brought many painful and distressing accounts to the apostle, especially respecting the commotion excited by an individual Avho had acted contumaciously against Paul and called in question his apostolic authority. On this account Paul sent Titus with a letter to Corinth, in Avhich he expressed himself very strongly respecting that affair ; so much so, that after Titus had set out, his fatherly heart was seized with anxiety lest he had written too harshly, and been guilty of injustice to the church." P. 271, 1. 2, " against the apostle," add note, "As to the told Titus, wlio was perhaps afraid of the hostile tone of the excited ciiurch, that he knc^v tlicy "would hy no means make common cause with that person who had risen up so warmly against Paul's apostolic autho- rity ; and so it proved. They vied with one another in, zeal for thg maintenance of hie authority. ADDITIONS AND COIiRECTIONS. 137 assGi'tioii of Dr. Baur that all the details given in the Acts of Paul's conflicts with Jewish exorcism and heathen magic, and of the popular tumult occasioned by the decline of the worship of Artemis, have no historical worth, but are only designed fabrications to please the imagination or to magnify Paul in comparison with Peter — such an assertion we regard as completely baseless. Whoever indeed cannot for one moment transport himself out of the narrow circle of that limited view of the world which belongs to the nineteenth century, must see everywhere, in the wonderful age of which we are speaking, my thus or intentional fiction. But when Baur, in reference to Acts xix. 20, says, ' What would such a Christianity be, but an exchange of one form of superstition for another 1 And yet the author of the Acts can jjass such a judgment as this (xix. 20) upon it. Such a view is too unworthy of the position of an apostle, and too much con- formed to a later period, to allow of our having any doubt about its origin :'■ — we reply, Certainly if nothing more had taken place for the spread of Christianity than the ex- traordinary event recorded in that passage of the Acts, this could have rendered it no help. But those facts could not have taken place if the Gospel had not previously been revealed as the power of God in the .hearts of men. Paul, who met the Jews that ' required a sign,' with ' the demon- stration of the Spirit and of power,' nevertheless made his appeal that he had been accredited as an Apostle by (777/^e7a, ripara and hvyd/jeic, 2 Cor. xii. 12. According to the views of the apostles the two were to be combined ; the internal evidence of the power of God by the spiritual operation of the published word, and the accompanying extertud signs pre- senting themselves as visible marks of the former. But it belongs to the method of these most ancient Christian records, that the internal operations are only briefly indicated or presupposed instead of being described at length, while on the contrary whatever could be an object of outvfai'd observation is given more in detail." P. 272, 1. 19 from bottom, /or " usions" read " allusions." P. 275, 1. 1,/or " Rut" read " But." P. 27G, 1. 3 from bottom, note, after " wickedness" add, {ith edition,) " As I must here re-affirm the viev/ I have before takcn^ I must also state that I find no ground for the 138 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. complaint made by Ruckert, with whom Baur agTees, against Paul, although I must admit the right to such a free judg- ment even on an apostle, and can find in it nothing un- christian. Neither can I here discern that excessive warmth of temper, which never does good, nor afterwards the retm-n to moderation and prudence at the cost of truthfulness, in order as far as possible to repair the damage done by the former, even if I admit as settled the disputed point that the reference here is to the same case as in 1 Cor. v. 3. I discern in this latter passage nothing but genuine apostolic zeal against sin which could be held back by no considerations, and which even the unfavourable issue could not prove to be wrong ; for what is right remains so, independently of the consequences, which depend on the wills of men and on cir- cumstances." P. 276, 1. 18,/o7' " he took advantage of this aiTangement to excuse a sense," &c. read, " they took advantage of this arrangement to accuse him of a sense," &c. P. 278, 1. 1 8 fi-om bottom, after " to the glory of God " add, " Since his judaizing opponents, with whom arrogance stood in the place of power (2 Cor, xi. 21), in whose sight he would willingly appear as deficient in what they regarded as strength, and who could not understand the divine power in earthen vessels — charged him with threatening to do more than he was able to perform, he expressed himself with confidence against them ; that he would prove himself to be a genuine apostle in the fulfilment of his threatenings, and in the punishment of the bad. He only wished that he might have no opportunity of proving this, but that everything wrong in the church might be set right before he came, and thus no occasion be left of administering punishment. He would gladly then be regarded as an incapable or not genuine apostle by the non-fulfilment of his threatenings, provided only the Corinthians showed themselves to be approved Christians, for all the power granted to him was only for the truth and not against it. 2 Cor. xiii. 6, 8." ' ^ Baur, proceeding on the assumption that the pame affair is referred to in 2 Cor. ii. as in 1 Cor. v., and that Paul in his first epistle thi-eatened more than he had power to accomplish, concludes thus, (p. 329,) " This passage contains a not unimportant criterion for judging of the alleged miracles of the apostles. The apostles had certainly the consciousness ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 139 P. 281, 1. 9, " nation," add note, " This is contrary to Baur, p. 117 ; nor is it set aside by what he says in his Paulus, p. 378. While he asserts, that ' the Jews living in Rome were regarded by him no longer as Jews, but as Romans,' he adds, ' so much the more if, what I am far from denjdng, there were Gentile Christians among them,' But it must be admitted, that Paul when he wrote the epistle thought particularly either of the one or the other. A quite different class of references must have suggested themselves to the apostle, if he wrote to a church of which the most influential part were Jews, from those he would have employed in writing to a church consisting mainly of Gentiles. There- fore the argument against Baur's position is not weakened by the addition he has here made to it." P. 287, 1. 19, for '' Let such a one " read " Let not such a one." P. 297,1. 18 from bottom, after "marks" add, "Baur, indeed, (p. 181,) finds the mark of a later period in the circumstance that Paid allowed only the presbyters to come of miraculous power in themselves, and in this consciousness they could regard very distinguished effects of their agency, operations of a power- ful energy, as cr7j/Ae?a, repara and hwdix^is. But as at that time in a definite case, in which this (consciousness) was so distinctly expressed, a miracle, strictly so called, was far enough from taking place, just as little will this have happened at any otlier time." We perceive that Dr. Baur from the stand-point of his consequential philosophy must so judge respecting everything distinguished as a miracle, since this stand- point excludes d, lorlori the recognition of anything supernatural whatever. But we cannot consider the pi-emises here advanced, and the conclusion drawn from them, as correct. For even if we grant the disputed point, the identity of the two cases, still it will not he evident that Paul ascribed to himself a power which he could not exercise, for he expressly represents as his object, 1 Cor. v. 5, to awaken to repentance the person whom the judgment was intended to a tfect, that through bodily suffering he might obtain spiritual health. Now, if that offender had already given signs of repentance, the fulfilment of such a judgment must of course fail, as Paul in the passage quoted tells us that he would gladly for the good of the church appear as one who threatened in vain. Lastly, there appears no good reason for placing the extraordinary operation in question under the same category as other miracles. Christ himself did not perform miracles of judgment, and in no passage has he given such power to the apostles, as is the case with the other miracles, to the accomplishment of which Paul refers in his epistles as indisputable. And his language liere is more credible in proportion as such outward miracles appeared little in his eyes in com- parison with an internal miracle. 1 Cor. i. 22, 23 ; ii. 4. 140 ADDITIONS AND COrJlK CTIONS. as representatives of the clmrclies ; but we cannot allow the correctness of this opinion. Witliout something of the later hierarchical tcndenc}^, they could not so be regarded. And since he could not arrange for all to come, was it not most natural that he should choose these, especially since they had to watch over the whole of the churches ? And that this office was assigned by Paul to the presbyters is evident from those epistles of which the genuineness is admitted by Baur him- self; from the idea of tcvfjept'TJcriQ, 1 Cor. xii. 28; of Trpo'icr- TUfietnc, Eom. xii. 8; from what Paul says in 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16, respecting the relation of the churches to those who have to fill ecclesiastical offices ; in which words might be also found from Baur's point of view the marks of a later age." P. 297, 1. 3 from bottom, after "more decided tone" add, " We do not see how Baur can infer from the passages of Paul's epistles, in which he speaks with sanguine hopes of the consequences to be expected from his jom-ney to Jerusalem, that Paul could not at that time have so spoken. Who can calculate the alternations of feeling in a human soul 1 Especially does it make a diffi^rence whether he wrote his e23istle several months before, (and yet he anticipated even then the dangers that awaited him, Rora. xv. 31, a passage indeed not admitted as genuine by Baur,) or if he gave this parting addi'ess, as he was going to meet the expected end of his journey after he had received many prophetic warnings." P. 298, 1. 6, "gain many adherents," (note.) It is pos- sible, that V. 30 may refer to the presbyters personally, and the words may be so understood that the false teachers would proceed from their own body ; but since the presbyters appear as representatives of the churches, it is not necessary to make the reference so confined. It may be properly taken in a more general sense, that false teachers would not only find entrance into the churches from other places, but also proceed from among these chm'ches themselves. P. 301,1. 20, "'concurred," add a fresh j^iragraph : — "The reception which Paul met Avith at Jenisalem must have been difierent according to the various materials of the Christian church, which at that place was mixed with Jews. We must hero suppose the transition from Judaism to Christianity, in manifold gradations, though all the members, notv,dth- standing the greatest differences on other points, were boun^ ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 141 to one another l)y the common fiiith that Jesus was the Messiah. Tlie most important point of ditFercnce, wliicli, as we shall see, lasted to later times, was this, — those wlio, along with their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, still held fast to the Jewish stand-point, but at the same time acknowledged the free development of Christianity among the heathen, on whose privileges they imposed no restraints ; on the other side were those who were never disposed to consider the uncircumcised who did not observe the INIosaic Law, as equal partakers with themselves of the kingdom of God, We can hardly be surprised at this, when we recollect that the number of believing Jews is reckoned in Acts xxi. 20 as amounting to many myriads, though this is not to be regarded as an exact enumeration, and those who came up to the feast from other parts must be taken into account. Bat we cannot venture to draw an inference from the small number of Christians among the Jews in the third century, respecting the relative proportions at this period. The powerful impression of Christ's appearance operated on many ; and whatever among the body of the people was opposed to faith in him, the con- trariety that was consciously felt between the spirit of Christ and their carnal views, now vanished, since they could depict a Messiah according to their mind, in him whose personal image no longer stood before their eyes ; and what they had been wont to expect from the Messiah, they transferred to Clirist, whose speedy return they anticipated to found his kingdom in the world. Among many of this class nothing v/as to be found peculiarly Christian, and they distinguished themselves from other Jews only by acknowledging Jesus as the ]\Iessiah. Plence, the spiritual superiors of the people gave themselves no further concern about such a Christianity, and allowed it to remain undisturbed. But it was quite natural that such people, when their Messianic expectations •were not fulfilled, should apostatize altogether from the faith. " Those who were more thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, the more enlightened among the Jewish Chi'is- tians, received Paul with Christian brotherly love." ' ^ In reference, also, to this part of the history we must maintain the fame view which has hitherto approved itself to us in making use of the Acts; namely, that the dithculties it presents in attempting to obtain an historical representation from it, do not proceed from 142 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. P. 303, 1. 13, after "from the law" add, "It is indeed true, that when once this was generally acknowledged, that circumcision was of no avail for obtaining a part in God's kingdom, it would sooner or later fall into disuse. But in that principle all the apostles agreed, as appears from what has been said above, even had we not made use of the accounts in the Acts. According to the principle in which both parties were unanimous, the two difterent forms of the church among Jews and Gentiles, founded on a natural and national distinction that arose from the process of historical development, existed for some time side by side. As the apostles among the Jews acknowledged the free agency of the Holy Spirit among the Gentiles, and allowed the churches founded among them to be formed in their own way, so Paul also allowed the church among the Jews to develop itself freely in their way. In the natural historical process of development no violent encroachments were made on either side. And why could not both peculiar ecclesiastical forms exist together for a length of time, though the distinction must be obliterated by the progressive development of the church ? " Without departing from the principles of strict truthful- ness, Paul could repel those charges to w^hich we have referred, for he was very far from wishing to anticipate in an arbitrary manner the historical development ', it was with him an avowed principle that every man should abide in those rela- tions which belonged to him when the call of Christianity reached him, and not wilfully renounce them. He was far from that hatred against Judaism, and the ancient theocratic people, of which his violent opponents accused him. On the principles which he avowed in his epistles, according to which, to the Jews he became a Jew, as to the Gentiles a Gentile, and weak to the weak, he declared himself equally ready to do what James proposed," ' &c. any designed object on tlie part of the author, but on the contrary', from tlie Avant of pragmatism, (?. c. a clear exhibition of causes and consequences,) the rude collocation of facts, so that the narrator never placed himself on the stand-point of other persons, to answer questions which must occur to them in order to explain the connexion of the facts. Hence we are obliged to supply many things by historical combination before Ave can obtain an intelligible history. ^ We must not interpret too rigidly the words of James when he ADDITIONS AND COHRECTIONS. 143 P. 307, 1. 10, "containing truth," (note.) The manner in which Paul here comes before us in the Acts, corresponds most exactly to his character, as we learn it from his epistles, combining a warmth of temperament with a sagacity which knew how to turn every circumstance to the best account. A later writer, attempting to fabricate a story, would not have represented Paul as speaking in the way mentioned in Acts xiii. 3. P. 307, 1. 12, "corrected himself," (note.) We need not be perplexed with the y^eiv in Acts xxiii. 5. The very turn of the expression shows us that Paul in his momentary em- barrassment, and regretting his intemperate language, only sought to make an excuse, and the words, as the bystanders would be aware, are not to be taken too stringently. P. 307, 1. IG, "himself of that means," (note.) Everything here is exactly to the life. To fabricate this would require a talent for description different from what the author of the Acts possessed. Paul might have had in his thoughts another line of defence ; but after he had allowed himself to be carried away by his warmth, and returned from the digression, he chose this prudential method in order to give a favourable turn to his cause. P. 307, 1. 15 from bottom, "himself belonged," (note.) Baur thinks that this representation of the transaction as w^e take it from the Acts, must be regarded as inihistorical throughout. It is an entire distortion of the question in dis- pute which Paul here allows himself, and inconsistent with his love of truth ; and the dispute thus called forth between the Pharisees and Sadducees is something altogether im- probable. "Parties who differed from one another on such essential points, but who nevertheless so frequently met in society, and were united in the same official body, must have so long exhausted themselves respecting their points of dif- ference, that it was impossible they could, on every occasion, make them afresh the subjects of the most violent dispute, desires Paul (Acts xxi. 24) by that act to prove that he also lived in the observance of the law ; we obtain their correct meaning by contrasting them with the charge made by the Jews. The stand-point on which Paul to the dvo/xoi became an Auojios, was indeed different from tliat of James, and Ave know not whether James and Paul referred particularly to the special difference existing between themselves. Tliere are many differences on which it is better to be silent, than to express our opmion. 144 ADDITIONS AND CORREC'TIOJC?. least of all in such ci case, in Vv-]iicli, as in the one before us, the easily detected stratagem of an opponent would be made use of in the dispute to his own disadvantage." As to the first point, I do not see why Paul, setting out from his own subjective train of thought, could not l>ring forward that side of the controversy from which his own cause 'must appear in a favourable light to a majority of his judges, while he kept in the background the other points in dispute. It was not a false connexion, but one perfectly corresponding to the tiaith, according to his convictions. Ever since he had testified among the Gentiles of Jesus the Risen One as the foundation of the whole Gospel, he had been the object of the most vio- lent attacks of the Jews. This faith involved eveiy thing else that belonged to this controversy. Whether the hope of a resurrection to eternal life would be fulfilled, dej^ended on the question whether Jesus was the Messiah, and whether he had really risen. Paul was conscious that he testified of the reality of all the hopes of the pious under the Old Covenant, and that he was a truly orthodox Jew. This he asserted with unwavering conviction. This was a hne of conduct by Avhich he occupied the stand-point of his opponents, and obliged them to acknowledge what he maintained to be true — a method which perfectly suited Paul's rhetoric and dialectic. As to the second point, we know indeed that the Sad- ducees gladly retired from public offices, and Vvhcnever they occupied them, felt obliged, from regard to popular opinion, to accommodate themselves to the maxims of the Pharisees. (npo(T-)^(jjpov(rL oiQ 6 ^apLaaHoQ Xlyet, Cid to ju?) aXXwg uveKTOvg yereffdai tolq TrXijdea-Lv. Joseph. Antiq. xviii. c. 1, § 4.) But the warmth of party feeling could easily gain the ascendency over cold-blooded politics, and the forcibly restrained enmity between the two parties would readily break out again on many occasions. It might veiy possibly happen that owing to the quite tumultuary manner in which matters had been carried on against Paul, the leaders of the people had not yet learned what was the corpus delicti in his case ; and since the Pharisees had always heard him assert that Jesus the Risen One had appeared to him, they fixed their attention on that one point, because their controversy with the Sadducees, which to them was far more important, became the subject of discussion. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 145 P. 321, 1. G, "corrupted the simple Gospel," (note.) ''Baur and Schwcglcr are disposed to iiiid in these appearances the marks of a post-apostolic age, and make use of the smaller Paulinian epistles, in order to support the fabrication of a peculiar post-apostolic literature : we maintain, on the con- trary, that exactly such mixtures of the religious si^irit, as wo here find them, serve to elucidate the transition from the Pauline to the succeeding age. The course of historical development would allow us to assume such links, even if unquestionable records had not borne evidence of their existence." P. 326, 1. 15, "by communion with Christ alone," (note.) " The arbitrary manner in which Baur and Schwegier attempt- to prove the gnostic element in this epistle, and in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians, requires no refutation. No one who is not entangled in a fixed delusion, can think of finding in the use of the word TtXiipwf-ia in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, a reference to the gnostic doctrine of a Pleroma. The use of tins word in these epistles is most naturally accounted for, from the j)eculiar Pauline circle of ideas, of which the germ lies at the basis of the other Pauline epistles, but here appears more fully expanded, as belonging to this stage of his doctrinal development. We shall have more to say respecting it in the second section relating to doctrine, and shall then enter more fully into the refutation of the asserted difierence of doctrine between this and the earlier epistles of Paul. How far is the pure, practical spirit in the Epistle to the Colossians from everything gnostic ! Where, in the second century, could the mental tendency be found from which such an epistle could proceed ? where was the man who could write such an epistle ? Accoi'ding to the whimsical notion of the criticism just now in vogue, the most powerful minds, who v/ere capable of the greatest things, existed in that age ; and yet their names and persons are lost in profound obscurity. But as error and truth go together in the developing processes of history, and mutually check and modify one another, so the springing up of sects at the close of the Pauline age, and the later stage in the impress of the apostolic doctrine, constitute a middle link presupposed by the formation of the gnosis in the second century. The criticism which we combat, passes over this middle link by an unhis- torical hysteron-proteron." VOL. II. L 146 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. P. 329, 1. 8, " and not an imitation by another hand," (note.) " I ^vill here notice some of the doubts that have been raised in recent times against the genuineness of this Epistle to the Ephcsians; those, I mean, which could strike so able a critic as De Wette, a man distinguished by so much love for truth, and so disposed to receive it. The collocation of apostles and prophets in ch. ii. 20 ; iii. 5 ; iv. 11, must be im-apostolical. It is true such a phrase does not elsewhere occur in the Pauline epistles, but it is not on that account to be set down as something un-Pauline, or foreign to the Pauline age. In ch. iv. 11, the apostles so called in a stricter fjeuse arc brought forward — after them more are named Avho published the Gospel in a wide circle, whoso activity was not confined to one cougTegation — ^the common missionaries, the evangelists corresponding to w^hat the cicdaKaXoi w^ere for shiglc congregations, and those in whom the creative element of immediate spiritual excitement predominated, who received b}' special revelations disclosures respecting Christian truth, in whom the power of inspimtion appeared especially in dis- coui-se, who as teachers stood nearest to the apostles in origi- nality, the prophets. That there were such prophets who as missionaries stood by the side of the apostles, is testified by the Acts, and apart from that, by the name of Barnabas, and 1 Cor. xii. 28. A later writer would not have been induced to place together in this manner apostles and prophets ; for this position of the prophets w^as foreign to a later period. Of the Montanist body of prophets, to whom Baur and Schwegler allude, there is no trace in this epistle ; and indeed, generally, we should regard it as the most flagrant anachi'onism to pretend to find anything Montanist in this epistle. In the manner of distinguishing between the Troif^LiveQ and ci^aVicaXot, we also recognise something which belongs only to this age ; (comi)are the distinction of cicdaKuXoi and Kvftepviiaaq, 1 Cor. xii. ^2i^ ; the distinction of ZildaKuv and Trpoiaraadat, Rom. xii. 7, 8.) But Baur thinks that he has discovered in the whole i)assage an idea foreign to Paul, of a progi'essive deve- lopment of the church, the representation of an ajDproaching more perfect age of ecclesiastical development, which certainly would not Ijc in liarmony with the expectation of the speedy second advent of Christ. But this passage contains nothing of the kind ; Paul speaks only of the chm-ch of that age in ADDITIONS AND ^DORRECTIOXS. 147 which he wrote the epistle, and marks its development from its vr)7ri6T)]Q to its reXeioT-qg, a perfectly Pauline idea, which is found in the universally acknowledged genuine Pauline epistles. We are at a loss to conceive how any one could think of finding here the Montanist idea of successive stagjjs in the gTowth of the church. De Wette moreover maintains that the mention of the doctrine of Justification in ch. ii. 8 — 10, is hardly in accordance with the apostle's doctrinal theology. But this I cannot perceive. On the contrary, I recognise nothing but what is most truly Pauline. Although Paul is not writing to those in whom he would presuppose a disposition to confide in the merits of the epya vofiov, not to those who were formerly Jews, yet he had reason to bring forward the universal and to him ever-present truth, that, in their being called to Christianity, all of them, without dis- tinction, were indebted for everything to grace alone ; the few who had hitherto led a more moral life, as well as the majo- rity who had been sunk in vice. Compare 1 Cor. i. 29, 30. In this passage he was- obliged thus to express himself on account of the contrast, since he wished to lay a stress upon the point. The new creation, previous to which they could accomplish nothing good, and to which they owed everything, must necessarily manifest itself by epya ay ad a. In the next place De Wette notices the arbitrary application of the passage in Ps. Ixviii. It is indeed a free applic£ition, but yet spirited and not. forced. In that passage Jehovah is represented as a victorious leader, bringing his enemies in triumph to the heights of Zion, to whom his conquered foes do homage by the presentation of gifts. This is applied to the manner in which Christ ascended to heaven after overcoming the jjowers that opposed the kingdom of God. But in accordance with his object the apostle represents the gifts received as imparted. As the communication of the Holy Spirit to believers is an evidence of the victory over the kingdom of darkness, so the special charisms- are marked as the gifts of victory belonging to the glorified Christ. Examples of such a free use of Old Testa- ment passages are to be found elsewhere in Paul's \mtings ; compare Pom. x. G, &c. The quotation in ch. v. 14, is certainly a problem to be explained, but we are not authorized to employ it in casting suspicion on the genuineness of the epistle. The appeal in ch. iii. 3, to what he said before, is 148 AUDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. certainly some^Yhat singular, and wc can jioint out nothing similar in Paul. But tlic singularity is softened when wo recollect that this is a circular epistle Avhich was intended for several churches to whom Paul was personally unknown, and that what is said relates to the great novel idea of the one church of God, to be formed from Jews and Gentiles, by faith in the Redeemer, an idea which was first set by Paul in the clearest light. The passage in ch. vi. 2, 3, is also remark- :il)le; but if the apostle, expressing the precept in the Old Testament form, has added a sign, in order to mark its impoi-tance, which is affixed to this precept fi'om the Old Testament stand-point, it appeal's to me to be at least no decisive mark against the genuineness of the epistle. In ch. iv. 2S, I Ciin find nothing so veiy strange in such a con- nexion : * He Avlio hithei"to, tlirough idleness, has been led to steal from others, must labour as a Christian, not only that he may honestly gain his own livelihood, but in order to be able to show kindness to others. Let him who has hitherto seized on the property of others be changed into one who even main- tains others in need by the produce of his own labour.' The comparison of marriage with the relation of the church to <'ln'ist, ch. V. 23, appears to me, though not occurring else- where in Paul's writings, as perfectly consonant with Christian ideas, and by no means im-Pauline. P. 331, 1. 3, after '-them," add, '' Everything in this epistle, the state of mind with which the writer contemplates im- pending death, the manner in which he judges of himself, his jiathctic exhortations to the church, all bear the inimitable impress of Paul. A later wTiter attempting to forge a letter in his name, would not have expressed himself with that apparent uncertainty in reference to his future lot, iii. 11, 12. "^ ' III the Fcvcrc laug:iiagc ajrainst the judaizing proselyte-makcr?, (Phil. iii. 2, 3,) I cannot uith Baur fmd anything un-Paulinc. The jircdicatc Kvufs as a designation of shameless men is not at all extraor- dinary. It i>erfectly comports -uith the indignation of Paul against those persons who vould mislead Christians, and turn them aside from i-ccking salvation, that he should term the mere outward circumcision a KaTaTojx)], as in Cial. v. 12; it is also altogether Pauline when Chris- tians arc termed " the true circumcision who worship God in the spirit," Kom. ii. 29. It is also hy no means iar-fetchcd, hut veiy naturally con- nected, wlicn Paul, who had to fight far and near with 'these judaizers, is induced to oppose liisov/n example to what was theonly glory of these persons, that be could boa.st of all those distinctions in the highest ADDITIONS AND COllRECTIONS. MO P. 33!), last lino, add, " x\s to the two other pastoral letters, I will not deny that along with the impression of the genuine Pauline, and of what is against their composition at a later period, some thing's arc to be found which might excite a doubt even in the mind of a critic not ill-disposed, but which will lead us to consider the very peculiar relation by wliich these epistles are distinguished from all the rest of I^aul's." P. 342, 1. 12 from bottom, "in Crete and in Ephesus," (note.) " I cannot, with De Wette, consider it so extraordinary that so much is said respecting false doctrines in the new churches, nor that Paul deemed it necessary to direct the attention of Titus to the fact, who, from long observation, must have been well aware of the danger. The fermenting process in the development of Christianity at that time might easily extend its influence from one district to another, as soon as Chris- tianity had found its entrance into men's minds, and hence, from the fir.!,t, Christianity was threatened by dangerous disturbing- forces. Along with the seeds of Christianity these foreign ele- ments miglit spread from Asia Minor, or Achaia, to Crete. For a considerable time the seeds of Cliristianity might have been scattered before there had been the means of organizing a church. Paul felt himself compelled to warn Titus of the danger, of wliich he had gained information in Crete itself, and from other quarters. Tlie defects in the character of the people appeared to him to render great circimispection necessary ; these defects are noticed by Polybius, (vi. 4G, § 3 :) KaQoXov c 6 Tcepl rijv alff^onepdeiay kcu 7rX€oveE,iav rpoTzog ovto)q £7rt- (leccree, but counted them all as nothing in order to seek his righteous- ness in Christ, which is followed by that glorious passage, iii. 9— 15, which breathes entirely the spirit of Paul. That in i. 1, the deacons immediately succeed the bishops, is a mark which testifies against a time, only somewhat later, in which bishops and presbyters already began to b3 distinguished. But the name of Clement (iv. 3) reminds Dr. Baur at once of his hobby-horse, the Clementines, and calls up by the asso- ciation of ideas Peter, Simon Magus, the Gnostics, and many more of' wliom no one else would have thought of meeting in this epistle. Wjiat allusions indeed may not be found, when (ii. 4, 7) one is led to think of the Valentinian Sophia, Avhich would penetrate into the essence of Bythos, and sink dov/n into Chaos, and when Christ is thought to form a contrast to it? or when Schwegler considers Euodias to be a symbol of the Jewish-Christian party, and Syntyche a symbol of tlie Gentile Christians, and would iind under the phrase a-v^uyos yvljcrios the apostle Peter (with reference to the Clementines) as one on the conciliatory stand-point ? 150 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. Xw/Jta'^ft Trap' auroTf, wffre -Trapd fxovoiQ KprjTauvin twv airavrwv ui'dfjojiroji' nT]Oiy alayjpuv vofxi^EaQai KiploQ' and ^ O, Ovre kot iCiav i'lOt] coXiujTepa Kpr^rauioy evpoi TtQ civ. Paul probably- had these national vices in his mind ^vhen he laid down the qualifications that ■v\'ere necessaiy for the office of presbyter." P. 357. 1. 21, "and an erroneous application of it," add, "We can certainly well imagine, that James, who had advanced in gi-adual development from the Law to the Gospel as the fuliining of the Law — who, remaining on his Jewish stand- point, by faith in Jesus as the Lord and Saviour, the Author of the new di^due life, continually spirituahzed and glorified this stand-point more and more, — might from such a course of development, misunderstand the Pauline doctrinal type which had been formed under an opposite com'se of develop- ment. We can suppose, that when he met such a mode of expression, he might feel it his duty to combat it, since practically injurious consequences appeared to flow from it. We can suppose that he knew not how to separate the correct understanding and the misunderstanding from one another, since to him the whole mode of contemplating the subject was quite foreign. Thus James might have attacked Paul, though both were bound together by the Spirit of Chi'ist." P. 358,1. 21, "which left the disposition unchanged," (note.) " Bam-'s authoritative decision (p. 086) 'that this is a perfectly imtenablc self-contradictory idea,' cannot at all move me. Tiiat the idea of the ojms ojyeratum, according to the original and common meaning of the phrase, can only denote some- thing outward, I am well aware ; but a word may be used in a sense besides the common, — in an improper and metaphorical sense. So I have used the word here, which I was perfectly justified in doing, to denote a supei-ficial holding for true, which remains as something outward to the soul, without uficctiiig the disposition or the heart. It is the same making an outward thing of religion which places its essence either in ceremonial observances, or in such a foith. Both spring from the .same root. The proof he adduces in p. 5G7, only serves to confirm my assertion. Certainly there was also among the Jews a false theoiy, which attributed an unfounded value to a dead faith in the one God in opposition to idolatry, and made this a support of moral inactivity. This Jewish notion of TTtoTtc need only be apphed to the new object, Jesus the ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 151 Messiah. But that a pei'son expressing his opposition to a certain tendency, should thereby be induced so to express himself as if he meant another tendency which agrees only accidentally with this in the mode of expression — of that there is not a single example in history." P. 360, 1. 10, begin a new paragraph thus : — "We do not wish to deny that even in churches composed of Jewish Christians, and of Jewish-Christian views, there might be individuals who had been influenced by the Pauline doctrine ; and we grant that it is possible, that James, by what he had heard of the expressions of individuals who had been thus in- fluenced, had been induced to combat such a tendency in his epistle. And we should be disposed thus to account for the existence of the epistle, if it could be proved that it was directed against various theoretical and practical errors spring- ing out of different roots. But this was not the case. It is evident from what has been said, that all the evil which is combated in this epistle must be refeiTcd to one root, that of the common Jewish mind which had received the belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Hence we shall be induced, if it be possible, to regard the individual error, not as something isolated, as we must if we deduced it from the Pauline element, but rather as connected with that common fundamental tendency. " But further, we must here consider the position of James in relation to Paul. If we believed oui'selves justified in admitting an open contrariety between them, we might sup- pose that James, in consequence of his peculiar com^se of development, was incapable of entering into the peculiar Pauline form of doctrine, and had combated it as a miscon- ception that stood opposed to him. But we have shown that we can by no means be led to presuppose such a hostile relation between James and Paul, although there was a party named after the former apostle who set themselves in opposition to Paul, as indeed there was a Pauline party who formed them- selves into an opposition not sanctioned by Paul himself Ac- cording to this supposition we cannot admit that James combated either the doctrine of Paul itself, or a misunder- stood version and application of it, without, at the same time, disting-uishing the correct view of it, and guarchng himself against the appearance of contradicting the Apostle Paul, especially since this appeai'ance might so easily arise among 152 ADDITIONS AXD CORRECTIONS. Jewish-Christian churches; or we must take the matter thus, that James had controverted that dogmatic phraseology without being aware of its connexion with Paul's system, which we cannot consider as in the least degree probable. " Thus far we have taken for granted that this epistle was the production of him who is named in it as its author. But, very recently this has been disputed both on external and internal gi'ounds.' Several weighty authorities have favoured the opinion that this epistle was forged in James's name, in order to promote a certain class of religious opinions. The desig-n might have been to counterwork the Pauline doctrine of Justification, to set the authority of James against Paul, and this design might well suit the one-sided tendency of a Jewish-Cln-istian, &c " Others ai'e disposed to find out in this epistle a refined Ebionitism, in wdiich the Jewish element had lost much of its original coarseness, although the practical basis which dis- tinguished this stand-point from the Pauline, remained the same. The origination of this epistle at a later period is indicated by the influences which the Pauline spirit had already exerted on the elements that were opposed to it. Thus the softened Judaism, which could not altogether escape the influence of the Pauline ideas, must contain the certain mark of a later, more advanced Christian development. In our inquiries on this subject, all depends on how we view the relation of Christ to the developing process of Chris- tianity. If persons regard Christ only as the individual who gave the impulse to a new development, which, through a Paul, and the spirit exhibited in the Gospel of John, was can-ied forward beyond his personal eflbrts, to them such a view may commend itself. And so James may appear as the rigid Ebionite, who could not possibly have written such an epistle, and so it may appear necessary to invent such an intermediate step for the Ebionitism, softened and spiritu- ' The external c:roim(k against the genuineness of this epistle, though the I'cschito is in favour of it, would have greater weight if the doubts that arose iu the first century as to acknowledging this epistle might not be KO easily explained from its spreading among Jewish-Cliristiau churches (a circumstance suited to excite in many minds a prejudice against it) an argument against Paul's doctrine which it was believed to Contain, to which must be added the indistinct designatiou of tho author at the head of the epistle. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 153 alized b}" the aggressive influence of the movement set a-goin<:^ by Paul. To iis the relation of Christ to Cln-istiauity appears quite different, since ^'e must regard the revelation tiirougli Christ as the original and perfect one, from which the whole developing process of the apostolic doctrine is to be deduced. We shall refer the elements akin to the Pauline doctrine in James, not to Paul, but to the same original source from which Paul derived them, that is, to Christ himself. The fulfilment of the Law in the Gospel, wdiich is exhibited in the Sermon on the JSIount, reappears in the conception of Chris- tianity peculiar to James, and we cannot fail to notice several correspondences with the sayings of Christ. Although James and Paul are representatives of the two opposite extremes in the development of the Christian doctrine, yet in virtue of their common relation to the original source of revelation in Christ, a relationsliip to one another, and a higher unity, must result between them. If we know the real Christ, we shall not be disposed to believe that James, who had received unto himself the whole personal impression of the Saviour, could remain on the stand-point of the common Jewish narrow-- mindedness. As we find in his epistle that image of James which all the historical data would lead us to frame, so, on the other hand, no trace is to be found in it of its being composed in post-apostolic times, — nothing, especially, w^hich points to a later form of Ebionitism. The manner, also, in which the approach of Christ's second advent is spoken of, suits best the apostolic age. Had the epistle been forged in favour of any of the party interests of the day, we should have met with references to the manifold contrarieties of Christian development then existing, as, for instance, those of the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, the Paulinian and anti-Paulinian systems. But no one, except he belongs to the class who can find everything everywhere, can detect in this epistle any of all these and similar references to the con- trarieties of that age, excepting only the possible allusion to the Pauline doctrine of faith. But even here the anti- Pauline sentiment obtrudes so gently, as we could hardly expect in a party-writing of the second century, and in which it forms a striking contrast to the Clementines. "But is this allusion really so very evident?" etc. {vide p. 362, 1. 1.) 154 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. P. 3GG, 1. 21 from bottom, "expected from such a stand- point," (noto.) " As the ultra-Pauhnism of the second centniy stood quite aloof from James, so in the hostihty shown to the Epistle of James we recognise the one-sidedness of the Lutheran clement. Although the Epistle of James occupies a subordinate place in the development of Christian truth, compared with the Pauline epistles, yet it is important for checking several one-sided extravagances to which the Pauline element might be earned without it. Thus its posi- tion in the Canon has a peculiar jDropriety. Its importance in a practical view is beautifully exhibited by the excellent Thomas Arnold in the volume of his Sermons entitled Christian Life, its Hopes, its Fears, and its Close, p. 51 : — ' But for those who complain that no preaching but that of the very Gospel itself is becoming a Christian minister, or useful to Christian people, I w^ould refer them for an answer not only to some of the books of the Old Testament, which, on their notion, we might almost strike out of our Bibles, but to a complete portion of the New Testament itself — to the Epistle of St. James, the Lord's brother. That epistle undoubtedly supposes that they who w^ere to read it had received other teaching beforehand ; that the Gospel in the strict sense had been already preached to them. But in itself it does not in that high sense preach the Gospel; it dwells rather from beginning to end on such points of Christian duty as are required to perfect the man of God unto all good works, points which may be called properly moral. Now that some Christian preacliing, in particular circumstances, should follow the model of St. James's Epistle, appears to me no just matter of blame. But as St. James's Epistle is in the New Testament only one out of many, and as he himself must often and earnestly have preached the Gospel in ihe more strict sense, although he did not do it in this one epistle, so should we, both preachers and hearers, greatly deceive and hurt ourselves if we forget that the proper preaching of the Gospel and the believing it is our one great business, without which, and except as founded upon it and taking the knowledge and belief of it for gi-anted, all other preaching is to Christians worse than unprofitable, not edifying their souls, but rather subverting them.' (See also Dr. Arnold's Sermons on the Interpretation of Scripture, Serm. xxxiii. and xxxiv. — Tr.)" ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 155 V. 372, 1. 16, after " apostolic fellowship" add, " An im- pcartial examination of liistoiy shows that such fellowship always existed. The two apostles never ceased to acknowledge one another as genuine ministers of the Gospel, though Paul musti-always have protested against that tendency which attri- buted an excessive regai'd to Peter, and would have made everything bend to that — a tendency which in later ages became a sign of the times, and was actually embodied under Peter's name." P. 373, last line (note), add, " Also, on the supposition that the first Epistle of Peter was forged in his name, it appears to me by no means natural for the writer to mention Rome under that designation. It cannot be proved that at the end of the first or the beginning of the second centmy Rome was commonly designated by the name of Babylon, and it might be expected that whoever forged such an epistle, would by some intimation let it be known that this name was to be taken symbolically, since it was of importance to him that-all his readers should understand that the epistle was written from Rome. At all events, it is far more natural to understand by the term 77 aweKXeurri, Peter's wife rather than the church. This, we feel assured, is the only sound interpretation of the record. The antiquity of the other explanation can prove nothing, since no tradition of Peter's residence in these parts is come down to us ; on the contrary, much discussion has been raised on the tradition of Peter's journey to Rome, and as there is in the human mind a ten- dency to symbolical meaning, a point of connexion has been found in the Apocalypse, so that this interpretation would easily gain acceptance. But indeed, whoever forged an epistle under the name of Peter would have supported himself by a more familiar tradition, and not have transported Peter to Babylon. If Peter sent salutations from his wife in Babylon, it perfectly agrees with what we are told in 1 Cor. ix. 5, that she accompanied Peter on his missionary joui^neys. P. 374, 1. 3, " an epistle," (note.) " Although Schwegler has expressed himself, in the second volume of his work on the post- apostolic age, with so much confidence on the spiu-i- ousness of this>- epistle, yet we attach little or no weight to most of his reasons. He adduces as one mark of spuriousness, that the wi'iter says and reports nothing about himself in a 156 ADDITIONS AKD COEKECTIONS. more definite manner. But if there had been more distinct alhisions to Peter's character and history, they woTild doubt- less have been regarded as a sign that some other person Avished to pass himself off for Peter. And certainly, whoever had any motive for assimiing the part of Peter, would have been induced to avail himself for this object of whatever he Imew of the person and character of this apostle, and several things of this kind must have been known to any Christian wlio might forge such an epistle. But in this epistle v/e really find many marks by v/hich Peter might make himself known in an unobtrusive manner, but quite different from those which another person would have chosen who wished to act Peter's part. Among such marks we reckon that Peter (v. 1) describes himself as a witness of the sufferings of Christ. From the stand-point of Peter this would appear very natural. But any forger of such an epistle, wishing to compile one after the pattern of the other apostolic epistles, would have chosen the resun-ection of Christ, his miracles, or the transfiguration, as in the Second Epistle, rather than his passion. The author writes also as an eye-witness, before whom the image of a suffering Christ presented itself, as a pattern for Christians in times of persecution. Schleier- macher, in his Introduction, p. 408, has very properly directed attention to ch. i. 8, in which the author does not make him- self known, designedly, as one who had seen and personally known Christ, but, from an immediate consciousness that he stood in such a relation to Christ, writes to those who stood in no such relation. The reference to Christ's descensus ad inferos Schleiermacher regards as a mark of genuineness ; for he thinks that whoever forged such an epistle, would not have placed himself on such slippery ground ; ' for evidently here is something which was not passed over in the common public teaching of Christians, and yet strikes us as something foreign to the New Testament representations.' To this reason I cannot attach importance. A person might indeed have a motive, by writing mider the name of an apostle, to give circulation to an opinion different from the current repfesen- tations ; and that opinion was not so foreign to the Christian thinking of the first ages as to Schleiermacher's. But when Schwegler reckons the introduction of this doctrine as one of the marks of a Pauline element in the epistle, foreign to Peter, ADDITIOJfS AND CORRECTIONS. 157 as a deduction dniwn and doctrinally formed in tlic Paulino circles firom the Pauline principle of the universality of the Christian salvation, I can by no means agree with him. For this was not the universal application of this doctrine. ]\liir- cion had given to this doctrine, existing long before in other circles, a modification corresponding to his peculiar system. (See my Church Histor}^, vol. ii. p» 811, 2d ed. ; vol. ii. p. 14:6. Eng. Trans, in the Standard Library.) " And it may be questioned, whether without such an autho- rity as that of Peter, this statement, wdiich certainly agrees well with the Christian system, w^ould have soon found such general acceptance. But the complete formation of such a representa- tion is w^ell suited to the stand-point of an apostle who had himself' been an eye-witness of the death and resurrection of Christ. It was exactly to a person who had witnessed those great events, that such a question was most likely to occur to which the answer is given in this statement. It is possible that the apostle, when in company with Christ after his resurrection, had made an inquiry on this subject, although we would not maintain that the doctrine w^as derived from such a som-ce. And what Peter experienced in his early ministry among the Gentiles, and what he said on that occa- sion in the family of Cornelius, might form a point of con- .nexion for his reflecting on such an agency on the part of Christ as is indicated in that passage. But it is to be re- marked, that this topic is touched very cursorily, and by no means presented w^ith that prominence and earnestness which might be expected from one who sought to gain accejitance for it by employing the authority of an apostolic name." P. 374, 1. 19, " heathen populace," (note.) " Schwegler has controverted this view, and maintains that this epistle could only have been written under the Emperor Trajan ; a posi- tion of the Christians is here implied which they were first placed in by that emperor s well-known rescript. But I can- not help pronouncing both the assumptions on which this writer proceeds, and the inferences he draws from them, to bo wdiolly unfounded. The Neronian persecution proves, indeed, that the Christians were alread}^ the objects of popular hatred. It could not fail but that popular hatred would show itself in their conduct towards the Christians. Although Chris- tianity was not yet designated a rellgio illkita by an express 158 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. enactment, yet it would follow of itself from the constitution of the Roman polity that the propagation of a religion which would involve the downM of the religion of the -State, would be illegal and worthy of punishment. As soon as it came to light that the Xpicmayoi were a genus tertium, Christianity must appear, even prior to any special legislation respecting it, as a religio ilUcita. Thougli Nero's persecution was only occasional and transient, yet what took place in the metro- polis of the empire must operate injuriously on the condition of Cliristians in the provinces. Everything which happened from this time to Trajan's first rescript, testifies of preceding jiersecutions against the Christians, in which by the new law of Trajan, only a more legal arrangement had been made. We dare not allow ourselves to infer too much, from the gaps in our knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The manner also in which persecutions are spoken of in ch. iv. 4, serve to mark them as new. How can any one who allows that the Apocalypse was written before Trajan's accession, fail to perceive the existence of earlier persecutions 1 Rev. vi. 9 ; xvii. 6 ; xx, 4. This last passage is peculiarly important, since it points to something more than a mere popular infliction of punishment, which would not have been satisfied with merely beheading the Christians. It appears from that passage that it was already established in the administration of Roman law, to apply this capital punishment to Christians — and hence we perceive the great gaj^s in om' historical knowledge." P. 376, 1, 5, after "apostolic SjDirit," add, "As the object for which this epistle must have been written, perfectly cor- responded to the circumstances of the times, there is nothing in its composition which would lead us to infer that the writer had forged it with a conciliatory design. A person of this description would hardly have put such a restraint on himself, and expi-essed himself so guardedly, that one pai't of his object — which according to this supposition was his prin- cipal object — could only be discovered by a careful inves- tigation. The peculiar characteristic of Peter, his occupying a stand-point between Paul and James, is indeed apparent in the epistle ; but the points of contact with the Pauline element are also visible, as Paul had already exerted a pre- ponderating influence on the formation of the Christian ideas, especially among those who used the Greek language. But ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 159 WO must here distingiiisli what is pecuHarly Paiihnc from what was deduced in common from the same original source, and in the handling of dogmatical points we need not expect such strikingly marked mental pccuHarity in this apostle, as in a Paul or a John. Since this epistle, as a hortatory circular, is a counterpart of the Epistle to the Ephesians, we cannot think it strange if no references occur in it to special local circumstances, as in the otlier Pauline epistles, but tliat every thing is more general. We might anticipate that this would be the case in such an epistle. " The expectation of the end of all things as impending, is suitable to the apostolic age, and the events in Nero's reign must have tended to awaken this expectation." P. 386, last line, /or " did wholly," read " did not wholly." P. 388, 1. 12, "the form of the Grecian mind," (note.) " But v.dien Schwegler, from the obscure expressions of Poly- crates quoted above, deduces the fact that John had assumed the high-priestly dress as overseer-general of the churches in Asia Minor, and then, again concludes, what on such a suppo- sition would be a fair inference, that one who thus acted and placed himself in such a relation to Judaism, could not be the author of the Gospel under his name — he adopts a method, according to which it is only requisite to find proofs for a system formed on arbitrary assumptions and combinations, and according to which all separate traditions are only so far to be thought credible, as they serve to support such a system. This single feature is literally adhered to, though it stands in contradiction to everything else we know of that age. Where can we find anything bearing an analogy to it unless something isolated in the uncritical and credulous Epipliauius % It may indeed be admitted that the Christian feasts became changed into the Jewish ; for this there was a medium in the spiritualization of the Old Testament, — Theocracy proceeding from Christianity. But it was altogether different witli the 2)riesthood. The principles of Christianity connect them- selves with the idea of a priesthood only so far, tliat Christ is regarded as the only High Priest, and all believers are derived from him as the universal priesthood ; hence no such relation can be found as that which existed on the stand-point of the Old Testament cvltu.^— {vide pp. 128, 156). Moreover, as Christianity still moved in the forms of Judaism, this prin- IGO ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. cii)lo ^vas employed in the formation of chnrcli relations. Ilie position of James among the Jewish Christians cannot here be adduced as a proof, but goes rather to establish the opposite ; for gi-eat as was the reverence in which he was lield, wc find no trace of his being invested with anything like the JcNvish priesthood. For even Hegesippus is far from l)lacing him in such a relation to the Christian church, altliough from Ids ascetic, Ebionitish stand-point, — which we lu-c by no means justified in making identical with the Jewish Christians, and cannot ascribe even to Polycrates — he says, that James in virtue of his sanctity wore not a woollen, but a linen garment like a priest, and that in virtue of this priestly sanctity he alone was allowed to go into the lioly place of the Temple. TovVw f-toro) e^rjy slg ra liyia ti/Tih'ai, ovce. yc/a ipeovy e3^, forms the basis of the contraiiety between the Christian and the ancient view of the world. It serves to mark this contrariety when the word (raTruvdv or humile) which on the ancient stand- point was wont to be employed in a bad sense, is converted in the Christian ethics into a designation of what constitutes the basis of all higher life, and of all true nature. As from that stand-point of predominant self-consciousness and self- confidence TaTTtivov was used to mark a mean slavish dispo- sition, so on the other hand ^eyaXo^l^vy^ia ^ was used as the symbol of tnie elevation of soul, a certain pride of self-con- sciousness, which stands in diametric opposition to the essence of Christian humility. Something bearing an affinity to that etliical idea of revealed religion is found in a reflection of Hero- dotus, that the self-exaltation of human greatness is punished in history by the judgment of God, who humbles the gi'eat and * AoKU neyaK6T^vxos flvai 6 ti^yaXuv, aiirhy a^iwy, &lios &v. Eth. Nicomach. lib. iv. c. 7. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 175 lofty, and Cxaltstho little. ^^iXeei 6 Oeoc -d virepi^ovTa irdrra KoXoviii', ov yap e(i (^povieLV fxiya 6 Oeoc uWoy ?/ twuroj/. Lib. vii. c. 10, § 3. What lies at the basis of the view of liistoiy taken by Herodotus, appears elevated to an ethical and reli- gions contemplation, when Plato, speaking of the manner in which God reveals himself in history, says, " diKi] always accompanies Him who punishes the deviations from the divine laws ; and whoever would be happy, let him follow in dependence on the divine justice humble and orderly."' Here Ta-n-eu'orijQ is marked as the disposition, in virtue of which a man submits himself humbly to the Divine laws, in contrast to the pride of the wicked, who, forsaken by God, is visited by punishment. And Plutarch, who perhaps had that passage of Plato in his thoughts, makes a similar use of it, when he says that " wickedness, when checked by punish- ment, can scarcely be made sober-minded, humble, and God- fearing." ^ Yet in both passages we have not the whole idea of humility, but only a part of it — humility in reference to God as a judge. The consciousness of dependence," &c. p. 483. P. 486,1. 15 from bottom, "the term (TO(l)ia;' (note.) "Also in Plato (see the Republic, iv.) o-o;' add, "And yet, according to what has been said above, it is certain that Paul derives everything from foith. If any one had wished to refer to the power of an outward, sensible ceremony, — an element belong- ing to the senses, — what is to be deduced from an internal appropriation through faith, Paul would have applied to baptism what he said of circumcision, that it was a return to the element of the world, a putting the uapKiKov in the place of the irvivnariKov. But he speaks, in the passages we have quoted, of the whole of the Divine transaction in which iricTTtQ is included, as the subjective element from Avhich everything proceeds. And it is a common figure of speech, to state one principal element for the whole and all its ele- ments ; in this instance, the most outward is adduced, by which the whole is brought under obseiwation, the closing point of the whole, which presupposes all the other elements, including the most internal." P. 503, 1. 13, after "in its consummation" add, "This re- quires our attentive consideration. At the time of which we arc speaking, the church comprised the whole visible form of the kingdom of God ; eveiything else stood in opposition to it ; and yet the kingdom of God is destined for universal sovereignty, — to appropriate everything as its organ ; as every- thing in humanity depends upon it, the kingdom of God must stamp its impress on the race, before it can find the realization of its true idea. Such an universal sovereignty in reserve for the kingdom of God, Paul certainly acknowledged; but the thought was then, and must have continued to be, not fi\miliar to his mind, that such a supremacy of the king- dom of God was to be formed by that developing process which Christ compares to leaven, through the natural con- nexion of causes and effects under the Divine guidance. It was, as we have already proved, the necessary and natural view for this stage in the development of Christianity, that ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 177 tliis supremacy of the kingdom would bo brought about under other conditions than those of earthly existence by the second advent of Christ. Hitherto, therefore, there could be no visible apj^earance of the kingdom of God beyond the pale of the church. Another relation of the ideas of the kingdom of God and of the church to one another must be formed when the kingdom of God had more effectually exerted its power as leaven in the development of the human race — when, by a natural instrumentality, preparation was made for what, to Paul, appeared as something that must be realized in an immediate manner by a new external event — when the kingdom of God, which entered the world first of all in the form of the church, had appropriated to itself all other things which belonged to the organism of human life. Then the idea of the kingdom of God, in its earthly form of appearance, would become more extended than that of the church, which hitherto it had not been." P. 504, note 1, after "below" add, "Although the view taken by St. Paul of the world of spirits is represented to us and more fully developed in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, which may be explained by their being written in the later period of his ministry, and the contradictory opinions that had then arisen ; jQt this cannot be considered as a mark of anything un-Pauline, for it can easily be proved that such a view of the various orders in the world of spirits was always held by the apostle, and that the relation of men to a world of good and evil spirits was always present to his mind, E,om. viii, 38, dyyeXoL, dp-)(al, dvvai.ieLQ of this or the other world ; 1 Cor. iv. 9 ; xii. 4. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 24, by the universality with which he expresses himself, he can hardly be supposed to mean only the ap^oJ, eHovalat and duvai^ieiQ of this world, but must, at least, include certain invisible regions. The manner is characteristic in which Paul joins together the evil in the visible and invisible world as one, and subjects the evil angels to the judgment of those 'who are one with Christ, to reign and judge with him. As to the passage in 1 Cor. xi. 10, I have often seriously doubted, with Dr. Baur, the genuineness of the words did tovq dyyiXovr, since these words, after a sufficient reason has already been given for the injunction, seem a superfluous addition to the Old TovTo. I have also been led to the same supposition VOL. II. N 178 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. as Dr. Baur, that the words may have been brought as a gloss into the text, from the stand-point of a representation derived from the apociyphal Book of Enoch, relative to the inter- course of the fallen angels with the daughters of men; Gen. vi. 2. * Women ought to be veiled, as a protection against the temptations and plots of the evil spirits.' Yet I do not ventiu-e to speak on this point mth such confidence as Dr. Bam-, for I can attach a meaning to these words which will be very agi'ceable to Paul's mode of viewing such subjects. Paul, always mindful of the connexion between the visible and invisible world, contemplates the angels as witnesses of the devotions of the chm'ch. Angels and men, as members of one kingdom of God that exists under one head, unite together in common acts of devotion to God. Now the women ought to be afi-aid to appear before such eyes in a manner which is inconsistent with the natural proprieties of the female sex, and which would mark a perversion of the female character. We must certainly attach a symbolic moral meaning to the veiling. Also in 1 Cor. ix. 23 we find an example, though not perfectly analogous, where a clause with 'ii'a, as marking a special object, is added to an asser- tion for which a sufficient reason had akeady been given with hd." P. 504, 1. 13, to p. 505,1. 7, "Accordingly," &c. "We here come to the important idea of a pre-existent Divine Being, who, through Christ, became manifested in time — the idea, to designate which we may, for brevity's sake, use the term Logos, though this distinct form of designating such an idea belongs only to a peculiar doctrinal type of the New Testa- ment. Also on this subject we must maintain, in opposition to tlie arbitraiy, unhistorical, destructive theories of a certain mode of thinking in our day, which is necessitated to find in all tilings only tlic lumian spirit seating itself in its self- reflection on the thi'onc of God — that not a foreign element from without was introduced in the development of the doc- trine tliat proceeded from Christ — also, that not from without, through many influences, has that been developed at which the idea of Christianity aims, and for which Christ only gave tlic first impulse — but we must here deduce everything from the original revelation of Christ, and prove that everjrthing is already placed in his self-revelation as to its essence, germ^ ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 179 and principle. Wc must only distinguish the successive pre- paratory stages to show how what was contained originally in his divine and human consciousness, and given in his self- revelation, was developed in the consciousness and'the preach- ing of those who testified of him, '• As, in the doctrine promulgated by Christ himself, we find the fulfilment and explanation of the Old Testament stand- point alike given, but in the developing process of apostolic Christianity, fulfilment and explanation are seen apart in suc- cessive stages, and we behold the unfolding of Christianity from its closest connexion with the Old Testament to its per- fectly independent development when it threw aside the Old Testament covering ; so also we must distinguish between the conception of the person of Christ, which was connected with the predominant Old Testament idea of the Messiah, and deduced from it, and the appearance of the Divine Word " become flesh," first of all anointed with the fulness of the Divine Spirit before he came forward as the Messiah, then known as the pre-existent Son of God who appeared in time and manifested his glory, the medium of transition from the historical revelation of the Divine to the pre-historical and super- historical. There is here a progTCSsive organic de- velopment, of which the members reciprocally conditionate one another ; but everything leads back to what was in the historical Christ, and to his original self-revelation. The first thi'ee Gospels and the Acts correspond to the first stand- point : and in the former there are not wanting intimations which denote or imply that higher idea of the Son of God as it was developed by Paul and John ; Matt. xi. 27 ; xxii. 44 ; xxviii. 18, 20. The total impression given by the Christ of the first three Gospels would lead any one who receives it with a susceptible disposition to recognise a Divine form, letting himself down from heaven to earth. Several pregnant single expressions, as when he said, " In this place is one greater than the temple, " Matt, xii. 6 ; and if we take into account what the temple was to the Jewish religious senti- ment, and what he must be on the first stage of theocratic development, we shall also be led to recognise such a Christ in the first Gospels, or we cannot hesitate to charge him with impious self-idolatiy, or we must apply the scalpel of an arbitrary criticism, and let the whole be dissolved into some- ISO ADDITIONS AND COr.RECTIONS. thing as unsubstantial as a mist. The predicate vloc rov di'dpujTTov, tlie Messiah, appearing as a man, who realized the original type of humanity, and exalted human nature to the liighest dignity, and the predicate 6 vide rov deov, which in Christ's lips denoted something more than the common Jewish idea of the Messiah, refer reciprocally to one another, and imply the fhstinction as well as the combination and the unity of the Divine and human in him. " But the development of theology from the Old Testament stand-point also favoured this revelation of the higher image of Christ ; and to what resulted from the developing process of the divine appearances in the Old Testament, ideas which sprung up on the soil of Grecian philosophy were afterwards to be joined, in order to render accessible to the human mind these visible presentations of the Divine. The Messianic idea of the Old Testament had already in some special features (as in Isaiah Ix. 6) been exalted from the earthly to the super- human Divine, and shown how this ideal of the theocratic King in his essence must pass beyond the limits of a mere human appearance. It was an idea which, though at first representing itself in historical earthly forms of appearance, yet was pregnant with a significance which necessarily tended to the super-earthly and the heavenly. The revelation of God in the Old Testament led to the visible presentation of a Word forming the connexion between the Creation and the eternal, hidden essence of God, and this Word pointed to the idea of an eternal self-revelation of God as a pre-supposition of tlie wliole creation, in which it had its root, and without wliich no thought from God or leading to God could arise in the human soul. It is a prevailing error to deduce all this from the influence of Grecian philosophy. It is true, that Platonic and Stoical ideas of a Logos afterwards gave Philo [)oints of connexion for Grecising such an idea ; but" certainly, although such an idea had formed itself from the Old Testa- ment -07, he was not under the necessity of selecting such a word to indicate that idea. In Philo liimsclf we must care- fully distinguish what he received from the traditions of Jewish theology, and what he made of that theology fi'om the stand-point of his Greeco-Jewish religious philosophy. 'I'hc concci)tion that was derived from the religious develop- ment of the Old Testament, and then throudi the Alexa.r ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 181 drian theology brought into connexion with the ideas of tho Grecian philosophy, formed a natural transition-point from legal Judaism, which placed an infinite chasm between God and man, to the Gospel, which was to fill up this chasm, since it revealed a God communicating himself to mankind, and establishing a fellowship of life between himself and them." P. 507, 1. 10 from bottom, aftei' " of late years" add, " As when a denial of God, which degrades man, adorns itself with the name of Humanism, which in its true sense applies only to Christianity, which exalts man to the consciousness of his true dignity consisting in the image of God and destined for eternal life, and can alone enable him to realize this dignity. " It has been maintained, indeed, that the Christology which we here attribute to Paul, is only to be found in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philippians, and this is urged as a proof of the un-Pauline character of these epistles ; but we must maintain in the face of all such critical puerilities, that in the larger and universally acknowdedged Pauline epistles the same Christology forms the ground-work, which appears in a more striking, because antithetic form, in the Epistle to the Colossians. The words in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, ver. 4, I'^aTriareiXev 6 deog to irveviia Tou vlov avTOv elg rag KapSiag iijiuyv, manifestly contain the idea that God sent out his Son from himself, and that there- fore he was with him before he appeared in the world; as when Paul says in the sixth verse, i^aTred-eiXev 6 dtog to TTvtvjxa Tov vlov avTov, it is implied that the Spirit sent into the hearts of believers came forth from the depths of the Divine Being, and in consequence effects the connexion of believing souls with God. Here the words of Paul in 1 Cor. '' viii. 6, are particularly applicable, where he points out the characteristics of the Christian stand-point in the religious consciousness. ' But to us there is one God the Father, from whom all existence proceeds, and we are for him, (he is the end of our existence,) for his glory : and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were brought into existence, and we are through him.' This passage cannot be otherwise understood, than that the cl ov ni iravra cor- responds to the f^ ov TO. TvavTa, and both therefore are equally comprehensive, and thus the i^xug IC avTov refers itself back to the ?;/i£7c tig avrov. Accordingly, the passage affirms that, 182 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. as all existence proceeds from God, so through Jesus Christ as the one Mediator, in relation especially to the pre-existent divine nature in him, all things were introduced into actual existence, and as Cln-istians are conscious that God alone ought to be the end of their being, so the reahzation of this destiny is accomplished through Christ by virtue of the new creation that proceeds from him. So Paul here combines in one view of the Lord Jesus Christ, the divine and the human, contcmijlates him in reference to these two great points, as the mcihatiug Being, by whom the whole universe was at fii-st called into exist'ence, and by whom not only the original Creation, but that creation is brought into being which is destined to realize the end of the first, i " The exposition of this passage admits of less doubt than that of 1 Cor. x. 4, where Paul represents the water from the rock, and the manna which was given to the Jews in the wildemess, as a symbol of the communion with Cluist effected by the Lord's Supper. ' They all di-ank of that spiritual rock that follow^ed them,' says Paul, ' and that rock was Christ.' Now, this would not imply the Messianic pre-exist- ence, if we understand it to mean — the rock represented Chi'ist : was a symbol of him. But it certainly agrees better with Paul's train of ideas if we take it in this sense : — that Christ himself was the rock who furnished the manna and water to the Jews, as he now communicates himself in the Supper. Now, if we are not justified from any other quai'ter in assum- ing the idea in Paul's writings of such a Messianic pre-existence, "we must content ourselves with such a dilution of his mean- ing in that passage as is offered in the first intei-pretation. Likewise, if in 1 Cor. x. 9 Kvpiov is the genuine reading, but X^ncTov a correct gloss, this necessarily indicates that when Paul said of the Jews in the wilderness eTreipaaav ray XpKTToi', he implied that Christ was acting among them ac- cording to his Divine nature. The words in 2 Cor. viii. 9, (' For ye know the grace of om' Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that * Baur (p. G27) would Hmit the Bi ol to iravTa to all things which relate to reconciliation and redemption ; but this is absolutely impos- sible, a.s will be evident to every unprejudiced person on an examination of the context. The words in 2 Cor. v. 18, where the hmitation plainly }>roceed)i from tho connexion, are not at all parallel to the passage be- ore U.S. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 183 ye through his poverty might be made rich') are alyo certain evidence that Paul's views were such as we have stated. It is impossible to understand these words as Baur (p. G28) has explained them in order to do away with their obvious inference ; ' That Christ was poor, i. e. lived in poverty and a lowly condition, although as liedeemer, through the gi-ace of redemption which we owe to him, he was rich enough to make- us rich.' Certainly, the * being rich' forms a contrast to the ' being poor,' but the riches of his grace would form no such contrast. To be rich in grace, and to live in poverty and a lowly condition, are perfectly compatible. And it is here intended to exhibit Christ as a pattern of self-sacrifice and self-denial, that men may learn to give up what they might otherwise enjoy, in order to help others. But how could this agree with such an exposition 1 We know not how to understand it, when Baur, who cannot deny this reference of the words, will not acknowledge wdiat is implied, but thinks they may thus' be explained : — ' That we must show the same self-sacrificing disposition as Christ, who was poor and in a lowly condition, though he was so exalted above US' by the riches of his grace.' Where is the contrast, and where is the example of self-sacrifice ? Although the word TTTiax^^^ty in itself, according to the Greek usage, only denotes ' being poor,' yet in the words ' for our sakes he was poor,' and in the contrast ttXovgloq C)v, it is necessarily under- stood that he was before rich, and for our sakes became poor. The words cannot be understood in any other sense than this : He who was rich in divine glory, has on our account taken part in oiu" poveily ; he has entered within the limits and wants of our earthly existence, in order that by means of this his self-humiliation we might partake of the riches of his divine life, which without it wo could not have done. Again, when Paul in Rom. viii. 3, says, 'God sent forth his Son' h 6ii.oiu)fxaTL aapKOQ dfjiapriag, these words imply the pre-existence of the Son of God, ovk kv aapd. The passage in Rom. ix. 5, can certainly not be made use of, in an isolated form, to prove from it Paul's doctrinal views, since it requires for its inter- pretation an appeal to Paul's mode of thinking elsewhere, and has, undeniably, great difficulties. Yet we must admit we cannot feel satisfied with the explanation that Paul must have ended the sentence with the w-ords, ' from w^hom, according 184 ADDITIONS AXD COERECTIONS. to tlie flesh, Christ came/ without adding anything more — he who was so fond of contrasts, and whom the consciousness of the glory of Christ, of which he was always full, would here prompt to the expression of a contrast. He must, in tiaith, have felt himself compelled to express more strongly what he brought forward as the culminating point of the whole — the last end of the theocratic development which was to proceed from the Jews, and we cannot think that he would have ended in so bald a manner. Neither can we admit, that the Doxo- logy to God the Father could be joined in this way without any intermediate link, and this whole doxology would be uncommonly heavy, and quite un-Pauline. Hence we must regard it as the most natural exposition according to which the last words form a contrast to the preceding Krara aapm, and give emphasis to the meaning of the great preeminence which accrued to the Jews from the Messiah's being born of them. " He who is God exalted over all," (exalted above all that is named in the preceding clauses.) or perhaps still better thus, avoiding the encumbrance of the 6 wv, 'The Being exalted over all, be praised as the Divine Being for ever.' AVe certainly admit that Paul would not have conferred the title 6 OtoQ simply upon Christ, but it is something different when in reference to his deemed communicated nature he calls him Oeuc. And as he now attributes such exaltation to him, and represents him as the Being in whom all the commu- nications of divine blessing to mankind are concentrated, he might be well induced to ascribe the doxology to him. That this does not occur elsewhere, cannot sei-ve as a proof that Paul could not once have done this in a peculiar connexion. The words of Paul in Pom. i. 4, contain nothing inconsistent ^\^ltll this vievv^ He there refers to the Son of God in his two- fold relation, — in his state of humiliation, when he had sub- jected himself to the limits of earthly humanity, and as he went beyond it when the dignity attached to him as the Son of God was revealed, so that his divine essence unveiled itself free from the limits of nature by which it had hitherto been kept back. The Son of God, who according to his earthly ap- pcju'ance was born of the ])osterity of David (the Messiah jieculiarly belonging to the Jewish people), by means of the indwelling spirit of holiness (the divine nature peculiar to him) was proved to be the Son of God by his resurrection, or ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. l85 ill virtue of his resiuTection, (for tliis event was indeed the beginning of bis emerging from the bmits of an existence subjected to nature,) in order that henceforward, in coitc- spondence to tlie essence of the Son of God, the Trrevfiu ayiw- avvtic in him, lie might operate with a power raised above all limits, invisible and divine — the theocratic King and Redeemer belonging equally to the whole human race. P. 508, 1. 3, " in vogue respecting spirits," add, " although, as w^e have proved, the same doctrinal view lay at the basis of what he has expressed in his earlier epistles. When Paul, in 2 Cor. iv. 4, describes Ciirist as the image of God, in whom the glory of God is mirrored forth, the same train of ideas is implied, which, more fully unfolded by an antithetical reference, meets us in the Epistle to the Colossians." P. 508, 1. 20 from bottom, after "among mankind" add, " With this view also is connected the manner in which Paul expresses himself in Phil. ii. 5 — 9, 'That wdiereas Christ found himself in a state of divine existence, he did not so value that equality to God and divine existence, nor was he eager to let it come forth that he might make a shovv^ wdth it, but on the contrary, he renounced it when he entered into the dependent relations of a creaturely human existence, and was born as a man like other men, although under the cover- ing of this visible forai w^as hidden something exalted above human nature and the whole created universe. The exalta- tion which followed this self-humiliation, and by which the obedience rendered by him in the form of a servant was rewarded, cannot be referred to that in which according to his divine essence he was already exalted above all, but only to the man who had come forth from that act of self-humilia- tion ; who as a man, conscious of his divine nature, carried this act of self-inanition to the highest pitch. If we carefully discriminate the ideas, we shall find here no contradiction which would oblige us to drag in gnostic ideas, of which we do not perceive the least trace ; there is, indeed, nothing more than what we have already found in 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Piom. viii. 3. P. 522, 1. 9, after "wwld" add, "Paul here treats of an eternal election and predestination antecedent to the creation of the world, but not of an analogous reprobation, since the former, but not the latter, has an eternal ideal basis. Kepro- 186, ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. bation relates only to a temporal aj-jpearance ; those in whom the divine idea fixed in Christ is not realized, hence appear as the excluded from their realization, in other words as the rei^robate."^ P. o30, 1. 9 from bottom, aftei' "work for believers" add, "Yet this does not forbid oiu- supposing that the spirit of Paul, comprehending all things to the last closing point of the development of redemption and salvation in one vast con- templation, might have raised itself above the limits of the proposition lying immediately before him, and taken in the final result, which would resolve all disharmony into perfect unison. And it would be the most natural construction to suppose an interval between what is stated in 1 Cor. xv. 23,' and in the following verse, and in this interval those develop- ments might take place which would contribute to bring on the last end of universal restoration : first of all, the resur- rection and perfect blessedness of believei-s ; and then the general resun-ection of all, freed from sin, exalted to a divine life, when God shall be all in all. But it is worthy of notice how immediately Paul comes to the tha. It appears that here he wished rather to give hints, than to express and develop." * Vol. i. p. 1. " Introductory remarks on the sources OF THIS history. The manner in which criticism has been recently applied to this part of history induces us to pre- mise a few words on its sources as an introduction to the following investigations. A few notices from other quarters excepted, we must, in order to examine the true state of the facts for this history, carefully compai'e two sources with one another ; namely, the Einstles of the apostles and their companions, — (which as soon as we can ascertain their genu- ineness are the surest sources) — and the naiTative respecting these times, kno\\ii by the name of The Acts of the Apostles. As we ai*e prepared to prove the credibility of the latter after- wards in detail, we wish here only to see, in passing, whether * Employing the scholastic terminology in a Pauline sense, we may say that the vohintas sifpii, not the voluntas heneplaciti, is here pointed out. 2 liy an oversight, these paragraphs were not placed in the printer's hands early enough for insertion in the proper place. — Tr. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 187 some marks of the confidence to be placed in this som'cc may not be discovered. • " In the latter pai-t of the book itself, from chap. xvi. 10, we meet with a striking peculiarity, — the author in several pas- sages speaks in the first person plural, including himself among the companions of the apostle Paul, and therefore an eye- witness of part of the events contained in the history. This is a very important indication of the rank which we must allow to this document as a source of historical information. It. may indeed be objected, as has actually been done by Dr. Von Baur (in his work, Paulits der Ajoostel Jesu Christi : Stuttgart, 1845), that the author of the Acts belonged to a later period, but in order to deceive, adopted this phraseology, since he wished to be regarded as the companion of the apostle Paul, and to act the part of Luke. But this assump- tion no unprejudiced person can adopt. For then, how can it be explained that the author, from the first, gives no sign of the part he wished to act, and in which it was so important for him to be acknowledged, so that where he first begins to adopt this style he drops no hint who he is, and how he happened to be in Paul's company ? This really looks in itself, and especially according to the analogy of the apocryphal writings of that age, as unlike one' who wished to write under the name of another, as we can imagine. The manner in which the author of the Acts at once, without anything leading to it, begins to express himself in this associated form of address, bears undeniable marks of the absence of design. "And for whom did the author compose this work? As by the introductory words it is connected with the Gospel of Luke, and professes to be the second part of that work on the primitive history of Christianity, it is evident that it was primarily written for the same object which the author of the Gospel states in his introduction, — in order to furnish an indi- vidual, Theophilus, with exact and certain knowledge of that histoiy ; and this certainly does not agree with his wishing to act the part of any other person than he really was. Here again it may be objected — these writings were not really composed for such a Theophilus, but he who wished to forge this work under the name of a companion of the apostle Paul chose this garb for his fabrication. But the introductory words of Luke's Gospel are by no means suited to give us the 188 ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. impression of such a design, but correspond in a simple natural manner to the object M-hich a Christian wTiter might have who hvcd under the reh^tions of tliat fresh age of Chris- tianity. And further, why should he in those words (Luke i. 2,) have stated tliat tlie accounts of eye-witnesses formed the main sources of his narrative, when in consistency with the pait he wished to act he ought to have described himself' as an eye-witness? Or must we refer those introductory words only to the Gospel, and not at the same time to the Acts? But if persons are resolved to find a fabrication under- taken for a special purpose, will it not be most natural to admit that the author from the first had the whole plan of his fraus pia in his mind, and hence in the introductory woi'ds to the first part of his work had made preparation for what he intended to exhibit in the second part ? " Now, if this supposition of a designed fixbrication cannot be applied to that personal form of the naiTative in the Acts, this peculiarity can be explained in only one of two ways. Either the same person speaks here from whom the whole history proceeded, or it is the account of another individual, whom the author, in making use of various sources for his work, embodied in this original form with his own composi- tion. If we suppose the first, it is evident that this work proceeded from one who w\ns an eye-w^itness of part of the events he describes, and a missiouaiy companion of the apo- stle Paul, wlio stood in close connexion with him. And this will predispose us to judge favourably of the sources which the author might make use of, for those transactions in which he was not an eye-witness, as well as of the general fidelity of his naiTativc, We shall not allow ourselves to be persuaded that such a person, instead of wishing to give pure history, only aimed at compiling from the materials before him a fiction, even though for a good object. But if w^e adopt the second alternative, it follows, that at least an important por- t'lon of the nari-ative is founded on the report of a trustworthy eye-witness. From a single example of the use of such a rei)ort, it is apparent that the author wished to employ, and did employ, good sources of information. And by this single example, that at the place in which he incorporated this account in his history, he left this form of personal narrative unaltered, he shows that he was disposed to alter the materials ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 189 wliicli. lie made use of in his work, too little for historical art, for imity of historical composition, rather than too much for the fidelity of the narrative. It is plain how deficient he was in historical art, and that, therefore, we must expect to find in this work rather the raw material from the sources within his reach, than an historical composition artificially moulded and framed according to one point of view. It is plain how far we should be from expecting that such a person would have constructed the speeches he reports, in accordance with the stand-point and character of the speakers, after the exam- ple of the classical historians, with creative art, and how little such an artificial style and ability can be attributed to him. " Both suppositions have their difiiculties, which in either case can find their solution only in the peculiar character of the historian, and in the whole method of his work. In the first case, the carelessness and awkwardness which allowed him to admit these foreign accounts without altering the unsuitable form of the narrative, is very strange. But if we adopt the second supposition, it still remains very striking and awkward, that he should appear speaking in this form all at once without notice ; without saying anything about the manner in which he came to be one of Paul's companions ; how by turns he is associated with him and separated from him. But in both cases we shall be led to similar conclusions in reference to the origination and character of this historical collection. " Whether the introductory words of Luke's Gospel refer or not to both parts of the work, at all events we can apply what is there said to the Acts, that according to Luke i. 2, he made use of the reports of the original eye-witnesses of the Christian history, and of the first publishers of the Gospel, which would perfectly agree with the character of Luke, to whom ecclesiastical tradition attributes both works, the i")hysi- cian whom Paul, in his epistle written from. Rome, names as his fellow-labourer. Indeed, if we refer these words in the Gospel to the Acts, this would not prove that the account in which he uses the first person proceeded from himself; for on that supposition he would himself belong in part to the eye- witnesses. Yet it is questionable, whether these words really belong to both parts, and whether the author, when writing the Gospel, had already planned that continuation of it." 190 ADDITIONS AlfD CORRECTIONS. r. 1, ch. i. Begin with the following paragraph :—^- The Christian church, as a community, proceeding from anew prin- ciple for tlie transformation of the world, and destined to intro- duce this new principle into humanity, presupposes, as the basis of its existence, that Person who was himself in his whole being and manifestation that world-transforming principle, without whom the existence of the church itself would be a mon- strous lie. But in order to explain the commencement of the existence of the church, there was a necessity for that un- panUlclcd event atiecting all succeeding ages, by which this objective principle passed into the consciousness of men, henccfortli to form the central point of a new internal life- ccMumunion, and on which the being of the church rests. Tliis event was the miracle of the first Pentecost, which, in its cssentiid nature, is repeated wherever a creation of the Chris- tian life, either in individuals or communities, takes place. If all the great epochs in tlie development of the church point us to a beginning which marks the boundary between the old and tlie new, where first that which constitutes the pecu- liarity of the new epochs comes forth into manifestation, cer- tainly the gi'catest epocli, from which all the others proceeded, ciumot be thought to want such a beginning ; and historical traditions here harmonize with what the idea of the thing itself would lead us to anticipate. And however much the cx})lanation of particular points in that tradition may be dis- j)uted, the historical reality of the fact on the whole remains unshaken and raised above all mythical attempts at explana- tion, and its. truth is shown by itself, as well as by the results which were consequent on this beginning. " The historical development," ttc. ANTIGNOSTIKUS ; THE SPIRIT OF TEETULLIAN, A MONOGRAPH DESIGNED TO BE A CONTIUBDTION TO THE HISTORY OP CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AN» MORALS IN THE FIRST AGES. DE. AUGUSTUS NEANDER. Veritas non in supcrficie est, sed iu medulla et plerunKjuc tcmula manifestis, — Tertullian. TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION (Berlin 1849) OF THE ORIGINAL GERMAN. DEDICATION. To my dear Friend, Dr. Julius Muller, of Halle. It gives me pleasure to dedicate my works, as they appear, to those persons who are peculiarly dear to me ; and openly to express, in times so strongly tending to isolate and divide, the consciousness of cordial fellowship in mind and heart with those whom I know to be one with myself, not merely on the ground of our common Christianity, but in their theological principles ; and there is no one to whom I believe that I stand so near in this respect as yourself, my much- loved friend. May a gracious God enable us to maintain this unity, and by the purifying influences of his Spirit, may it Decome more decided and more refined. I thank Him with all my heart, that he has preserved you for ourselves and his militant church, amidst the ravages of that epidemic which has been so threatening in your city, a representative of the true via media, ^so much required in these difficult, dis- tracted times. May He preserve you still by his guardian providence, and strengthen you in soul and body, that you may long act as a living pattern and a wise guide to our beloved j'-Quth, even after we who are moro'ndyanced in life VOL. IL 0 19i DEDICATION. arc called away. May you, as liitlierto, bo enabled to ex- emplify, both by word of mouth and by your writings, the harmony and consistency of child-like, humble Christianity, with sound philosophy and true liberty of thought ; to warn from the abyss of all-devouring unbelief, and from the bondage of human opinions, whether novel, or old ones re- vived ; to contend for the preserv^ation of that genuine freedom in heart and mind which Christ has gained for us ; and to exemplify for our guidance the humility of faith and knowledge, combined with simplicity in disposition, thought, and language. I name those qualities in you which, in relation to the manifold errors of our times, I esteem most precious, and which appear to me peculiarly important and salutaiy for the education and giiidance of our youth ; although I am as sensible as you can be, that man is not to be the object of eulogy and homage, but that in know- ledge and practice we all arc, and ever shall be before God, beggars and poor sinners. Most cordially yours, A. Neander. Bkri.tv, U^ Jv.h, 13i9. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. As tlia diseased state of my eyesight continues to be such that I am obliged to make use of the eyes of others, and have thus been prevented from carrying on my Church History as vigorously as I could have wished, my attention has been tiu-ned to the progressive perfection of works that have long since appeared, — a labour which I could more easily accom- plish by means of such aid. Taking into consideration the important place occupied by Tertullian in the development of the Western Church — and of Christianity as exhibited in that church ; and generally, the rank this father holds among the original minds of all ages ; and moreover, the pecuhar interest I have always taken in the strongly marked peculiarities of this distinguished man; — on all these accounts I have felt very desirous that a labour of love, which was undertaken four-and-twenty years ago, should not remain before the public with all its defects in substance and form, or, on account of them, sink into oblivion. Though some copies of the first edition remain still unsold, yet my publisher, zealous for the interest of literature, was equally ready to gratify my -w^sh that this work should appear in a new and more complete form. There ivas a time of darkness, self-called enlightenment, which, in the contraction and obscurity of unconscious mental poverty, looked down with an air of pity on the greatness of earlier ages ; it could not understand so striking a pheno- menon as that of the new world of Christianity revealing itself to this man of rugged, wayward spirit, and foncied that by taking some paradoxical expressions of this eminent father IOC PREFACE TO THE SECOXD EDITION. on philosophy and reason, torn from their connexion, it could forai an estimate of his whole character, thus judging of the fruit by the hard slicll that protects it. But this time has passed away. We look upon Schleiermacher, that great teacher of our nation, from whom it has still much to learn in reference to the development of the future, as the great man, of whose multifarious merits it was one to have con- tributed materially to this issue. And the true German mind, of which one essential tendency is to penetrate deeply into divine things, after throwing off the foreign yoke and awakening to self-consciousness, turned away from the poverty- struck superficiality of the period that had just closed, with earnest longing for the inspiration of a nobler spirit in the cai-lier ages of the church. It showed itself capable of under- standing the manifold phases of Christianity, even those wiiich bear the least resemblance to the spirit of our own age and country, and of contemplating them with affection. In that morning-dawn of a better time, to w^liich, through that common fault which requires each one of us to smite upon his breast, the succeeding development did not correspond, this book first appeared. Since then that stand-point to which we have alluded, though apparently overcome, has come back still more poverty-struck, though with imaginary wealth, and assuming a ftir gi-eater boldness of dogmatism on everj-thing that surpassed the comprehension of little, common-place, cloddish souls. In place of that so-called vulgar nitionalism, in which there w^as still an honourable renmant of a recognition of the super-mundane and divine — some sense of the religious and the moral — fi'om a conse- quential carrj'ing out of the same principles, there has pro- ceeded what would designate itself as more sublime, but whicli is, in fiict, a far more vulgar thing — the Gospel of the Apotheosis of Humanity, which is only another name for Atheism, and of which, after several decenniums have been spent in constructing its theory, the mischievous effects might eiisily be foreseen; and at last, entering more into actual life, ever since tlie outrages of the disgraceful 18th of March, it lias, to tlie shame and injury of our nation, been continually making frcsli manifestations of its destructive and pernicious effects, which tlu-eaten to anniliilate all the higher goods of humanity. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 197 I have endeavoured to enrich this new edition, and to im- prove both its form and contents. The alteration in the title Avill indicate in what direction I have particularly aimed to enrich this work; and several new investigations will bo observed on the interpretation, and readings in diflicult passages. It is my opinion, that for a better edition of so peculiar a writer, in whom there is so much obscurity, and who certainly was not understood, even at an early i)eriod, fiir more can be gained by carefully studying his mode of thinking and language, and thus learning to restore the original reading, than by any collation of manuscripts. Soon after the publication of the first edition, the well-known review appeared, by the late Dr. V. Colin, a man who, in all that ho undertook, performed something peculiar and able in its kind. This review was very unfavourable both to the author and his work. Dr. V. Colin did not perceive what I aimed at in this work, and applied a wrong standard by which to judge it. Yet, in several points, I must acknowledge him to be right, of which this new edition will give evidence ; several things 1 have maintained against his objections ; several things, from my theological stand-point, I could not take notice of There was a momentary misunderstanding between myself and the writer; but this was soon cleared up by his review of my Church History. After this, he surprised me one Sunday morning by a visit. Up to that time we had been, personally, total strangers. We soon entered into a close theological conversation, in which certainly the difference of our theo- logical stand-points was distinctly brought out ; but yet, the consequence Avas, that on parting we cordially shook hands, with the consciousness of a communion of heart that carried us above the important theological differences that existed between us. I did not then apprehend that we should so soon lose the highly esteemed man, who might yet have rendered so much service to science. According to another conception of the natm-e of historical art, and of what belongs to understanding a writer — the representing an image of the man — perhaps many persons will think that the truth is wanting in this and the other part of this representation. It will appear to them that I have, not sufficiently brought under notice the strange excrescences, the eccentric, and the monstrous. But I must regard the 198 ITJiFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. • business of the historian as resembling that of the painter — to let the soul of the man, the idea that animates him, appear in liis physiognomy. This it is which gives the key by which we rightly understand tlie caricature by which the appearance of the soul and the idea is obscured; but to represent the caricature, should always be a subordinate, and not a principal object. To recognise the di\ane impress in the a^^pearance, to develop it cleai'ly from its temporaiy obscuration, this alone can be an office worthy of the historian, and for the sake of which alone it is worth the labour to wTite history. Whoever thinks otherwise, I leave him to enjoy his opinion, May a gmcious God accompany with his blessing this book in its new dress ; and especially may it sei^ve to make the beloved youth who have devoted themselves to the study of theology, better acquainted with the image of this great and influential father of the chm'ch and with the developing pro- cess of Christian truth in that early age. I must conclude with again expressing my special thanks to my young friend Candidate Schneider for the fidelity and skill with which he has assisted me, both in planning one part of this edition and in conducting the whole through the press, as my eyes would not allow me to correct it. It must have been to him a more difficult task, because the whole was written after my dictation by different persons. ^Ican while, as far as my defective eye-sight and the ad- ditional labom- which it occasions in my regular duties will permit, I have endeavoured to proceed with, my Chm^ch His- tory, and it will always be my most ardent wish to accomplish it, with God's help, for which, at my advanced age, only a little time now remains.^ A. Meander. Bebuk, Isl July, 1849. Dr. Nc.indcr died July 15, 1850.— Ta. INTRODUCTION The special claim on our attention of the Christian Fatlier with whose character and works we are about to be occupied, arises from his being the first representative of that peculiar form of the Christian and theological spirit which has pre- • vailed in the Western church through all succeeding ages : — that form in which the anthropological and soteriological cle- ment predominates. In Tertullian we find the first germ of'' that spirit which afterwards appeared with more refinement and purity in Augustine ; as from Augustine the scholastic theology proceeded, and in him also the Reformation found its point of connexion. In Tertullian w^e see all this fore- shadowed, and he constitutes a peculiarly important turning- point in the development of the church — the boundary-line, so to speak, betv/een two distinct epochs. As a central point, round which everything else turned, we may regard the ap- pearance of Gnosticism, — the first notable attempt to intro- duce into Christianity the existing elements of mental culture, and to render it more complete on the hitherto rather neg- lected side of theoretical knowledge ; it was an attempt of the mind of the ancient world, in its yearnings after know- ledge, and in its dissatisfliction with the present, to bring within its grasp and to appropriate the treasures of this kind which Christianity presented. The peculiar mental tendencies in the church were distiuguishcd from one another by the relation in which they stood to Gnosticism. On the one hand, there was a tendency which was directly opposite to Gnosti- cism, and repelled those elements of culture which Gnosticism would have blended with Christianity : to the predominant 200 .• INTRODUCTION. speculative tendency of Gnosticism it opposed the aims of practical Chiistiauitj, attaching itself with all its might sim- ply to the facts of Christianity, and rejecting with a firm reki2-ro\'is realism all idealistic subtleties. On the other hand, tl>ore was a tendency, which in its striving after knowledge ^ippv-^xi mated to Gnosticism, recognised a real mental want Vh'lch lay at its basis, and sought to satisfy it by substituting •for a false gnosis a true one, founded on Christian principles, ^oth tendencies were chargeable with one-sidedness and de- fect, and it was needful to supplement and balance one by the • other, in order to further the sound development of Christian truth. The former of these tendencies led to an cn^jr directly opposite to Gnosticism ; the other was itself infected with what was erroneous in Gnosticism. As we must regard the great Origen as peculiarly the representative of the second tendency, so we recognise in Tertullian the rcprcsimtative of the first. The unyielding powerful exhibi- tion of what was peculiarly Christian, with an unceremonious i'ejection of all foreign iugTcdients, in sharp hostility to the existing world, forms the marked distinction of Tertullian's spirit. But this clearly shows us the striking one-sidedness of his nature, which disturbed and obscured his conception of Christianity, the principles of which are designed not to repel the world, but to appropriate and transform it. Where this latter effect is not produced, a rough natm-e such as Ter- tullian's cannot properly experience the spiritualizing influence of Christianity. To Gnosticism Montanism stood in the most direct contrast, and of this Tertullian is the most important representative, for his mental course was greatly influenced by it, and he first wrought it out into a system. Eightly to understand the spirit of Tertullian we must be well ac- quainted with the nature of Montanism, and its position in the developing process of Christianity. There is a time when the divine supernatural principle of Christianity, after it has first manifested itself as such in all its ]nn-ity and directness, nuist enter into combination with Inniian culture ; the supernatural must become continually more natural, and tlie age of revelation and miracles must be succeeded Jjy that of operations canned on by the agency of the human mind as animated by the divine Hfe : towards the f'>nnation of siieli a ])rocess tliat tendency is opposed, which INTRODUCTIOX, 201 would retain for ever in an equal degree the clement of tho supernatural — of inspiration, wlierc tlic mind can be only passive. On this side Montanism is opposed to Gnosticism as the other extreme. We perceive in it a tendency disposed not to appropriate the world and the natiu-al, but to repel and abjure them — to make the opposition perpetual between the supernatural and the natural, though Christianity aims at overcoming this opposition and effecting a harmony between them. Montanism therefore leads to a predominant ascetic element ; and from what has been said, it is easy to perceive the alHance between the spirit of Tertullian and Montanism. Although we can find no ground whatever for denying the historical personality of a Montanus, yet we must consider it as a point of extremely little importance in relation to the mental movements that proceeded from Montanism. The appearance of Montanus in Plii-ygia only gave an accidental impulse to those tendencies which had long been forming in the progi'essive development of the church, and was the occasion of their being draw^n together and fixed in one point ; and hence the effects Avere far gi-eater than could have been expected fi-om his personal character. He was only the un- conscious organ, through which a peculiai- mental tendency, which had developed itself in various parts of the chiu'ch, expressed itself wdth clearer intelligence and greater strength. A point of imion was given to the scattered elements. And such likewise was the relation of Montanism to Tertullian. By means of it, what had long been maturing in his rehgious character and in his peculiar religious development, was held more consciously, and expressed with greater force. Hence we are more disposed to seek the point of connexion for Tertullian's Montanist tendency in what already belonged to his character, than to explain his passing over to Montanism from external circumstances and inducements. During the same period, that perversion of the Christian spirit and the intermixture of the Old and New Testament stand-points was becoming more developed, from which Koman Catholicism afterwards arose.- Montanism was, indeed, on one side, involved in such a pei^ersion, and leaving tho Christian stand-point, wandered back to that of the Old Testament ; but on the other hand, by bringing forward an Old Testament prophetic order, it formed a clicck against w,,j INTRODUCTION. mintrling the Old Testament priestliood ^vitll tlie Christian stiuid-point. Tlie free operation of the Spirit, though more ill au Old Testament than a New Testament form, was opposed to the stiff traditional tendency. On this side, Tertullian, as tlic representative of Montanism, formed an opposing force to the increasing hierarchical element. In this respect he con- stitutes au important link in the development of the church. By means of tlie great influence he exerted through the rela- tion in wliich he stood to Cyprian, who called him his teacher, he brouuht it about, that the montauistic element in a form corresponding to the ecclesiastical spirit was Continued in the development of tlie Western church. To all these points we must pay attention, while we take a nearer view of Tertullian as he displays himself in his writings. — QuiNTUs Septimius Florens Tertullianus, born in the latter part of the second century, was the son of a centurion in the sei-vice of the Proconsul at Carthage. Though belong- ing to the higher ranks of society, he must have received a good literary education; for his writings bear marks of exten- sive reading and a variety of historical and antiquarian know- ledge. He was sufficiently master of the Greek language to be able to wi'ite treatises in it. If we are disposed to. learn from Tertullian's own writings his precise rank and profession, we not only meet with the characteristics of a rhetorical edu- cation, which indicate that in his youth he had been occupied with rhetorical exercises ; but in the whole method of his argumentation and controversial tactics we easily recognise the advocate of earlier days, who involuntarily transferred the habits of the pleader to ecclesiastical polemics, attempting to draw together as many reasons as possible for the point he wished to establish, without any great nicety in the selection. AVe may indeed be disposed to attribute this to the peculiari- ties of his mental structure and character, his natin\al ten- dency to i)ush to an extreme whatever he took in hand ; but if we notice the juridical cast of his language, and the com- parisons borrowed from legal science, we shall find a palpable mai-k of his earlier studies. And, indeed, this may be con- firmed by an account of l^^usebius, who would hardly have been led to it only by a supposition deduced from the writings themselves. We find a Roman jurist, Tcrtyllianus, INTRODUCTION'. 203 or Tertullianus, of whoso writings some fragments arc pre- served in the Pandects. Now if it could be made out as probable that this person lived in the same age as the Chris- tian Father, yet in the silence of antiquity on the point, it could never be inferred that the Jurist and the Father were identical : for the sameness of the name proves nothing, sinco the names Tertius, Tcrtullus and Tertullianus were by no mcana uncommon among the Romans. Nor would the simihu-ity of language in those fragments and in the writings of the father be a satisfactory proof, since this may be easily ac- counted for by the common juridical phraseology. TertuUian, in his first years, was a heathen. He speaks of himself as one of those men who were once blind without the light of the Lord.^ Carthage, his native place, was one of those large cities which, at that time, were the seats of great moral corruption. Probably Tertullian, as a heathen, had not been preserved free from the infection, as may be inferred from his own confessions." And whoever thus passed over to Christianity, from the corruption of the heathen world, could testify with so much greater force, from his own experience, of the transforming power of the Gospel ; and as others who were especially, called to place in the strongest light one aspect of Christianity — the opposition of nature and grace — were led to a personal knowledge of it through a sharp struggle in the development of their life, such as a Paul, an Aug-ustine, and a Luther ; so was this the case with Tertullian, the first convert after Paul who represented the Christian stand-point on this particular side. He reflected with abhorrence on his heathenish life and its pleasures ; as, for example, when describing the abominable nature of the cruel gladiatorial shows, he says, ^' No one, who has not been a spectator of these scenes, can adequately describe them. I would rather fail in describing, than think of them again.^ From its opposition to his earlier life, we may also account for the ascetic direction of his Christian seriousness, — a direc- tion which, generally speaking, is very natural, both for the first develoj^ment of an individual after his conversion, and ^ "Caeci sine Domini lumine." — De Pcenit. cap. 1. 2 " Ego me scio neqne alia came adulteria commisisse, ncqnc nunc alia carne ad continentiam eniti." — De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. 59. 3 De Spectaculis, cap. 19. 201: INTRODUCTION. for the first, development of the church, while forming itself in the midst of the heathen world, and in opposition to it. There arc lovely natures, in whom whatever is beautiful in man becomes lieightencd by the divine life which Christianity brings, and in whom Christianity appears still more attractive from })ehig placed in forms of sucli natural loveliness. And there are rugged and angular natures, in whom, when, after many conflicts, they have made their way to the Christian life, tlie rude and rugged in their dispositions is overcome and smoothed down by the power of Christianity. But there are othei-s in whom, though they have been deeply impressed by Clu'istianity, yet the rugged and the angular, the harsh and the rude of their natural character still remain and operate. The trea.sure of the divine life here appears in an unpleasing form, which would easily repel a superficial observer from tlieir society. To this latter class Tertullian belongs. When lie commends Christian patience, and contrasts with it his natural impatientia, and speaks of the difficulty of attaining such a virtue, he gives us an insight into his natural dis- position.^ It cannot be proved from any passage in Tertullian's works that he belonged to the clerical order before he went over to Montanism. It is, indeed, certain, that in the treatise Be Anima^ he speaks of himself as one of the presbyters who were engaged in church government and preaching.^ But he luul written this book when a Montanist ; and the case might very well be, that he had been chosen for their presbyter by the schismatic Montanist church, at Carthage. But Jerome says expressly that he was first of all a presbyter in the Catholic church. We have no reason for doubting the truth of this statement, since in itself it is by no means improbable that a man of Tertullian's zeal, knowledge, and talent, would be chosen to bo a presbyter.' But we are not distinctly in- ' I)e Patient, cap. 1. "Ita mi.scrrimus ego, semper teger caloribus impatientia). 2 Cap. 9. ' " DiRscrucramus. Post tranPacta solcnnia dimissa plcbe " (a3 if, after llie service win ended, the congregation was dismissed, and merely the clcr;i:y left behind) *' nobis." * Nothing to the contrary can be inferred from his speaking in the person of the laity in his Be Moiuxjamia, c. 12, and Exhort. CaM c 7 lor It may be supposed that in thu:=e puss-ges he speaks communi- INTRODUCTION. 205 formed of what clmrch Tcrtullian was' presbyter. It would bo most natural to suppose that it was the clmrch in his native place, Carthage ; for he speaks of himself in vjirious treatises, composed at different times, as a resident at Car- thage. From one passage in his book'i>e Cidtii Fmn., nothing more can be gathered than that he once visited Home,^ which a resident at Carthage might often have occa- sion to do. Jerome seems certainly to attest that Tcrtullian filled an ecclesiastical office at Rome, since he says, that by the envy and insults of the Boman clergy, he was prompted to pass over to Montanism. But it may be questioned whether this account has a historical foundation. There was alw^ays a strong disposition to explain the transition from the Catholic Church to an heretical party by external considera- tions ; and Jerome, especially, could never get over wdiat he had suffered from the pride and jealousy of the Roman chrrry, and it was a favourable opportunity to utter complaints respecting them, and to trace earlier disagi-eements to that source.^ The statement of Eusebius about Tcrtullian is too short and too obscure to enable iis to draw any certain and definite conclusion from it.^ The most valuable memorials of Tertullian's inward and cafive from a foreign stand-point. And in the pas=5age Be Oratione, c. 15, "Nos vel maximc millius loci homines," it need not be admitted though it would be possible, that Tcrtullian wrote this treatise before his entrance into the clerical order, when not a Montanist ; but Tcrtullian might at that period, when hierarchical ideas were not so prevalent, speak thus even as a cleric. 1 Cap. 6. 2 When the late Dr. V. Colin, in his review of the first edition of this work {Hallesche Liberaturzeitung Jahrg. 1825, N"ov. 8, 507), in opposing what is here said, adduces the partiality of Jerome for the Komish church, he does not appear to me to have made out a contradiction. Jerome might have a high esteem for the Romish church, and yet lament the pride and envy of the clergy, as is seen in his later writings. 2 We mean the words already quoted, 'Aur)p rd TfdKKa ivdo^os Kal twv fidKia-ra eirl 'P^jutjs Xaixirpuv. These words can hardly be understood to mean, " One of the most distinguished Latin ecclesiastical historians," though that injudicious translator, Rufiinus, may have so understood it {inter nosfros scriptores admodum clarus); they may be taken to mean " one of the most distinguished men in Rome." But we are not obliged to admit that Eusebius here refers to the distinguished place Tcrtullian held in the church at Rome. Judging from the connexion, it may refer to the respect in which he was held when yet a heathen, and that he refers to him as one of the most respected jurists in Rome. 20 G INTRODUCTION. outward life, and liis influence on his own age and succeeding ages, are his writinirs. In them we see a man w^ho, whatever he seized, embraced it with his whole soul, with ardent afFec- tiou, and hence was inclined to reject or assail as vehemently whatever opposed, or seemed to oppose, the object on which his heart was set. And what he thus laid hold of, or rather what laid liold of him, was Christianity. By that, and for that, he was inspired, as every unprejudiced person must feel, who will take the pains necessary to understand a man Iwlonging to a different age from the present. The new creation effected by Christianity could not, indeed, all at once peiTade him. That fierce, powerfid, unbending Punic- Roman nature, w'hich had grown up in heathenism, contained much that was repugnant to the spirit of Christianity. That subduing spirit came to him in a form with which he was uufiimiliar, and could not be admitted without a struggle. Tertulhan"s mind had acuteness, depth, and dialectic dexterity, but no logical clearness, repose, and arrangement ; it was profound and fruitful, but not harmonious ; the check of sober self-government was wanting. TertuUian, though an enemy of philosophical speculation, w^hich seemed to him to be a falsifier of the truth, was not destitute of a speculative spirit ; but it wanted the scientific form. Feeling and imagi- nation prevailed above the purely intellectual. An inward life filled with Christianity, outran the development of his understanding. A new inward world was opened to him by Christianity; feelings and ideas poured themselves into his living ardent soul, which he wanted adequate words to ex- press. Tlie new superabundant spirit first formed his lan- guage. Tlie African Latin was, in this case especially, a foreign material, which w^as deficient in imagery. Hence the struggle between living feelings and conceptions, and a lan- guage which hampered and confined the living spirit.' Of Tcrtullian it especially holds good, that he can be under- ' Nicbuhr, who knew how to estimate every- kind of excellence, and althouKli lie luw only, liy-the-by, spoken with admiration of Tertnllian, yot oppose-* the notion of a peculiar dialect of the African school of wliich Apulcnis and Tcrtullian are to be considered the representatives. ' 1 ho notion,' he says, " that their lanc^uage has anything provincial in It IS quite erroneous. Its only peculiarity is that it abounds in words and expressions taken from the ancient Latin writers." (Vide Lectures INTRODUCTION. 207 stood only from within — that we must possess a mental con- sanguinity with the spirit Avhich dwelt in him, in order to recognise in the defective form, that higher quality wliicli it contains, and to set it free from that confined form, which i^i always the business of genuine historical composition. Among the characteristics of Tertullian must be reckoned a vivacity and quickness of perception, which often suggested ingenious combinations which sometimes misled him, and caused him to substitute plausible appearances for substantial proofs. Tertullian, in the latter part of his life, joined the sect of Montanus. As we have already remarked, it has been attempted, very erroneously, to explain this change by out- w\ard causes, instead of accounting for it by an internal con- geniality of mind. If we go through his writings according to the various subjects of which they treat, the relation of the earlier \\Titings of Tertullian to those in which he advocates Montanistic views will be most clearly exhibited. We pro- pose, therefore, to divide Tertullian's writings, according to their subjects, into three classes, and in each class to point out their distinction. In the first class we comprise those wi'itings of Tertullian which are apologetic and polemic in reference to heathenism ; those which relate principally to the relation of Christians to the heathen, to the Christian mode of life as contrasted with that of the heathen, and to th.e sufferings and conduct of Christians in times of persecution. We connect these writings with one another on account of the similarity in the circumstances of the time which called them forth, and which occasioned many points of similarity in their contents. on the History of Rome, edited by Dr. L. Scliraitz, vol. iii. p. 271, London, 1849.) Certainly Ave cp.n find no provincialism in Tertullian, ■wliich might* be attributed to the use of the Funic language.^ PART I. THE FIRST CLASS OF TERTULLIAN's WRITINGS. THOSE WHICn WERE OCCASIONED BY THE RELATION OF THE CHRISTIANS TO THE HEATHEN, AND REFER TO THE VINDI- CATION OF CHRISTIANITY AGAINST THE HEATHEN ATTACKS ON HEATHENISM — THE SUFFERINGS AND CONDUCT OP CHRIS- TIANS UNDER PERSECUTION AND THE INTERCOURSE OP CHRISTIANS WITH HEATHENS. SECTION I. THE WRITINGS OP THIS CLASS COMPOSE!* BY TERTtJLLlAK BEFORE HIl JOINED THE MONTANISTS. Tertullian's conversion took place probably at a favour- able time for the Christian church. The violent outbreaks of the popular fury under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius declined of themselves. This sovereign, who sought to main-- tain the state-religion, and to suppress the religious party wliich threatened to endanger it, was succeeded by Commodus, who gave himself little concern about the ancient Roman con- stitution ; and, as Dio Cassius reports, was disposed to be nioi-c fiivourable to the Christians, owing to the influence of his mistress Marcia.' But as long as the laws passed by the Km])eror Trajan against Christianity as a religio iUicita were not expressly repealed, the Christians could never reckon on any permanent and general repose in the Roman empire. 'J'hcir tnaiKjuilhty was always liable to be disturbed by any sliglit shocks from without. Occurrences of this kind hap- l.ened in various parts under the reign of the Emperor Com- niodus; the civil wars which, when Didius Julianus had ' ISde Dr. Ncander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vul. i. p. 1G3. St. Lib. Ed.— Tr, AD MARTYRES. 209 purchased the imperial sceptre of the Prretorians in a.d. 193, were soon excited by tlie dissatisfaction of the legions. Gene- ral calamities always kindled afresh the popular hatred against the Christians, as the enemies of the gods, as Tertulhan him- self says ; — " As a pretext for their hatred of the Christians, they employ the vain allegation that the Christians arc the cause of every public calamity. If the Tiber overflows the walls, if the Nile does not irrigate the fields, if the skies are shut, if the earth quakes, if there is a flimine or a pestilence, immediately the cry is raised, ' Christia7ios ad leonem /' " ' The pas-sions that were excited by the civil wars tm-ned against the Christians, who were always hateful to the popular fanati- cism. Moreover, after the Emperor Septimius Severus had entirely conquered his competitors for the imperial throne, Piscennius Niger, in the east, and Claudius Albinus, in Gaul, A.D. 197, various public festivities gave opportunities for nume- rous attacks on the Christians. They could take no part in the heathen diversions with Avhich their victories were cele- brated, nor in attending the unbecoming theatrical exhibitions and the cruel gladiatorial combats, nor in the various modes of flattering the emperors, such as presenting incense to their busts, sacrificing or swearing by their genius ; and thus they appeared as enemies of the Roman gods, or of the Caesars, and the empire." Or if only some stricter Christians would not join in festivities that in themselves contained nothing anti-Christian, because they believed that they saw something heathenish in them, — as for example, not lighting up their houses at a general illumination, — this was enough to draw forth the public hatred against the Christians belonging to any city.^ ' i\pologet. cap. 40. . Augustin quotes an ancient saying, " If God withholds the rain, the fault is with the Christians." " Ncn i^luit Deus. Due ad Christianos." Augustin in Ps. Ixxx. ^'"'•Hostes populi Romani, principmn Romanorum, irreligiosi ia Cfesares." ^ Clemens of Alexandria wrote about this time the first books of his Stroraata, for he brings down the chronology only to tlic death of Commodus, (lib. i. fol. 337, ed. Paris;) but had he written under the reign of Septimius Severus, he would probably have fixed upon the accession of that emperor as the terminus ad qiiem, and he says, (lib. ii. fol. 414,) " AVe have daily before our eyes copious streams of the blood of martyrs ; we behold them burnt, crucified, bchcatlcd/' 'H^uv 5« VOL. II. r 210 AD MARTYRES. And whcu the populace or an unfriendly governor took advantage of such an opportunity to seize the Christians and throw them into prison, they might always, according to the existing laws, bo punished with death. To Christians who were thus languishing in the prisons, and had martyrdom in l)rospcct, Tcrtullian felt himself impelled by Christian love to address words of consolation and encouragement. Large . sui)plies of bodily refreshments were conveyed into the prisons in the name of the whole church and of individuals, who vied Avith one another in expressions of love towards their suffering brethren and the witnesses to the faith. Tertullian w^as at this time fiir from casting reproaches on these blameless indi- cations of brotherly love with that gloomy severity which he afterwards showed as a Montanist. Only it justly appeared to him miportant, that above the bodily necessities of those confessors, their spiritual necessities — at a junctm-e when the last conflict, and, even before that, so many subtle, concealed, and still more dangerous temptations might assail them — should not be neglected. " Along with those means of bodily nourishment" — he said to them—" which your mother the church, from her stores, and individual brethren from their private property, send to you while in prison, receive from me something which may serve for the sustenance of your souls. It profits not that the body be nonrished while the soul is famished ; rather if the weak be taken care of, that which is stronger ought not to be neglected." * Tertullian was far from the fanatical reverence for martyrdom, which could not sec in confessors frail men still subject to sin. Although he acknowledged the work of the Holy Spirit in their being able to overcome the fear of death and mart^'rdom, by the power of faith, yet he well knew that they had not yet wholly over- come tl)e world — that after each separate victory, if they were not watchful over themselves, the still more dangerous temp- tations of self-love threatened them, and on that account he held it necessary to warn them of their danger. " Before all tliings," he said to them, " ye blessed mai-tyrs, giieve not the arpOovoi ixapTvpwv -n-qyo}. eKcuTTr/s 7//xf'pas iv u(p6aXfjLo7s r)fj.wv BeupovfKvai TrapoirTU'iJLfywu, avarrKifhaKfuujxfi'wi', ras Ke(J)a\as anoTefivofxevuv. ' The existing reading is, ,S'(' qnod iiijjrmnm est curalur, a>que quod iufinnius cM, 7ui/lirfinon (h'het ; but tlie sense requires that we sliould rcnd—qnod Jirmius ; thus in c. 4, we find caro infnna opposed to fortiori njnritui. AD MARTYRES. 211 Holy Spirit, who has entered the prison with you ; for if lio Iiad not entered with you into the prison you would not be here to-day. Hence, strive that he may abide with you liore and lead you hence to the Lord. The prison is also an abode of the evil spirit, where he meets those who belong to him. But on this account ye are come to the prison, that ye may tread him underfoot in his own abode ; for outside of the prison ye have already combated with him and trodden him underfoot. Might he not therefore say. Ye are in my king- dom, I will tempt you by low passions and dissensions.^ Let him flee your countenance, let him hide himself in the deepest abyss, palsied and stiffened like a serpent rendered harmless hy enchantment. Nor let him succeed so well in his king- dom, as to involve you in strife ; but may he find you fortified and armed with concord, because to maintain peace among yourselves is to make war with him." * To give force to his exhortation Tertullian avails himself of the high position which the confessors at that time held in the church. Those who on account of their offences had been excluded from church-communion, and longed after restoration to it with deep sorrow, w^ere wont to have recourse to the powerful intercession of these revered confessors, who sometimes took upon themselves to gTant them reconciliation with the church, by furnishing them with the so-called libellos 2^cicis, a pre- rogative which, from the want of insight, from ill-judged sym- pathy, or from spiritual pride, w^as sometimes abused to the injury of church-discipline and order. To this power of the martyrs to grant reconciliation to others, Tertullian alludes when he says — " Those who have not this peace in the church are w^ont to implore it from the martyrs in prison. On this account you ought to have it yourselves, and cherish and guard it, in order that when required you may be able to impart it to others." Here also we find a mark of a mind not yet imbued with Montanism ; for this, as we shall afterwards see, would have led Tertullian to pass a much more severe judgment on this prerogative exercised by the martyrs. ^ The reading inediis must relate to the attempt made to force the imprisoned Christians to apostasy by starvation ; but tliis would bo quite foreign to the connexion, nor -would the predicate vilibxis justify it. Certainly some such word as teediis, adiis, or scidiis is required, 2 " Pax vcstra bellum est illi." 012 AD MARTYRES. Tlicir cntranco into prison he considered as a call to free themselves from everything which had hitherto burdened their souls ; to renounce more completely all earthly things, i\s they had now taken leave of their parents. In what Ter- tulliau says of the world as a real prison, from which they would be freed, we recognise, indeed, that rude opposition to the world which forms a point of connexion for Montanism ; but we must also take into account, how the heathen world, as it then stood, must have presented itself to him, in con- trast with that which was realized to Christians. " Henceforth," gaid he, " you are separated from the world : how much more from all the things of the world. And let it not agitate you, that you are separated from the world. For if we only reflect, that this wx)rld itself is a prison, we must think that ye are rather come out of a prison than entered into one. The world has greater darkness with which it blinds the hearts of men. It imposes heavier fetters, — fetters which bind the very souls of men. The world holds more criminals, — namely, the whole human race. Darkness is in the prison, but ye yourselves are light. It has fetters ; but in God's sight ye are free. Its air is noisome ; but ye are a. sweet-smelling savour. Ye are Avaiting for the judge ; but ye shaU judge the judges themselves. He maybe troubled there who sighs after the pleasures of the world. Outside the prison, the Christian lias renounced the world ; but Avithin the prison he has also renounced the prison. It matters not in what part of the world ye are, who are out of the world. And if you have lost many pleasures of life, yet it is a profitable traffic to lose something in order to win what is greater : I wiU not yet say anything of the reward to which God invites the martyrs. Let us, meanwliile, compare life in the world and life in the prison, whether the spirit does not gain more in the prison tlian tlic flesh loses. But verily, the flesh loses nothing that it absolutely needs, through the care of the church and the love of tlie brethren, and over and above that, the spirit gains what is always useful for the faith. Thou seest no strange gods ; thou dost not meet their images ; thou partakest not of the festivals of the heathen in the daily intercourse of life ; thou wilt not be touched l)y the foul steam of their sacrifices ; xUon art not struck by the shouts of the theatre— the cruelty, the ruge, or th.c hccntiousncss of those who frequent it ; thine AD MARTYRES, 213 eyes do not settle on the places which are devoted to puhlio voluptuousness. Thou art free from vexations and tempta- tions, and even from persecution itself. , The prison is to the Cln-istian what the desert was to the proplicts. Tlie Lord himself frequently retired into solitude, that he might pray more freely and withdraw from the world : lastly, he mani- fested his glory to his disciples in solitude. Let us discard the name of prison, and call it retirement. Though the body is shut up, though the flesh is detained, yd all things are open to the spirit. Walk about in the spirit, not placing before you shady groves or long porticoes, but that way which leads to God. The leg feels nothing painful in the stocks, w4ien the soul is in heaven. The soul leads the whole man with it, and transports it whither it will. But where thy heart is, there will thy treasure be. Let then our heart be where w^e wish to have our treasure." Ho then reminds them, that as combatants for the kingdom of God, in virtue of thy Christian's military oath taken at baptism, they were armed from the first for perpetual warfare with the world. " Let it be allowed," he says, " that the prison is somewhat burden- some to Christians ; yet we were called to fight in the sei-vice of the living God, when we first responded to the words of our oath. No soldier takes luxuries with him to war ; he marches to battle, not from his sitting-room, but from light and nar- row tents, where all hardness and inconvenience and un- pleasantness is to be met with." To this image of a military life he adds the image of the prize-fights common in that age. " Ye are about to enter a noble contest in which the living God is the umpire ; the Holy Spirit is the overseer ; the crown is eternity; the prize is an angelic life, a citizenship in heaven, everlasting glory." They have Christ for their leader; they are anointed with his Spirit, and are thus led to the con- test. As the athletse prepared for their conflicts by a severe discipline, so he wished them to regard the prison as a train- ing for the final conflict. He reminds the Christians in prison of the sacrifices which men ' can make for merely temporary ^ In mentioning how much men could endure for the sake of glory and honour, lie adduces also the example of Peregrinus rroleus, -.vho voluntarily died on the funeral pile, and the way in which he speaks of it shows how very far he was from supposing that this person ever belonged to the Cliristian church; and it also serves to show the unhistorical element in Lucian's well-known account of him. 214 llE SPECTACULIS. objects, and this leads him to notice the occurrences of the existing period. " An individual can suffer that for the cause of man which he di-eads to suffer for the cause of God. Of this, the present times furnish us with evidence. How many- persons have sacrificed their itmk, their worldly condition, their very life for the sake of one man ; either by himself when they took sides against him " (by the victorious Septimius Severus, when they had been earlier on the side of Piscennius Niger), " or by his opponent when they fought for his party " (they were condemned as adherents of Severn s by Piscennius Niger, when he had the upper hand in Africa). The festivities at the celebration of the victories of the Emperor Septimius Severus might have occasioned Ter- tuUian's polemical tract De Spectaculis, on the propriety of Christians joining in the spectacles of those times. But this is not a certain chronological mark, since the frequent recur- rence of such exhibitions renders a special reference to 2i\\y particular time unnecessary. A subject is here treated of which enters deeply into the relations and life of the Chris- tians of that age, — the general question which is frequently repeated imder other relations — How far the Christian may venture to place himself on a level with the world, and adopt its existing manners and forms of life, and how far this can be done without doing violence to Christian principles and to the Clu-istian spirit. Such questions must often have been brought under discussion, at that time, when Christianity bad to take root in a world which had been developed entirely from the stand-point of heathenism. Frequent collisions must have occurred in the intercourse of daily life between what was Christian and what was heathenish. Here then was a liability to error in two directions; either by a too absolute rejection of what only required to be purified from the heathenish element and to be ennobled by Christianity, or, on tlie other hand, by too pliant an accommodation to the present, to the injury of the purity of the Christian life. The development of Christianity at this early period accorded more with the former tendency; but still a conflict existed between the advocates of the two tendencies. Tcrtullian, in conKCcjuencc of his whole character as we have already de- Bcril)ed it, liad a strong leaning to the former ; and it is more correct to affirm that in his original Christian character there DE SPECTACULIS. 215 was something allied to Montanism, than to find a mark of Montanism in it when such a tendency showed itself. This general difference of ethical views found a specific application in the opinion held respecting public spectacles. On many things relating to them there could not well be any difiercnce among Christians. To sacrifice men to a cruel diversion, as in the gladiatorial fights, was revolting from the first to Christian feeling. But in many kinds of shows the question could not be so easily decided. Yet we must never foi-get how all this was at that time connected with heathenish mythology, and heathenish morals ; how much that violated Christian demeanour and Christian feeling must have been always present, of which Tertidlian's treatise gives evidence ; and how little could the possibility be entertained of a trans- formation, by which these spectacles could become anything else according to a Christian mode of viewing them, which could not possibly separate the idea of the thing and its existing form of realization. It was, as Tertullian says, one of the marks by v/hich the transition from heathenism to Christianity was known, when a person, who before had eagerly resorted to the spectacles, at once renounced the practice.* The strict, joyless life to which men devoted them- selves as Christians, was, as the same Tei-tullian says, what terrified many people more than the fear of death. '-^ Hence, also, it might happen that owing to the rough ascetic form of Christian life many misapprehended Christianity, and many were repelled from it, who might easily have been won over to it had it revealed itself to them in its own genuine cha- racter, elevating and adorning all that is human. Many heathens interpreted that strict life of the Christians in the same way as in later times the greater moral earnestness of vital Christianity is interpreted by worldly-minded men who call themselves Christians. They were disposed to account for this self-denial of all earthly pleasm'e by the predominant tendency to the future world. No wonder, if they despised a life that was to them so destitute of joy. Hence they endea- voured to account so readily for the Christian contempt of ^ Cap. xxiv. "Atquin hinc vel maxime intclligunt factum Christianum de repudio spectaculorum." 2 Cap. ii. "Plures deuique invenias, quoa magis periculuin Yoluptatis, quam vitte, avocet ab hac secta." 216 DE SPECTACULI3. earthly lifo.^ Otliers who were more favourably disposed towards tlio Christians, and approached nearer to them, en- deavoured to point out to them that even from their stand- point they need not scruple to take part in worldly amuse- ments. It is worthy of notice how such heathens endeavoured to enter into the Christian mode of thinking, in which many things must have still ajDpeai-ed strange to them; and hero we siiall perceive how at a later period the part of heathenism was acted over again by a worldly Christianity. " To enjoy such gi-eat outward delight mth the eyes and ears, is quite compatible with religion, which has its seat in the soul and conscience ; it can be no sin, and argues no want of reverence towards God, to enjoy such delight in the proper time and place, by which God cannot be offended." " Christians them- selves s;\y that the good God has granted all his gifts to men for their benefit. AYhy should not man enjoy his gifts which are made use of in the arrangement of the spectacles'?" There were also other Christians who did not consider the uncondi- tional prohibition of spectacles as justifiable. To admit such a prohibition, they asked for a passage of Holy Writ which expressly contains it. Certainly the laity are here referred to; and hence it is plain, as also appears from many other passages in Tertullian, that this class of persons occupied themselves diligently with the reading of the Bible, and in everything relating to faith and morals submitted only to the declarations of Scripture. Tertullian calls the faith of such persons cither too simple or too scrupulous;^ the latter term refei-s to tlicir 'painful conscientiousness, which allowed them to receive nothing which could not be proved by the express words of Scripture ; the former epithet relates to their great simplicity in always requiring the letter of Scripture instead of looking to the principle and spirit, and deducing the special from the general. This was a reproach which many Christians of those times jwstly merited, who always adliered so closely to tljc letter, which gave rise to many misapprehensions in the Christian ethics of that da}-. Tertullian quotes on this ' Cap, i. "Sunt qui cxistimcnt Christlanos, expeditum morti genus, fttl hiuu; obstinationem abdicatione voluptatum erudiri, quo facilius yitaiii njntcmnant, amputatis quasi retinaculis ejus, ne desiderent, quam jam supcrvacuain sibi fcccrint." * Caj). iii, " Fides aut simplicior aut scrupulosior." DE SrECTACULIS. 217 subject the language of a light-minded man -who opposed those strict views of life, which he regarded as a wanton joku :' "The sun scatters its beams on the impure without becoming defiled; yea, God himself looks down from heaven on tho wicked without being defiled ; why then should Cluistians be afraid lest they should lose somewhat of their purity by joining in the public shows'?" From the connexion in which tlicse words stand, we may suppose that this was said by Christians ; but they must have belonged to the most light-minded class. Yet it is possible that it was said by a heathen who wished to ridicule the Clii'istian strictness of life. Yet 041 comparing it with another passage,^ it seems probable that Tertullian here means the Chiistians. As he had noticed that those reasons in behalf of the public shows made an impression on tho Catechumens, a class of persons most easily disposed to waver, and even on those who were no longer novices in Christianity," he was induced to compose this treatise De Spedaculis for their instruction and preservation. He also animadverted on all the arguments brought forward either by heathens or Christians in vindication of the public shows. Tertullian acknowledged one truth which lay at the basis of what the heathens said ; the truth that was founded in that original and universal consciousness of God, to which in general he impressively bears witness. He traces the error that allied itself to this truth from the want of the more com- plete knowledge of God and of his moral government, which was first imparted by revelation, as well as the knowledge of the disorder brought into the creation by sin. " No one denies," he says, " (for what nature reveals of itself can be hidden from no one,) that God is the creator of the world, and this world is created good, being intended for the service of man. But since they do not completely understand God — since they know him only from the works of nature, not from personal communion; not as a God nigh at hand, but only afiir ofi' — they cannot know how he has commanded to use what he has created, nor what inimical power has perverted ' Cap. XX. ''Suaviludius quidam." 2 De Corona Mil. cap. vi. "Suaviludii nostri.'' 3 Tertullian plainly distinguishes both classes for whom his treatise is designed, when he says at the beginning ; " Dei servi, cognoscite, qui cum maxime addeum acccditis ; rocognoscite qui jamaccessisse vostcati- ficati et confcssi estis." 218 DE SPECTACULIS. the use of the divine creation." Hence Tertullian always insisted on distinguishing the creation as it was originally, and as disturbed by tlio entrance of sin.' "As to the gold, the bi-ass, the silver, the ivory, wood, and all other materials which are employed in making idols, who has placed them in the world excepting God the creator of the world 'I But was it for the purpose that such things should be worshipped instead of himself? Does there, indeed, exist what has sinned against God, and has not proceeded from him 1 But since it has sinned against God, it has ceased to belong to God ; and in the ^v^ry fact of ceasing to belong to God, it sins against him. Man himself, the originator of all sins, is not only God's work, but God's image; and yet he has aposta- tized both in soul and body from his Creator. "We recognise here that important principle of Christian ethics, in applying which Tertullian was only hampered by his one-sided ascetic tendency — the principle, namely, that Christianity always connects itself w4th the original nature of man, and leads it, freed and purified from the perversion of sin, to its true development and realization corresponding with its idea. He then proceeds to examine the apologies made by Cliris- tians for attending the public shows. When he proceeds to combat the objection, that public show^s are not expressly prohibited in Holy Writ, an opportunity most naturally otfered for pointing to the new source of revelation, which was added to the Scriptures, and especially to that completion of the Christian ethics which was professedly given by the new prophets. As a Montanist, he would hardly have omitted this. But now he satisfied himself with refuting his oppo- nents by distinguishing between what was contained in Holy Writ, according to the letter, and what according to its general principles. He met them with the fundamental maxim, that in general rules the application to particular cases may be ascertained, and that the general rule always forms the ground-work of the particular case.^ He then appeals to the vow taken by every Christian at baptism, to renounce the devil, his pomps, and his angels, and, therefore, to renounce idolatry and everything connected with it. He endeavours to • Inftfitutio and Jnterpolatio natures. ' •' (iencraliler diotum intelligamus, cum quid ctiam specialiter in- tcrpretari capit, namci KpcciaUtcr quaidam pronuutiata generaUtcr Baiduiit." Cap. iii. DE SPECTACULIS. 219 prove that these spectacles originated in idolatry. lUit with all his dread of even the most distant approach to idolatiy, Tertullian was very far from superstitious solicitude ; lio \s-ell knew how to distinguish the exterior from the interior. " In reference to the place, there is nothing forbidden," lie says, — " the servant of God can enter, not only those assemblies of theatrical exhibitions, but even the temples themselves, with- out danger to his faith, if only a simple cause unconnected with the special purposes to which the places are devoted, lead him thither. For even the streets, the markets, the baths, the stables, and our very houses, are not frfie from idols. Satan and his angels have filled the whole world. Yet all this, as long as we are in the world, does not separate us from God ; we are separated from him only so flir as we are con- taminated by the sins of the world. AVhen, therefore, I enter the Capitol, or -the Temple of Serapis, as an offerer or wor- shipper, I forsake my connexion with God ; so likewise, when I visit the circus or the theatre as a spectator. The places, in themselves, cannot defile us : only the purposes to which those places are devoted." He therefore aims to show that the habit of frequenting these public spectacles is inconsistent with the state of mind belonging to a Christian. " God has commanded us to act towards the Holy Spirit as being in his nature tender and delicate, with tranquillity, gentleness, and j)eace, not wdth wrath, anger, and bitterness. How can such a spirit harmonize with shows'?" And after he had further contrasted the feelings excited by the shows with the motions of the Holy Spirit, and shown that they were irreconcilable, he says — " Thence they go on to fury, and madness, and dis- sension, and to whatever is unlawful for the priests of peace." He here alludes to the universal priestly calling of Clu-istians, the consciousness of which in the church afterwards l)ecarae overpowered by a transference of the idea of the Old Testa- ment priesthood. He placed the unchangeable rule of moral conduct founded on the divine word, in opposition to the subjective arbi- trariness in the moral judgments of the heathen. " In no place, and at no time, is that excused wdiich God condemns ; in no place, and at no time, is that lawful which is not lawful always and everywhere. This is the integrity of truth, and the completeness of disciphne due to it, and the uniformity of ^'20 DE SPECTACULIS. reverence, and the fidelity of obedience,— that it changes not its opinion, nor varies its judgment. Tliat which is really good or bad, cannot be anything else. All things stand firm in the truth of God. The heathen, with whom there is no complete- ness of truth, because God is not their teacher of truth, inter- pret good and evil according to their own will and pleasure ; in one place that is good which in another place is evil, and what is evil in one place is good in another. All things are of the devil which ai-e not of God, or which displease God. All this is that pomp of the devil, against which we make our vow in receiving the sign of faith. And of what w^e abjure we ought not to partake, neither in word, nor deed, nor sight, nor pro- spect. But do we not renounce and rescind that sign in rescinding its testimony T'^ He then appeals to the judgment of the heathens themselves, in whose eyes abstinence from the shows was one mark of a Christian. " No one," he says, "goes over to the enemy's camp, unless he has thrown away liis own arms — unless he has deserted the standard and oaths of his own chief — unless he has made a covenant to perish with them. Will he think concerning God at that very time when he finds himself in a place where there is nothing of God? Will he have peace in his soul, who is contending for the charioteer '] " He here alludes to the violent and eager contests for the factiones circenses? Will he learn modesty, who is staring at the buffoons 1 In all the show, nothing- more offensive is to be met with, than the careful adorning of men and women. The chief concern of every one who goes tliere, is to see and to be seen. But while the tragedian is vociferating, will he meditate on the exclamations of a pro- pi let '? and during the melodies of an effeminate player, will he be nieditating on a Psalm 1 and during the contests of the athletic, will he say that we are not to return a blow ? and can he be moved to pity, whose attention is fixed on the bites of bears, and the sponges of them that fight with nets ? May God avert from his people such a love of destructive pleasure. For what is it, to go from the clnu'ch of God to the church of the devil ? to weary those hands in applauding a player which thou hast been lifting up to God? to give a testimony ' Cap. x\'. » Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, p. 287. Ed. 2. (ClKCLS.)— Tk. DE sPectaculis. 221 to a gladiator with a mouth that has said Amen to the ILjly One ? to say ^for ever and ever'' to any being save to God and Christ?" A remarkable passage, from which we learn that already fixed liturgical forms had been adopted, and that tho congregation joined in the usual doxologies.* As warning examples of the pernicious influence on Chris- tians of visiting the public shows, Tertullian adduces several flicts which are very explicable on psychological principles. A Christian female had been induced, probably against the voice of her conscience, to visit the theatre, which heretofore had appeared to her as Satan's; seat. Much that she saw and heard was likely to hurt lier Christian feeling. Her conscience reproached her. She fell into a state of melancholy. Siic believed that she was possessed by one of those evil spirits who made their habitation there. She was looked upon as a demoniac. The usual exorcism was employed, in order to drive the evil spirit out of her. But they detected the cause of lier melancholy, the impressions that continued to operate unconsciously in her soul, when the evil spirit, which they wished to drive out from her, {i. e. herself, regarding herself as one with the evil spirit,) answered — " I had a right to take possession of her, for I found her in my own place." It was natural for Tertullian, from his stand-point, not to distinguish, in such an occuiTcnce, between the objective and the sub- jective. He passed over the means by wliich such a result was obtained, and found in it only a proof that the theatre was Satan's peculiar seat. And if only the moral means are taken into account, he had a positive right to draw such a conclusion. So likewise it may be easily explained, when another Christian female Avas punished in a dream, because she was present at the performance of a tragedy. Whether ' "Ex ore quo Amen in Sanctum protulcris, gladiatori testimonium redderel elsalwvas a-ir' atwi/os alii omnino dicere nisi Deo ctChristoi" It has been thought that Tertullian by the word sanctum meant the body of the Lord in the Eucharist, and that he alluded to the manner of celebrating that rite when it was said to the recipient, Corpus Domini, and he answered, Amen. But as the sequel shows, Tertullian rather alludes to the Amen of the doxologies. We must therefore suppose the Avords in truth to be — " sanctus Deus," ayios Kvpios ; also ei's alCova^ aiz alwvos is the close of a doxology. These words were also used for congratulating the victorious gladiators, dTr' alupos eh aluvas viK'iicreis ; just as they were accustomed to cry out to the insane Com* modus. Dio Cass. lib. Ixxii. § 20. 222 DE SPECTACULIS. her death, wliich happened five days after, was in any way con- nected with the impressions made by the dream, or whether this was only an accidental connexion, we cannot decide for want of a more exact knowledge of the case. But Ter- tiiHian casil}' saw in it a divine punishment. Further, he appealed to instances of persons who, having begun to visit the theatre, relapsed into heathenism ; and, indeed, in many sucli cases, the effect might be that men became shaken in their Christiau principles, their moral perceptions were blunted, tliey gave themselves up to many strange impressions, and thus were gi-adually prepared for apostasy from Christianity. Tertullian, after giving all these examples, made the follow- ing application: — ''What has light to do with darkness? what has life with death? We ought to hate these gather- ings and assemblies of the Gentiles, since there the name of God is blasphemed, — there the lions are daily called for ag-ainst us, — thence are persecutions decreed, — and thence are temptations sent forth." Perhaps we have here an indica- tion of the time in which Tertullian wrote the treatise, the commencement of the persecution that followed the celebra- tion of the victories. Lastly, he contrasts the joys that the Christian gains with those that he gives up. " What else is our desire, but that of the Apostle ; to depart from the world, and to be received with the Lord 1 Where our desire is, there is our delight. Suppose that thou ai't to pass this life in delights. Why art t Ik III so ungi-atcful as not to be content with, and not to acknowledge, so many and such great pleasures which God bestows upon thee 1 For what is more delightful than recon- ciliation with (Jod our Father and Lord 1 than the revelation of truth 1 than the discovery of errors ? than the pardon of so many past oflbnccs ? What greater pleasure than a disgust for pleiusuro itself? than a contempt for the whole world? than true liberty ? than a pure conscience ? than a blameless life? than no fear of death? than to tread under foot the gods of the (Jentiles ? to cast out demons ? to perform cures ? to seek fur revelations ? to live unto God ?" In these expres- sions, which refer to miraculous powers and to special revela- tions, we can see nothing absolutely Montanistic, but only a mark of that jjredomiuant leaning towards the supernatural, whicli afterwards connected itself with ]\Iontauism. " Theso DE SPECTACULIS. 223 aro the pleaBurcs, — these the shows of Cliristians, holy, ever- lasting, gratuitous If knowledge, if literature^icli-lit thee, we have enough of books, enough of verses, enon<'-h"c)f maxims, enough also of song, enough of sounds ; not fables, but verities, not cunningly wrought, but simple strains. . Wouldst thou have fightings and wrestlings ? Behold immodesty cast down by chastity, perfidy slain by fidelity, cruelty cruslied by compassion, impudence ecltpsed by modesty. Such are our contests in which we gain the crown. Wouldst thou also somewhat of blood? Though hast Christ's."' Then follows a view of the final triumph of the kingdom of God at the general resurrection. In what Tertullian says of the joy felt at the everlasting punishment of the enemies of God, we do not, it must be allowed, recognise the genuine spirit of Christian love. We see the selfish feeling mingling with the divine, the flame of human passion blending with the ardour of faith. We discern a rude unbridled fancy, which gratifies itself in depicting the sufferings of the ungodh^. Here Tertullian shows us what he was by nature, and still not sufficiently transformed by the Spirit of Christ ; and we also see how this age of rude opposi- tion to the heathen w^orld had its peculiar temptations and trials for the inner Christian life, so that Christian love was forced to give way to a hatred that transferred itself to the other world. He closes with the words, in which the confidence of his faith is so beautifully expressed : — " To behold such shows, thus to exult, what prajtor, or consul, or priest, shall, of his own bounty, bestow upon thee 1 And yet w^e have them now in some sort present to us, through faith in the imagination of the spirit. But what are those things, which eye hatli not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man 'I Greater joys, methinks, than the circus, and both the theatres, and any race-course."" To Tertullian this subject appeared so important, that he was desirous to extend his influence to those Christians whose mother-tongue was the Greek, and therefore composed a trea- tise upon it in that language. ^ ^ Cap. xxix. 2 Cap. XXX. "Et tamen hscc jam quodammodo liabcmus per fidcm spiritu iinaginantc repraesentatu." 3 De Corona Mil. cap. vi. "Sed ct hiiic materia) propter suaviIudio3 nostros grseco quoque stilo satisfecimus." 221 DE IDOLOLATRIA. Wc have already remarked that a general principle was involved in this controversy respecting the public shows, — the general opposition of the moral judgment respecting the relation to all civil and social institutions and customs what- ever that were grounded or appeared to be gi-ounded in heathenism, the opposition of a tendency of the religious spirit either more rudely opposing things as they were, or disposed to accommodate itself to them. The general opposition, which lay at the basis, was treated of by Tertullian after he had composed the former treatise, in another work entitled De Idololatria. The opposition which is here dis- cussed, relates not merely to that which exists in heathenism, but to all that is worldly. It is a question which continually recurs, What can Christianity appropriate, and w^hat must it entirely reject ? One party set out from the principle that no one ought to be afraid to confess his faith before the heathen, and that everything should be most carefully avoided which .might occasion a commingling of heathenism and Christianity. Th^ other party proceeded on the principle that occasion ought not unnecessiuily to be given to the heathen to show ill-widl to the Christians as persons dangerous to existing civil an-af.ngements. The Christians, in their opinion, ought to fall in with established institutions, provided they were not ex- pressly contradictory to the Divine law. Tertullian belonged, as we have already remarked, to the stricter party, and though he miglit go too far in many things, since he brought forward references to the religion of heathenism, where they had long vanished from actual life, where only a learned antiquarianism such as he possessed could discover them, yet he shows in a most striking manner the supremacy of the Christian faith in liis esteem, how ready he was to sacrifice everything to it, and liow he was filled with abhorrence of unfaithfulness to his profession. In this controversy we again j^erceive how the laity Ijcld fast to the Scriptures and freely used them, as the only nile of life. Thus, the milder and more liberal party, who were opposed by Tertullian, appealed to the words of the Apostle Paul, " Let every man abide in the same call- ing wherein he is called." 1 Cor. vii. 20. The principle hero involved was this— that a Christian is not at Hberty to sepa- rate himself from the relations in which he has been placed by the historical development of Divine rrovidcucc— that Dte idololatpjA. 005 Cln-istianity is designed not to eftect any sudden revolutions, nor to place itself in any rude opposition to the existing deve- lopment of society, but to enter into all the forms of human life, in order to imbue tliem with a new s})irit. It was cer- tainly the right law for the development of Christianity which those persons adopted who appealed to these words of tho apostle— a law which Tertullian's spirit and the ISlontanism that was allied to it were not able to recognise. Ikit in truth, it was easier to express the right rule, generally, in tlieory, than to cany out its practical application. That general maxim, in the sense intended by Paul, had its necessary limitations. Such relations were meant which allowed an abiding in God to be possible, which involved nothing contradictory to the laws of the Gospel ; and for the right application of the maxim, it was always of importance correctly to distinguish between what was, and what was not, reconcilable with Christian prin- ciple. Of this TertuUian was fully aware, and in this part of the argument he was right, as we shall see. He begins with giving a wider extent to the idea "of the renunciation of heathenism, since he reckons as belonging to it, the renunciation of all sins connected with heathenism, for he regarded heathenism as the kingdom of evil spirits. " Since all sins whatsoever," he says, " are in their spirit contrary to God, and there is nothing contrary in its spirit to God which is not accounted to belong to daemons and unclean spirits, whose servants the idols are, — without doubt, whosoever com- mitteth sin, committeth idolatr}--, for ho doeth that which per- taineth to the masters of idols." In this passage we perceive the genuine moral spirit of TertuUian, which in its conse- quential development necessainly led him to dispute tho dis- tinction that arose from confounding the Old and New Testa- ment stand-points — the distinction between sins against God and other sins, according to which the so-called sins against God, such as denying the faith in times of persecution, were reckoned among the 'peccata mortalia. He then proceeds to w^hat is strictly idolatiy. '' !Most per- sons," he says, " imagine that idolatiy is simply to be under- stood in these ways only ; if a man either burn incense or offer sacrifice, or make a libation, or bind himself to any sacred rites or priestly offices." He maintains, on the con- trary, that whoever in any manner contributes to the promO' VOL. ir. Q *226 DE IDOLOLATRIA. tiou of idolatr}', whoever furnishes materials for it, is guilty of participating in idolatry. — Thus, whoever manuflictures idols as a sculptor, painter, goldsmith, or weaver, is an idolater. Many persons who had gained their livelihood by such trades, had embraced Christianity. It was now required of them tliat they should relinquish the trade they had hitherto car- ried on, and turn to another. Wlien such pei-sons objected that they could support neither tliemselves nor their families in any other way, TertuUian replied, " It is spoken too late. Thou oughtest to have con- sidered tliis beforehand, after the example of that most pru- dent builder who first reckons the cost of the work, and his own powers, lest, foiling when he has begim, he should after- wards be put to shame." He then quotes those words of Cln-ist, which at all events could only stand in an indirect relation to what he wished to prove, that Christ called the poor " blessed," a passage which relates only to poverty of spirit ; but allowing that bodil}'- poverty was here spoken of, this would only seiTC to prove that a man should not ch'ead poverty, and might even feel happy in it, if he was obliged to re- nounce his property for the Lord's sake. He appeals to Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, which are directed against anxiety a))out food and clothing, where he points to the lilies of the field ; Init these words can only be oj^posed to want of trust in God, which might keep back a person, on passing over to Christianity, from giving up a trade inconsistent with it. He (juotes the words of Christ addressed to the young man, that he hliould sell all that he had and give to the poor — which words can be considered only as an exhortation to every one to deny eartldy things for the sake of the kingdom of God, for which pur])o^e tliey were originally uttered. Further, he remarks on the words, " No one putting his hand to the plough, and looking ])ack, is fit for the kingdom of God,"—" Pai'ents, wives, children, will be left for the sake of God. Dost thou doubt concerning trades and business and professions, even for the siiko of children and parents 1 It was plainly shown to us that pledges and crafts and business must be abandoned for tlic Lord's sake, at the very time when James and John, being called by the Lord, left both their father and the ship ; wlien I\Iatthew was made to- rise from the receipt of custom ; when even for a man to bury his father was too DE IDOLOLATRLA. 227 much tardiness for faith. No one of tliose whom the Lord chose for himself said, I have not whereon to Uve. Faith fears not hunger ; it kno\YS that it must despise even hun 'or for God's sake, not less than every kind of death. It has learned not to regard the life — how much more, the meat ! How few have fulfilled these things ! But the things which are hard with men, are easy with God. Yet, concerning the kindness and clemency of God, we must not so flatter our- selves, as to indulge our wants, even to the borders of idol- atry." But this was the very point in dispute, whether the manufacturing of idols was in itself a thing to be condemned. Tertullian appears to have considered as forbidden, not merely the images of false gods, but all representations of religious objects. The party to which he belonged, referred to tlie prohibition of the use of images in the cultus of the Old Testament, from which followed, not merely the prohibi- tion of idol images, but all representations of the objects of religious reverence. It was from this application of the Old Testament, that they Avere influenced to make no image or representation of Christ. But their opponents, on the other hand, to show that this prohibition was not unconditional even in the Old Testament, adduced the instance of the brazen serpent, set up by Moses himself. But Tertullian regarded this only as a well-founded exception on account of the t^'jDi- cal meaning of that image ; and he justified it by the Divine command expressly given to Moses. Only in sucli cases could it be justifiable to represent the objects of religion.^ Thus we find already a decisive contrariety in the various judg- ments formed respecting the use of religious images, and wo see how Tertullian transferred the positiveness {positivls/mis) of the Old Testament stand-point to that of the New Testa- ment, which thus gives him a point of connexion with the Montanist mode of thinking. He maintained that since by the baptismal vow the sci*vicc of false gods was renounced, the making of images was con- tradictory to it. But his opponents said, — it is one thing to make images, and another thing to worship them. It might be, that those persons who held this opinion regarded the false gods not as evil spirits, but as beings of the imagina- tion, and rose to a higher objective view of ai*t and mytho- 1 Cap. V. 228 DE IDOLOLATRIA. logy, bolicvlni? that the objects of heathen mythology might be represented as objects of art ; such might be the case with the painter llermogenes, who will be noticed in tlie sequel. A mode of contemplation this, whicli, after the historic concep- tion of the course of religious development in heathenism had Ixjcn formed from the Christian stand-point, might be well founded, and in its scientific reference would occupy a higher 8tand-i)uint than Tertullian's ; but it may be questioned wliethcr such a mode of contemplation would be natural at this shige of Christian development, — whether, in this early age, wlien Christianity and heathenism were so diametrically oj)posed to one another as two hostile powers, it could have been formed and maintained, without injury to the warmth and genuineness of Christian feeling. That Christian feeling is beautifully expressed in the words of TertuUian, ' — " Canst tliou deny with the tongue, what thou confessest with the liand ? — pull down by words what thou buildest up by work? — preach one God, thou who makest so many? I make, (says ctne,) but I do not worship. As if there were any reason why he dare not worship them other than that for which he ought likewise not to make them, — namely, the sin, in either case, against God. But verily thou dost worship them, who makest them that they may be worshipped. And thou worshippest tlicm not with the spirit of any worthless savour of sacrifice, but with thine own ; nor at the cost of the life of a beast, but of tliy own life. To these thou ofFerest np thy mind, —to these thou makest libations of thy sweat, — in homage to these thou kindlest thy wisdom. Thou art to them more than a priest, since it is tln-ough thee that they have a priest. Thy dihgence is their glory. Deniest thou that thou wor- Khipj)cst tliy own workmanship? But they deny it not to whom thou sacriticest that riclicr, better gilded and more perfect victim, tliy own salvation ! " Tertullian laments that the makei-H of images were actually chosen to clerical offices.'' Wlien liis opponents, as we have already remarked, appeuled to the words of the apostle Baul, " Let "every man abide in the Karne calhng, wlicrein he was called .... Let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God,"— Tertullian could, on the other hand, point out the necessary hmitation they implied. He lays open the fallacy of their argument 1 Cnp. vi. 2 Cap. vii. DE IDOLOLATRIA. 229 when he says/ " According to that interpretation wc may all abide in our sins ; for there is not one among us but lias been found a sinner, since Christ came down for no other cause than to. deliver sinners." Lastly, Tertullian exposes the sub- terfuge that persons Avho gave up this trade could not support themselves, since the arts which serve for making and adorning the images of false gods, might be made use of in some other way. He could appeal to the fact, that the splendour and luxury of that age furnished more occuj^ation than super- stition did, for skill and manual labour. ^ He then proceeds to notice the profession of the astrologers^ which had been rejected by the whole church as incompatible with the prin- ciples of Christianity. He here makes use of the Jewish tales and the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, in order to set forth astrology as a forbidden art, and states that the fallen angels were its discoverers, and communicated it to men. In the edicts of the emperors which banished astrologers from Italy, he found an unconscious testimony to the truth. Yet even this art had found advocates on the Christian stand- point. An astrologer who had embraced Christianity would not give up his art, because he believed that it contained a higher wisdom. He appealed to the circumstance that God had employed astrology as a means to bring the astrologers tcf Christ, and that they were the first who had done homage to him; in whatever way that phenomenon was understood by them, whether a star had appeared in the natural course of the heavenly bodies, or was to bo regarded as a miraculous appearance. " What then V answered Tertullian. " In truth, that science was allowed even to the days of the Gospel, that Christ being born, none should thenceforth interpret the nativity of any one in the heavens. For therefore did they then offer to the infant Lord the frankincense, and nijTrh, and gold, as the close of the sacrifices and of the glory of this world, which Christ was to take aw^ay." In these words we perceive the idea that forms their gi'ound-work, that with Christ all other forms of worship and all worldly glory would come to an end ; that at his appearance they would all pass away. That Christ makes an end of all worldly glory, was a ' Cap. V. 2 " Frcqucntior est omni supcrstitione luxuria et ambitio," 3 " Aslrologi, matbcmatici." 230 DE IDOLOLATRIA. sentiment that Tcrtullian, agreeably to his stand-point, as we shall sec, presented more in an ascetic negative manner, than in the form of positive adoption. The command given to the Mai;i not to return by the same way they came, Tertullian cxphiins allcgorically, as meaning that they were commanded to pivo up tlieir vocation. Tlic office, also, of a schoolmaster or teacher of rhetoric and literature, appeared to him not very compatible with the profession of Christianity, since in discharging such an office it was ncccssiiry to teach the heathen mythology and to join in the heathen school-festivals. Yet it is remarkable that even the rugged Tertullian, who was disposed to repel every- tliing tliat stood in connexion with heathenism, felt himself compelled to acknowledge the necessity of historical informa- tion, and of the appropriation of the culture that had pro- ceeded from classical antiquity, for the service of Christianity. He was obliged to admit that Christians could not dispense with that general culture which was needful both for the study of the Scriptm-es, and the intercourse of daily life.^ Hence Tertullian permitted the children of Christians, since they could acquire literary instruction in no other way, to resort to heathen schools, as the Christian instruction pre- viously communicated to them would sufficiently protect them against the poison of heathenism, and the scholars could more easily than the teachers abstain from taking part in the heathen festivals and usages. Would not Tertullian, had he admitted Infant-baptism, have been induced to mention it licre, especially with his notions of the effects of Baptism] Now, as we recognise here a certain liberality of thinking in Tcrtullian, the question arises, Vf by did he not go further and call ujK)n Christians to dispense with heathenish schools for their cliildivn, ])y founding schools of their owii in which lieathen literature would be explained from a Christian stand- point, and tlnis the children of Christians might be preserved from all danger of the infection of heathenism; while such schools would also have furnished means for the spread of Christianity? But in this part of the church the disposition ' > "Qnomodo quis insiitncrctur ad prudcnliam interim liumanam vel ad qucmcunquc sensum vol actum, cum instrumcntum sit ad omnem vuain litcratura? Qnomodo rcpudiamus sccularia studia, sine quibus uiviiia non poasunt. DE IDOLOLATRIA, 231 to contemplate ancient literature from a hostile point of view Avas still too gi'eat to allow the plan to be entertained of appropriating it in this manner to the service of Christianity. It was otherwise in the Alexandrian church, where already such attempts had been made. Towards commerce Tertullian was not favourably disposed, on account of the love of gain and the dishonest practices which he often saw prevalent among the merchants of Carthage. He required of Christians absolute truthfulness, and regarded all oaths as not permissible ; for in consequence of that literal interpretation of the Sennon on the Mount which was then common among Christians, Tertullian found in it several positive commands, and among others that relating to the oath, wliich hence he held as absolutely for- bidden. But he not merely condemned in commerce the immorality attached to it, but was disinclined to the thing itself; it appeai'ed to him only as a means of accumulating wealth, and the motives to engage in it must be un-Christian. Another point of view was required, proceeding from the positive recognition of the multiplicity of earthly relations, and from the difference in the callings of men founded in their moral organism, in order to assign to commerce its right place, and to acknowledge its importance for realizing that sovereignty over nature which would subserve the kingdom of God. But the Christian stand-point had not yet reached so far, and Tertullian especially was incapable of it, since in his mind only the negative view of the renunciation of earthly goods prevailed, and not their positive appropriation as means for realizing the kingdom of God. Still he did not venture absolutely to forbid Christians to engage in commerce. But he unconditionally denounced traffic in those articles which were used for the temj)le-service. Incense was one of these things, though he himself made the objection, that this might be employed for other purposes than those of the idolatrous worship, — in the healing art, and by Christians to show their regard towards their departed friends in the burial of the dead. It was his opinion that as a contractor for supplying the public victims, if he joined the Christian church, would never venture to can-y on this branch of trade, so a dealer in incense could not, as long as he engaged in that traffic, be admitted to chm-ch-communion. 232 DE IDOLOLATRIA. Tliorc were instances in which slaves ^Yho were the proxjerty of the state, and were employed ni a certain trade, became converts to Christianity. What was to be done if this occu- pation was inconsistent with Christian principles 1 Tertullian Hoon arrived at a decision. ' " Xo man can serve two masters. If thou wilt be the disciple of the Lord, thou must take up thv cross and follow the Lord." \t was also a controverted point, whether Christians might accept magisterial offices. One party maintained the affirma- tive, provided they could, by permission or contrivance, be free from j)artaking in idolatrous worship; just as Joseph and Daniel who kept themselves pure from idolatry, held offices and dignities in Egypt and Babylon with all their insignia. ]Uit Tertullian found much that Avas doubtful in this ques- tion.' " Let us allow, then," said he, *' that a man may suc- ces.sfully contrive to move in some honourable office, and heiir the name only of the office, and neither sacrifice, nor lend his authority to sacrifices, nor contract for victims, nor commit to others the care of temples, nor look after their revenues, nor exhibit shows at his own and the public expense, nor preside over their exhibition, nor make procla- mation or edict for any solemnity, nor even take an oath ; nor again, as respects acts of power, pass judgment on, the life or honour of any,' (for thou mightest allow of this in pecuniary matters,) nor sentence to punishment, nor enact the sentence beforehand, nor put any man in bonds, nor shut up any in prison, nor inflict torture upon any, if, indeed, it be credible tliat such things can be done." Tertullian rightly bfhcved that a magistrate could not avoid all this, and, there- fore, the assumption of such an office appeared to him not compatible with the Cliristian calling. For since he, like many Cliristians, had in view only the stand-point of the Gosjjcl, not tiiat of justice, he referred what is laid down in the Sermon on the ]\lount as a law for the disposition to the otitward act; lie knew not how to judge correctly respecting the relation of the outward act in its manifoldness to the one animating priuci])le of love : ho held that all those offices * Cap. xii. ' Cap. xvii, ^ ' "Do capifc alicujus vcl piulore." To explain the obscure term " pudore" wc may rclcr to Apulogct. cap. iv. "lu pucloris uotam capitis ptjcria fouvcr.su." -t DE IDOLOLATllIA. 233 which rendered it necessary to inflict pain on others were contradictory to the injnnctions of tlic Sermon on tho ]\Iount, and to the essence of Christian love ; and hence ho beheved that the assumption of such offices was forbidden to Christians. But in addition, another scruple arose in Ter- tuUian's mind, owing to his excessive dread of all outward contact with heathenism ; that many of the insignia of tlie magistrates in the Roman state, the puri)le mantle, &c., were also worn by the heads of the college of priests, and involved a reference to heathenism. " No man can be accounted clean in unclean things." To meet the proofs brought from the Old Testament, the appeal to the example of a Joseph or a Daniel, Tertullian urges the necessity of distinguishing between the Old and New Testament stand-point. '- Know that old things are not always to be compared with new ones, — barbarous with civilized customs, things begun with things completed, things pertaining to slaves with things pertaining to free men. For these men were in their estate servants ; but thou, who art no man's servant, inasmuch as thou art Christ's alone, who has also freed thee from the captivity of the world, oughtest to act by the Lord's rule." It is striking to observe how Ter- tullian, on the one hand, failed in mingling the Jewish and Cln-istian stand-points ; and, on the other hand, deeply pene- trated by what was peculiarly Christian, sharply distinguished the two stand-points : we may also notice the opposition of these two contending elements in Montanism. In Tertullian's marking the progressive development from the Old to the New Testament, Ave hud the germ of the Montanist idea of the various stages of development in the kingdom of God. But had Tertullian been at tliat time a Montiuiist, he would have been induced to give greater prominence to ideas that were peculiar to Montanism. We find here, as everywhere in Ter- tullian's writings before he became a Montanist, only the germ of his later Montanist views. He thus proceeds to apply the example of Christ to the life of believers, in refer- ence to the renunciation of all earthly glory, " That Lord walked in humility and lowliness, having no certain home, for he said, ' The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head ;' unadorned in dress, or he would not have said, 'Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses;' finally, in visage {}nd aspect without beaut^^, as Isaiah foretold. If he exercised 234 DE IDOLOLATRIA. no power over his own people, to whom he rendered a lowly service ; if, finally, he avoided being made a king, though con- scious that he was a king ; he gave to his people the Mlest pattern in thus censuring aU the pomp and pride of dignity and power. Who should more have used these honours than the Son of God ] What fasces, and how many, would have attended liim ! What puri)le would have glistened on his shoulders ! What gold would have gleamed from his head, if he had not decided tliat the glory of the world was foreign to him and his followei-s ! What, therefore, he would not have, he rejected ; and what he rejected, he condemned; and what he condemned, he assigned to the pomp of the devil." Hence he di-aw^s the ' conclusion, that " by the baptismal vow, the Christian has renounced all earthly glory." The passage before us is worthy of notice in many respects. We perceive how the idea of the appearance of Christ in the form of a servant was made so j)romincnt, that it is represented in the contrast between the outward appearance of Christ, and his inward glory. Christ was not esteemed comely, but the reverse, for which he literally interprets the passage quoted from Isaiah. Yet this interpretation was rather formed out of the idea, than out of an exegetical misunderstanding. But this is not a mere peculiarity of Tertullian, but the prevalent conception of the first Christian age, coiTCsponding to the stand-point of the Christian consciousness primarily developing itself in opposi- tion to the heathenish deification of nature, and the pre- dominant aesthetic element in heathenism — the stand-point of the oppressed Christian church, which still appeared in the form of a servant, and found its greatest satisfaction in con- tcmj)lating the servant-form of Christ. Moreover, it is im- portant for the history of 'Christian ethics to observe how Tertullian was moved by the idea of the imitation of Christ in his scrvant-ff»rm to regard earthly power, mighty and glory as excluded by this imitation, and not suitable for Christians. Accordingly, it was thought that all this belonged only to lieathenisni, and must present itself in an attitude of ojoposi- tion to tlie Church. Christians, therefore, would have to walk on earth continually in poverty and lowliness, opposed by the powers of the world, till Christ, by his personal advent, . should destroy the might and glory of the world. Here was a truth which, at a later period, was forgotten by the DE IDOLOLATRIA. 235 diurcli when it grasped at earthly power and glory ; but a truth only partially apprehended in correspondence to the first stand-point of Christianity, developing itself in opposition to the world. The church, as a church, was bound always to follow the pattern of the servant-form of Christ ; but it was not inconsistent with its doing so, that Christianity should become an animating principle for earthly power and glory in the form of a state. Tertullain did not here distinguish (what is everywhere apparent in the conception of the ethical principles of Christianity, and is necessary for understanding the Sermon on the Mount) what must be exemplified in the disposition of Christians under all the relations of life, and the manifold ways in which this must be exhibited — the imitation of Christ in his servant-form, in the denial of eai'thly power and glory as it respects the disposition, and yet the outward appropriation of that power and glory, proceeding from the same disposition, according to a definite vocation. ' With the question respecting civil offices, the question respecting the propriety of the military profession for Chris- tians is naturally connected. What TertuUian and a party among the Christians urged against it, was the same which moved them to forbid the assumption of civil offices by Chris- tians ; and the remarks we have made on that point are equally applicable to this. But there was also a party who maintained the opposite, and appealed to the examples of Joshua, the wars of the Jewish nation, the soldiers who came to John the Baptist, and the believing centurion of the Gospels. TertuUian, on the other hand, said — " There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be bound to two masters, to God and to Cscsar." In reference to the examples quoted, he answered — "Afterwards the Lord dis- ai'med every soldier in disarming Peter." This last sentence is an example, how a passage of Scripture may be falsely applied, if no account be taken of the connexion, occasion, and circumstances ; for that passage refers not to every use of the sword, but only to the misuse of it, by a wilfulness which rebelled against the Divine arrangement. Besides, in certain particular employments. Christians in the daily intercourse of life miglit easily, in various ways, 23 G 1>E IDOLOLATRIA. come into contact with heathenism. There were days which liad a rehgious reference, and also a particular significance in socitd and civil life : the first days of the month— the Kalemhvy on which debts were to be paid ;— the Matronalia, or feast of the Koman matrons, on the first of March, w^hen wives used to receive presents from their husbands; — the Kithmhi' Jainiarkp, the beginning of the year, w^hich w^as in many respects important as the commencing point of civil life. Now, one party said, — AVe must not in such outward things affect to be distinguished from the heathens ; we may do as others do in such usages as are not necessarily connected wdth religion, and which may be regarded as merely civil ; we must give no occasion that the name of God be blasphemed. 1 Tim. vi. 1. They might veiy justly desire that Chiistians shoukl observe whatever was in itself free from criminality in civil imd social institutions and usages, in order that no ground c»f complaint might exist against Christianity as if it w^re a ix'ligion that interfered with civil order; but the real question in dispute was, whether these things which they pleaded for complying with, belonged to the Adiaphora ; and TertuUian wiLs justified in drawing attention to the necessary limitation of their favom'ite maxim, — to do nothing by which the Chris- tian name would be evil spoken of, — that is, to the distinc- tion between well-grounded and groundless causes of offence.^ '• The blasphemy which is by all means to be avoided is, in my opinion, this : — if any one of us lead a heathen to blaspheme with good cause, either by deceit, or injury, or contumety, or by any otlicr cause of just complaint for which our name is desen'edly attacked, so that the Lord also is deservedly wrutli." Tiiat such occasions ought to be avoided, TertuUian and his OT)ponents are agreed ; the only point to be settled between tliem is respecting things in themselves indifferent. Of these lie takes no account whatever ; he expresses himself as if here there could be no medium,— nothing but the direct opposites of things commanded and things prohibited; all compliance in things indifferent appeared to him nothing less than a denial of the faith, as he says,." A Christian should never let it be possible that he should be taken for a heathen ; let liim openly confess himself a Christian, and instead of th^ KaluudH, fix another time for the payment of his debts," ' Cap. xiv, DE IDOLOL ATRIA. 237 Tertullian appeals on tliis question to the words of Paul, " Do I seek to please men 1 for if I yet pleased men, I slioiiid not be the servant of Christ." Gal. i. 10. But on the other side an appeal might be made to passages in which Paul savs of himself, "I have made myself sei'\'ant to all, that I might gain the more .... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor. ix. 19, 22. " Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." 1 Cor. x. 33. Per- sons might deviate from the right standard either on one side or the other. The connexion of the passages thus set in array against one another, will teach us what is right. In reference to the last quoted passages, Tertullian says, " Did he, forsooth, please men by keeping the feast of Saturn or the Kalends of January 1 or by patience and meekness, by gravity, by gentle- ness, by sincerity 1 Was he made an idolater to idolaters l a heathen to heathens 1 a worldly man to the worldly ? " But certainly Tertullian might have been met by the example of Paul, who to the Jews became a Jew, by the observance of Jewish customs, and to the Gentiles a Gentile, when he appealed at Athens to the altar of the Unknown God. Among the subjects of controversy was the custom of deco- rating and illuminating dwelling-houses at the celebration of victories in honour of the emperors. There were many Chris- tians who saw nothing heathenish in it. They not only felt no scruples, but held themselves bound to unite in these mani- festations of joy as faithful and obedient subjects and citizens. But Tertullian, on the other hand, says, " The Lord says, ' Let your works shine / but now-a-days it is our taverns and gates that shine ; thou wilt now find more doors of heathens than of Christians without lamps and laui'els," His opponents said, it was an honour shown, not to false gods, but to a man. We should "give to Ccesarthe things that are Ccesar's." Ter- tullian replies, " It is well that he added, ' and to God tlie things that are God's.' Wherefore also the Lord required that the tribute-money should be sho^vn him, and asked, concern- ing the image, whose it was. And when he had heard that it was Coesar's, he said, ' Render to Ca3sar the things that are CsDsar's, and to God the things that are God's,' that is, render to Caesar the image of Caesar, which is on the money, and to God the image of God^ which is in man ; so that thou givcst 23 S DE IDOLOLATRIA, unto CiC'sar money, — unto God tliinc own self; for if all thinj^s arc Caesar's, what will be God's 1 " Though Tertullian's remarks show his deep acquaintance with the words of Christ, yet they were not sutiicient to defeat his opponents, for even they did not deny that the whole inward life of man must be regulated by a reference to God ; the obligation, even in this case, to give to Cocsar the things that are Ca3sar's, to show him due honour, was certainly deduced from the obli- gation to do all things to the glory of God. As a warning example, Tertullian mentions, that when the serv^ants of a Christian, during his absence, on a proclamation unexpectedly issued for a geneml rejoicing, had adorned his house with gar- lands, he was severely punished by a night vision ; an event which might be easily explained on ps3^chological principles. This warning, which was communicated to one by a super- natural vision, was designed for all. " As respects the honour due to kings and emperors," says Tertullian, " we have the rule sufficiently laid down, that we ought to be, according to the precepts of the apostle, subject to magistrates and princes and powers with all obedience ; but this within the bounds of religious duty, and so long as we are separated from idolatry." But this is the very question, Whether in those usages there was anything impious ? — which his opponents could, not without reason, deny. Tertullian expresses himself admi- raljly, as he generally does when he refers to the depths of Christmn experience, in. the following passage, — " Let those, therefore, wlio have no light, light their lamps daily : let those over whom fires are hanging, fix to their door-posts laurels hereafter to be burnt. To them such things are fitting as proofs of dai'kness and omens of punishment. Thou art a light of the world and a tree that ever flourisheth. If thou liast renounced the temples, make not thy own gate a temple. I have said too little ; if thou hast renounced brothels, give not to thine own house the appearance of a new brothel." Ncvcrtlieless, Tertullian knew how to separate, in many merely civil solenmities, the original significance (which might be (|uite compatible with Christianity) from the superadded Jjeatlienism. Tlio solenmities observed when a youth was received mto the cla.ss of Men, when the toga pra^texta was exchanged for the iotJ iDOLOL ATRIA. Boning, in the suppression of conscience, could go in connexion with 'the ahcnation of the reHgious and moral element, how no liesitation could be felt to increase criminality, to atone for one act of injustice by committing another.* Cases occurred of this kind — that a Cln-istian who found himself in want of money, wished to borrow money of a heathen and gave him a ])ledgc for it. He drew up a note in the form desired by the heathen, in which he bound himself by a heathen oath to repay tlie money lent in a given time. But he considered himself as not bound by his word, because he regarded an oath taken in the name of the gods as a nullity, and thought himself guilty of no idolatry, because he had only wTitten down words dictated to him by another, and because in doing BO, he had shown that he regarded an oath taken in the name of the gods as absolutely null and void.^ It might be, that the Christian at first, when necessity led him to seek for a loan, intended to repay it at the right time ; and that he, at first, justified himself in that sophistical manner only in reference to the acknowledgment of the* gods, but afterwards, when he could not repay the money, added a second self- deception to the first, when he asserted the nullity of an oath taken in the name of the gods, and then made use of this assertion, in order to clear his conscience from the charge of taking a part in the worship of the gods. Tertullian lays open the sophistiy of this twofold self-deception. He says, that when one person writes what another dictates to him, as if it proceedod from himself, he thereby makes it his own, equally whether he expresses his sentiments by word of mouth or in writing. Yet he lays peculiar stress only on one point, which is indeed in close connexion with the subject of writing — namely, that such conduct is a practical denial of the fixith. Tlie acknowledgment of the gods appeared to him as a lieavier Kin than the dishonesty. The lighter sin, he says, cannot exclude the greater. \Vc here perceive the injurious conse- * To this the words of Tertullian refer ; "Sed est quredam ejusmodi ppccics in facto et in vcrlto bis acuta et infesta utrinque, licet tibi blaudiatur, quasi vacet in utroque, dum factum nonvidctur, quia dictum Hon tcnctur." ' Wlicn the other person demanded the money, he argued that the note was not drawn up in the ordinary legal form, and hence not legally binding. " Scire volunt scilicet tempus persecutionis (the time of judicial proceedings) ct locum tribunalis ct personam prcesidis." Cap. xxviii. I AD NATIONES. — ArOLOGETICUS. 241 qucnce of that distinction between sins against God and sins against our neighboiu-, which misled TertuUian, although in another place, as we have seen, he expresses himself in a man- ner which would do away with the erroneous principle it involves. It was his desire, that when a Christian was under the necessity of seeking for a loan, he should in no case be induced to furnish a bond in this form ; but that rather the love of his Christian brethren should relieve him from his difficulties ; or, wdiatever might happen, he should break oft that negotiation which could only afford him relief by a denial of the faith. " Let us pray to the Lord," he says,' " that the necessity of such a contract may never press upon us ; and should it chance to do so, may he grant to our brethren the means of assisting us, or to ourselves firmness to rid ourselves of all such necessity, lest these writings which deny our religion, standing in the place of our w^ords, be brought forward against us in the day of judgment, sealed with the seals, not of advocates, but of angels." The persecutions which befell the Christians in North Africa from well-known causes, induced TertuUian about this time to compose his Apology for Christianity and Christians ; it was distinguished by spirit and force, and addressed to the African governors. He himself names Septimius Severus as the then reigning emperor. He had first of all written an Apology addressed to the Gentiles generally, and not particu- larly to their rulers, without a distinct official object; this formed his two books Ad Nationes, which have come down to us, but in a mutilated state. These he re- wrote, gave the whole more force and compactness, and a special purpose, by commending the Christians who were the victims of the popular hatred to the protection of the magistrates. The Christians at that time were frequently attacked by the soldiers for the purpose of extorting money from them, fre- quently seized by infuriated mobs, and dragged before the tribunals, or denounced by their domestics and slaves. " Daily," says TertuUian, " we are beset, daily betrayed ; wo are sin-prised most of all in our assemblies and gatherings. ' The tribunals were conducted according to the laws that were in force since the time of Trajan. When the accused denied the faith and sacrificed to the gods, they obtained a pai'don. ^ Cap. xxiii. VOL. II. R 242 ArOLOGETICUS. In the opposite case they were condemned according to the laws. Capital punishment was indeed intended by the laws of Trajan, but it was not always inflicted, as it was not dis- tinctly expressed in the edict. In carrying out the law there was ample scope allowed for the gentleness and humanity, as well as for the cruelty and fanaticism, of individual magis- trates. Not a few told the Christians, that pro^-ided they complied externally with the requirements of the law and Bacrificed to the gods, they might adhere to their religion as heretofore ; they might believe and think as they pleased, for that was no concern of the State. Othei-s adjudged the Christians to milder punishments, to imprisonment, deporta- tion, or labour in the mines : they wished to try whether they might not by these punishments be reclaimed to obey the laws. Othci-s, from a misdirected humanity, that they might not be compelled to inflict capital punishment on pei-sons otherwise innocent, or from a cold despotic severity, because they wished thoroughly to vanquish the ^' injlexibilis obstinatio " of the Christians, used newly invented modes of torture, in order to force them to abjm-e the faith. The African magistrates would listen to no public defence of Christianity ; and there was no cause existing which could induce them ; for since the statements made by Plinj', those magistrates who were not inoculated with the populai* fana- ticism were fully aware that the Christians were free from every other crime excepting that of professing a religio illicita. But in reference to this crime, no fresh examinations were necessary. Hence Tertullian says to them in his introduction, *' Let the truth be permitted to come to your ears in the way of private writings. She asks no favour for her cause, because Khc wonders not at her lot ; she knows that she lives as a l)ilgrim ujion earth,— that among strangers she easily finds enemies; l)ut she has her birth, her home, her hope, her favour, and lier glory in heaven. One thing meanwhile she longs for— not to be condemned unknown." Tertullian only desired tliat j^crsons would give themselves the trouble to examine what Cliristianity really was. " It is an evidence of ignorance," says Tertullian, '^ which, while it is made the excuse, IS the condemnation of injustice, when all who formerly Imted Christianity because they were ignorant what it was they hated, a.s soon as they cchpo to be ignorant, cease to APOLOGETICrS. 243 hate. From bcing'such, they become Christians/as ezperience shows ; and they begin to hate what they were before, and to profess what they hated, and are as numerous as we are pub- licly declaied to be. Men cry out that the State is besieged; the Christians are in the fields, in the forts, in the islands. They mourn as for a loss that every sex, age, condition, and even rank is going over to this sect. And'yet, they do not, by this very means they do not, advance their minds to the estimation of some latent good." But it might be said, as the heathens were often heard to say, " that it is in the very nature of evil to spread itself further by infection." Tertullian replies, '• Nevertheless, that which is really evil, not even those whom it can-ies away dare to defend it as good. Nature has poured over every evil, either feai* or shame. But what like this is found among Christians ? None is ashamed, none repents, unless that he was not such long ago. If he be pointed out as a Chi-istian, he glories ; if accused, he makes no defence : when questioned, he confesses of his own accord ; when condemned, he gives thanks." Persons who were involved in prejudices, and judged superficially, easily satisfied them- selves with saying that this was the effect of an insane fana- ticism, or a blind self-will. But TeituUian had a right to reply that they were not justified in attiibuting, without examination, such great efiects among so many men of various sorts to such causes, merely because the matter was unknown to them. He depicts the blind confusion shown in the judgments of the heathen on the Chi'istians, along with which they were often forced to bear witness to the character and effects of Christianity. "' The generality indulge a hatred of this name with closed eyes, so that in bearing iavoim^ble testimony to any one they mingle with it reproach of the name. *A good man is Cains Sejus, but he is a Christian!' Another Siiys, ' I marvel that that wise man Lucius has suddenly become a Christian.' No one reflects whether Ciiius be not good and Lucius wise, because they are Christians, or Christiar^ because they aiH3 wise and good." Teilulhrai here distin- guishes the vaiious stages of moral development even among heathens, and the various stand-points of conversion. He is far from attributing the same degree of moral corruption to all the heathen; he acknowledges that for some, the moral 244 APOLOGETICUS. clement alicaav developed in them was the medium of their transition to Christianity; that inasmuch as they were wise and good, they became' Christians; as to others, on the con- trary', everything in their moral development originated in the transforming power of Christianity. " They praise," he goes on to sav,''"what they know; they revile what they know not; and what they know, they spoil through what they know not. Whereas it were more just to prejudge things unseen by things seen, than to precondemn the seen through the unseen. Others distinguish those whom they knew as vagi-ant, wortlilcss, and wicked before they passed over to Christianitv, by the very thing which redounds to their praise. In the blindness of their hatred they fall upon com- mending them. What a woman ! how voluptuous ! how gay ! What a youth ! what a rake ! what a gallant ! They have become Christians. Thus is the name used to denote the cause of their reformation. Some even barter their own interest for this hatred, being content to suffer injury so that they have not at their homes what they hate. The husband no longer jealous turns out of doors his wife now chaste. Tlic fiither hitherto patient has disowned his now obedient son. The master once lenient has banished from his sight his now faithful slave. Whoever is reformed by this name, offends." » Yet many among the heathen felt themselves compelled to do justice to the moral lessons of Christianity with which they had become acquainted through their intercourse with (!!hristians themselves. But it happened then, as has since been repeated among those who call themselves Christians, that their knowledge of this morality was very imperfect ; they knew it not in that peculiar significance and power, which it had in connexion with the faith of the Gospel. They Ibund in it only separate moral precepts, in which they saw notliing more than human — no mark of a supernatural reve- lation. And certainly there was reason in this, according to their superficial and isolated view of morality. They might easily beheve that they could find something similar in their ^ ^^ Cap. iii. In \hc first book Ad Xatiojirn, cap. iv., TcrtuUian saya, •' i'l.ey wondered at men suddenly made better, and vet knew better how to wonder than to understand." " Emcndatos rcncntc wirantur, et Ir.mcn mirari 4uum astccjui norunt." ' ArOLOGETICUS. 245 own philosophers by means of that inner law of the moral nature of man. " Unbelief," says Tertullian,^ " confounded by the goodness of this sect, (which has now become well known by the experience and commerce of life,) regards it not as a thing of divine origin, but rather as a kind of philo- sophy. The philosophers, it says, advise and profess the samo things, innocence, justice, patience, sobriety, chastity." Ter- tullian first of all shows that Christianity in its relation to the world differs from all philosophies, and calls forth a totally different conflict with it. " Why then," he says, '• when we are likened to them in discipline, are we not made equal to them in the freedom and impunity of their discipline'? or why are they not also, as being our equals, forced to the same offices as those, for not fulfilling which we are put in peril ? Who compels a philosopher to sacrifice, or to take an oath, or to expose useless lights at noon-day? Nay, they even openly demolish your gods, and write books against your supersti- tions, with your approbation."^ But this was the great difference, which Tertullian well understood, that the philosoj^hers sought to propagate their convictions only among the speculative, — ^that they allowed the popular and state religion, the theologia civilis, to remain undisturbed ; while Christianity, on the contrary, spread first of all among the people, and aimed at making the true know- ledge of God the common property of all men. " Every Christian artisan," says Tertullian, "has found Cod and shows him to thee, and shows thee also practically what thou seckcst in God ; although Plato says that the Creator of the world cannot easily be found, and that when he is found, it is impossible to make him known to all." ^ In order that Tertullian migfit answer that assertion made by many of the heathen, in an efl'cctivc and convincing manner, two things were requisite ; that he should prove the connexion clearly apprehended and developed, between the ethical and dogmatic in Christianity, — that the ethical element » Cap. xlvi. * As for instance, Seneca De Superstitione. 3 riato in Tima;us (ed. Bip. torn. ix. p. 303). Thu pXv oZu -Konqrip Koi irarcf-a rovSe rod iravrds ivpiiv t( tpyov, kxI evpuvra els irui'Tas aSvyaroV X4yeiu. These words are frequently referred to by the Apologists of that age, and must have appeared remarkable to them, since they saw that effected by the Gospel which Piato held to be impossible. 246 APOLOGETICUS. in Christianity, as it represents itself in the Hfe, can only be properly understood in connexion with the root of the faith of the Gospel,— and show how this leads to the supernaturally divine in Christianity ; next, he would have to consider the better systems of Grecian philosophy in their relation to Christianity, distinguish between what had an affinity and what was opposite to it, and then demonstrate how by the con- nexion with the religious principle what was apparently similar was yet something different. As to the first point, in the life of Tertullian the religious and ethical were very closely con- nected ; but he was deficient in that philosophical reflection which would render this connexion intelligible to all persons. This reflection probably was not developed till a later period. As to the second point, Tertullian was too much imbued with a polemical tendency against philosophy, and especially the Grecian, to be capable of such an investigation. It was otherwise with the Alexandi'ians, but who had partially erred in another direction, in not sufficiently discerning what was opposed to Christianity in the heathen philosophies, as w^ell as what was allied to it. By the entire constitution of his mind Tertullian was disposed to recognise in what was original and intuitive in human nature its derivation from God, and to deduce from the instrumental activity of man in science, art, and culture, the fiilsification of what was genuine and original. Thus he regards philosophy as the falsifier of the original truth, whether that truth proceeded from an immediate con- sciousness of God, or from the traditionary contents of an older revelation. With all the one-sidedness and unfairness of TcrtuUian's judgment on philosophy, of which frequently the crudest part only has been brought forward, as if that were enough to characterise a man of his depth, we cannot fail to perceive a truth lying at the basis ; — that religion is certainly the most original fact in humanity; that it every- where proceeds from a revelation of God to man, whether we take this idea in a wider or naiTower sense ; that it has its original seat in the disposition, where man is most receptive, where the spirit will appear only in its self-active autonomy, and form evciything from itself; — and from it the obscuration or denial of the original truth must be deduced. Tertullian was deeply penetrated by this consciousness, though the form in wliich ho expresses it often appcai-s harsh. " Philosophers," apolog£ticus. 247 he says, ' " affect the truth, and in afFecting coiTupt it, as men who catch at praise. Christians seek the truth impelled by an inward necessity, and retain it in its integrity as men anxious for their salvation," If we do not confine ourselves to the letter, but distinguish what is the groundwork of Ter- tullian's one-sided conceptions, we cannot foil to perceive a truth in his statements, in reference to the relation of religion and Christianity to philosophy. Tertullian must, indeed, have passed an nnfair judgment on the stand-point of the philosophers, but if we set out from the second member of the contrast, we can from that form an opinion respecting the first. It is evident that Tertullian commences the finding of truth from the stand-point of religion, in Chiistianity from a subjective element, from a sense of want in the soul of a personal connexion with God as the fountain of salvation; while among the philosophers the objective interest of know- ing, the gratification of the intellectual faculty, formed the ruling principle. But divine wisdom imparts itself only to the disposition that is impelled by a sense of want to seek after salvation. After contrasting the efficacy of Christianity in actual life with the opposition between theory and practice in many philosophers, he says^ — "What have the philosopher and the Christian in common with one another? the disciple of Greece and of heaven 1 the man of words and the man of Avorks 1 the builder and the destroyer of the gods?" But it might be objected — "Even among Christians, as among philosophers, persons are to be found whoso lives are inconsistent with their principles." Tertullian replies — " Then they cease to be ac- counted Christians among us; but these philosophers, not- withstanding such practices, retain among you] the name and reputation of wisdom." He expresses himself still more strongly in the first book of his Ad Nationes respecting those unworthy Christians whose lives formed an objection to reli- gion itself: — "Such persons have no part in our public assem- blies, nor in the Supper ; by their delinquencies they again become yours.; nor do we at any time mix ourselves mth ^ Cap. xlvi. "Philosoplii adfectant vcritatem et adfectando corrumpunt." 2 " Quid simile pliilosophus et Christianus ? Greciae discipulus et coeli ] famoe negotiator et salutis ] verborum et factorum operator ? Rerum (most probably the true reading is deorum) eedilicator ct destructor T 24.S APOLOGETICUS. those whom your power and cruelty have compelled to deny tlic faith. And yet we should more willingly tolerate those wlio a^-ainst their will have deserted our religion, than those who have done so of their own accord." We find here a sounder judgment in moral distinctions than is shown in the common distinction between sins against God and sins against men, according to which tlie former are reckoned peccata mortalia. Nor is it affirmed that those who, on account of such sins, had been excluded from church-communion, could never again be received into it ; and so far we discover nothing Montanistic. As viewed from the stand-point of a mind held in the fetters of nature, or, to use Paul's language, "in bondage under the elements of the world," (Gal. iv. 3,) the state com- prises in itself all the goods of humanity, and in this form the highest good must find its realization, — hence religion was an affair of the state. Of liberty of conscience and religion, and in general of the rights of men as such, no account coidd be taken. Such ideas were first of all introduced, and their supremacy effected, by Christ, who redeemed the spirit of luunanity, and released it from its ancient fetters. TertuUian was among the first by whom tliis truth was powerfully ex- pressed. After showing how the human mind felt compelled to ascend from the worship of the gods to one Supreme Being, he claims subjective freedom for the various stand-points of religious conviction, and says, " Let one worship God, another Jii])iter ; let one raise his suppliant hands to heaven, another to the altar of Fides ; let one in his prayer (if ye think this of us) tell the clouds, another the panelled ceilings; let one devote his own life, another that of a goat, to his god. See to it, whether this does not deserve the name of irreligion, to wish to take away ;the;freedom; of religion, and to forbid a choice of gods, so that 1 may not worship whom I will, but be compelled to worship whom I do not will. No one, not even u Imman being, will desire to be worshipped by any one against his will." According to the views prevalent among Christians in his time, TertuUiiiu saw in tho false gods so many evil spirits. Heathenism appeared as the kingdom of evil. It opposed the Christian consciousness too strongly as a real power in every- day life, to allow of coming to th^e conclusion that these gods ArOLOGETlCUS. 249 •were only beings of the imagination. Those real powers whicli opposed the kingdom of God, appeared as evil spirits. Kow it happened that, b}^ the influence of the Christians, cures were performed on men who were in states of disease that were attributed to possession by evil spirits. When such circumstances were preceded by internal mental conflicts, Christianity here produced a crisis. They were indebted to it for freedom from the power of the daemons who had taken possession of their souls. Victory over the da)mons was regarded as a victory over the gods of the heathen who had been identified with them. It happened also, in virtue of peculiar psychological influences, that the dasmoniacs them- selves, who felt themselves one with the dremoniacal element within them, spoke in the name of the gods, — that those who had regarded themselves before as deuXi]-n--oi, being moved by the power of Christianity, or struck by the powerful influences of a Christian, believed that they were j)0ssessed, from a con- fusion of heathen and Christian notions. The god in them declared his identity with the evil spirit, and acknowledged the superior power of Christ. To such facts Tertullian ap- pealed, as attesting that the gods Avere evil spirits, and demon- strating the power of Christ equally over evil spirits and the gods.^ " When commanded by any Christian to speak, that spirit shall as truly confess itself a deemon, as elsewhere falsely a god If, on the one hand, they be truly gods, why feign themselves dasmons 1 Therefore is your divinity suiiject to the Christians, nor can that be accounted deity which is subject to man." He could appeal to the fact, that by such phenomena many had been led to Christianity, since they l)elieved that they obtained in them a proof of the power of Christ over the kingdom of daemons as identified with the kingdom of the gods. Tertullian says, '"These testimonies of your own gods are wont to make men Christians, since by believing them to the utmost, we believe in Christ our Lord." Thus Tertullian, in rebutting the reproach that the Christians w^cre the enemies of mankind, dwells on the great oblig-ations of heathens to Christians as their liberators from the power of evil s])irits, with whom so many evils, both for body and soul, liad originated. " And who would snatch you from those hidden foes who ai'e everywhere making havoc of your souls ^ Cap. x.xiii. 250 APOLOGETICUS. and your health,— from the incursions of the daemons, I mean, Avhich ^Y0 drive away from you Avithout pay or reward ?'" Moreover, the pure pohticnl offences,— the crimen majestatis so dangerous in those times, when Christians failed in due reverence towards the emperors (they were said to be irre- ligiosi in dvsares, Jiostes iinjyeratoriim Romanorum) because they would not sacrifice with the other citizens for the health of the emperor, and especially because they would not pay the usual marks of honour at the festivals in honour of their victories, which appeared to them to contain something idola- trous, or at least, unbecoming. To vindicate the Christians against this charge, Tertullian says:- — "Therefore we sin agiiinst the majesty of the emperors, because we do not sub- ject them to their own creatures; because we make not a mockery of our services for their health's sake, not thinking it to be in hands soldered with lead. But ye are full of reverence {religiosi) towards the emperor, who seek it where it is not to be found, w^ho ask of those who cannot give it, passing Ilim by, in wdiose pow'cr it is For we pray for the health of the emperors to the eternal God, the true God, tlie living God, whom even the emperors themselves would rather have propitious to them than all the rest. They know who has given them dominion. They know, as men, who has given them life. They feel that he is God alone, in whose l)ower alone they are, to whom they are second, after whom tliey are fii-st, before all and above all gods, x^nd wdiy not ? since they are above all men, who as living surely stand before the dead. They reflect how far the powers of their empire avail, and thus they understand God, They acknow^- ledge that they prevail through Him against whom they cannot prevail. In, a word, let the emperor conquer heaven, airry lieaven captive in his triumph, send his guards to heaven, impose taxes on heaven. He cannot; and he is great bccau.so he is less than heaven ; for he himself is of Him, of wliom is both heaven and every creature. Thence he is an cnif)(ublic disgrace 1 Do those things become the holi- (hiys of princes, which on other days are unbecoming ? . . . . How justly do we desers-e condemnation! For why do we discharge our vows and our rejoicings for the C?esars, in chas- tity and sobriety, and righteousness ? Why do we not over- sliadcjw our door-posts with laurels ? why do we not encroach on the day with lamps?" He contrasts the fidelity of the Cliristians, their honest sympathy, with the hypocritical de- monstmtions of joy made by those who, under this outward show, concealed tlieir conspiracies against the emperor; — he here evidently refers to events in his own times.^ ' Cap. 3CXXV. » The dcfoat of Piflccnnius Niger in Syria, of Clodius Albinus in Gaul, APOLOGETIOUS. 25Z What TertuUian says in order to vindicate the Cliristians from the charge of a dangerous political tendency (on account of which all secret associations and clubs were everywhere forbidden), strikingly marks the process by which Christianity Avas developed in that age. He appeals to the peculiar s[)irit of Christianity, by which men became altogether estranged from taking an interest in political events. We must hci'c distinguish between what is founded on the very nature of Christianity in its opposition to the stand-point of the ancient world, and what was nothing more than a one-sided bias, which was rife at that particular stage of Christian develop- ment, and afterwards subsided into a harmonious adjustment; a bias which, having been once checked, repeated itself in later manifestations as something morbid. Christianity must certainly destroy that all-absorbing one-sided passion for poli- tics which was peculiar to the stand-point of the ancient world, since it subordinated the state to the idea of the king- dom of God as the highest good, removed the narrow limits of political life in which all human things were enclosed, imparted to men the consciousness of belonging, as members, to a kingdom of God which united this world and the next, and was designed to embrace the whole of humanity. At first, this tendency in opposition against the former stand-point was necessarily so developed, that through the interest felt for the kingdom of God, for the other world and the general well-being of mankind, the interest in political matters was chilled and repressed ; it contributed to this state of things followed by the persecution of the remains of the Piscennian"* party in various parts, particularly those who had consulted a soothsayer relative to a hostile design against the emperor, {Ad Nat. lib. i. cap. 17.) "Adhuc Syriaj cadaverum odoribus spirant, adhuc Galliaa Khodano suo non lavant," (the blood that had been shed could not be washed away by the Ehone.) Apolog. cap. xxxv. " Sed et qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores quotidie revelantur, post vindcmiara parricidarum racematio superstes, (who remained concealed in the lirst inquiries after the enemies of Septimius Severus, and were now discovered,) quam recentissimis et ramosissimis laurels postcs proastruebant, quam elatissiniis et claris- simis luccrnis vestibula nebulabant (they darkened the entrance-hall l>y the multitude of lights in broad day) ? Eadem officia dcfendunt et qui astrologos et aruspices et augures et magos de C^esarum capite consultant." (Compare .^lii Spartiani Vita Severi, cap. ix. xv.) Indeed Tertqllian waa not aware that many who had sufiered punishment for high treason, had been sacrificed to the avarice and suspicion of the emperor, and of the Prtetorian prcefect, Plautianus. 2.34 APOLOGETICUS. that political life in that age had been formed on a soil op- posed to Christianity, and was rooted entirely in heathenism ; hence Christians felt themselves necessarily estranged from it. The commnnity formed by Christianity was like a close corpo- ration in relation to the state, and not till a later period could the appropriation of the state form itself out of this opposition as a peculiar form of representation for the kingdom of God. Thus, Tei-tullian says, " It were meet that this sect were ac- counted among the lawful factions, a sect by which no such thing is done as is wont to be apprehended from unlawful factions . . . We who are insensible to all that burning for glory and gi-eat- ness, have no need of banding together, nor is anything more foreif^n to our taste than public affairs. We acknowledge one commonwealth of all mankind — the world." From the anti- thetical stand-point of Christianity to the world at that time, it appeared to Tertullian almost as a matter of necessity that the state was heathenish, and in opposition to the Christian church. It never entered his thoughts that the masters of the Roman empire might actually become Christians. As we have seen above, he thought that earthly power and glory would be always inconsistent with the servant-forai of the Christian life in imitation of Christ. Hence, he saj^s,^ " But the Cajsars also would have believed in Christ, if either Cfcsars had not been necessary for the age, or if Christians could have been Caesars." He describes in glowing terms the numbers of the Christians, and the violence of the perse- cutions raised against them, and then asks,^ — " And yet, what retaliation for injury have ye ever marked in man so banded tofjether, so bold in spirit, even unto death 1 though a single night with a few torches might work ample vengeance, if we Iield it lawful to balance evil by evil." But however plainly the Jives of Christians evinced that they were free from all political designs, yet to persons who could not comprehend the principles which animated tlio Christians and held them together,— who, looking at them with tlie eyes of worldly policy, explained everything by outward api)earanccs,— the close and intimate fellowship of Christians had tlio air of something suspicious.^ " It is the exercise of this Koi-t of love which, with some, brands us with a mark of evil. ' See,' say they, ' how they love each other,' for they * Cap. xxi. 2 Cap. xxxvii. s Cap xxxix. APOLOGETICUS. 253 themselves liato each other ; and, ' See how ready they arc to die for each other,' for they themselves are more ready to slay each other. But whereas we arc denoted by the title of ' Brethren,' on no other, as I think, do they brand this name than becanse among themselves every title of consanguinity is, from affectation, flilsely assumed. But brethren we are even of your own, by the law of nature our common mother, although ye have little claim to be called men, because ye are bad brethren. But how much more worthily are they both called and esteemed brothers, who acknowdedge one Father, that is, God — who have drunk of one spirit of holiness — who from one womb of common ignorance have come forth into the one light of truth .... Therefore, because we are united in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to have our goods in common." While some persons imputed the intimate union of tlie Christians to some political object, there were others who reproached them for an opposite reason, that they lived as if already citizens of a celestial country, and took no interest in sublunary concerns. They called tlie Christians men who were utterly improfitable for the business of life. Here again it is proper to distinguish between what is founded in the nature of Christianity and belongs to the opposition which it must necessarily stand in to heathenism, and what in a one- sided bias formed in the primary stages of Christian deve- lopment. From the stand-point of heathen social life, the tendency to the unworldly, the future, and the heavenly, which was impressed so strongly on the Christian life, must have appeared as an erroneous estrangement from earthly life. It must have formed a reproach to the heavenly dispositions and seriousness of Christians — a charge which, at a later period, might be repeated from the stand-point of a seciUarized Christianity, — that it rendered men useless for real life.' But we must allow a measure of truth to be contained in this objection in reference to that one-sided ascetic opj)osition to the world, in which the Christian principle was at first mani- fested. This tendency is shown in the words of Tertullian, when, wishing to prove that persecution could not injure Christians, he says,'"^ " But in truth we are in nowise liarmed ; for we have in this world no concern but to depart out of it as quickly as we may." But we do not see this ascetic spirit ^ " Ilomines infructuosos in negotiis." - Cap. xli. 256 ArOLOGETICUS. prominent in the picture winch Tertiillian gives of the Chris- tian life, for the purpose of refuting that accusation ; and this wo may also regard as the mark of a non-Montanist spirit. " We are said to be unprofitable in the common con- cerns of life. How can this be siiid of men who live with you, have the same food, dress, furniture, the same w\ants of daily life ? For we are not Brachmans, nor the gyumosophists of India, dwelling in the woods and exiles from life. We re- member our obligations to God our Lord and Creator ; we reject no enjoyment of his works ; certainly, we refrain from using them immoderately or wTongfuhy. Wherefore we live witlfyou in this world, not without a forum, not without shambles, not without yom- baths, taverns, shops, inns, mar- kets, and other places of traffic. We voyage, moreover, with you, serve in your armies, labour in your fields, and trade with you." AVhen Tertullian endeavours to prove to the heathen the existence of one God, his favourite arg-ument is the immediate witness in the mind and consciousness of men ; as on all occa- sions, in accordance with his ardent temperament, animated by religion, he appeals rather to the immediate and original, than to the mediate and derived. From the depth and ful- ness of a living consciousness of God, he points to the only true God, whose existence is as undeniable as it is incompre- hensible. " What we worship is the one God, who through the word by which he commanded, the reason by which he ordained, the power by which he was able, has framed out of nothing this whole material mass, with all its furniture of elements, bodies, and spirits, to the honour of his majesty ; whence also the Greeks have applied to the universe the name <»f KocTfiog. He is invisible, though seen ; incomprehensible, tliough made present to us by gTace .... therefore he is tiaie and so great. The immeasurable is known only to itself. Tiiis causes God to be conceived of while yet he cannot be conceived. His greatness causes him to be at once known and unknown to men. And this is the sum of their offending, who will not acknowledge him of whom they cannot be ignorant. V>"i]\ ye that we prove him to be from his own works, so many and such as tlicy are, by which we are maintained, by which we are supported, by which we are delighted, by which also wo ai'c tcrritied ] AVill ye that we prove it by the witness of APOLOGETICUS. 257 the soul itself, wliicli although confined in the prison of the body, although straitened by evil training, although un- nerved by lust and sensual desires, although made tlie servant of false gods, yet when it comes to itself again, as from a sur- feit, as from sleep, or as from some aihnent, and regains its soundness, it names God by this name only, because peculiar to the true God.—' Great God,' ' Good God,' and, ' Whicli may God grant,' are words in every one's mouth. It invokes him also as a judge ; — ' God sees ' — ' I commend to God ' — ' God will recompense me.' 0 the testimony of the soul, by its very nature, a Christian ! Finally, in pronouncing these words, it looks not to the Capitol, but to heaven, for it knows the dwelling-place of the living God ; from him and thence it descended." ' We see that TertuUian in all his writings testifies of the living God, not a being constructed out of general ideas, but known by experience from his own self-revelation. The original self-revelation of God to the immediate consciousness of man, which involuntarily comes forth in his life, and the special revelation by grace, which, connecting itself with the former, completes and confirms it, — the combination of these tw^o forms the solid religious realism of Tertullian, the anti- thesis of the Alexandrine intellectualism. Tertullian appealed to the fact, that all religions proceed from distinct personalities. And thus he regards the revela- tion of God in Christ, and the peculiar relation to God in which Christ represents himself, as constituting the peculiarity of Christianity. He appeals moreover to the fact that Christ did not enter on his mission among the rude tribes of man- kind, and by his mental superiority over them appear in a supernatural light, but that he had given the impression of his divine nature to a cultivated and even over-refined gene- ration. He says, '• We say, and openly say, and w'hile ye torture us, mangled and bleeding we cry out, ' We worship God through Christ ; believe ye him a man ? — by him and in him God wills to be known and adored.'" After Tertullian had contrasted Christ with other founders of religions who had appeared among barbarous nations, he says, " He opened to a knowledge of the truth the eyes of men already polished and blinded through their very refinement." * Cap. xvii. VOL. II. S 258 APOLOGETICUS. Tertullian was convinced by his own experience that faith in the divinity of Cln'ist was intimately connected with the essence of Christianity ; he ajDpealed to the practical influence of tliis fliith. '•' Examine," he says, " whether that divinity of Clirist be true ; if it be such as by the knowledge of it any one is transformed to goodness." AVe know that the doctrine of the resurrection of man in a gloritied personality was a special stumbling-block to the heathen. Tertullian appeals first of all, as a proof of the de-stiuy of man to eternal life, to the immediate consciousness of the nature of man as alhed to the Deity. He calls men to a deeper self-knowledge. ^ " Shalt thou, a man, a name so great, — if thou knowest thyself as thou mayest from the Pythian inscription — thou the lord of all things that die and rise again, — shalt thou die to perish for ever?" He then points out the analogies to the resurrection that are scattered over the whole field of nature, showing that everywhere a new life comes forth from death. He sees throughout nature a harmony amidst the strife of opposites. Among these he reckons the antithesis of death and life. Tertullian closes this powerful argument for the truth of Christianity in words well befitting so noble a testimony : — " Go on, ye good governors, so much better in the eyes of the people if ye immolate the Christians to them. Rack, torture, condenm, grind us to powder; for your injustice is the proof of our innocence Nor yet will your cruelty, though increasingly refined, be of any advantage to your cause. It is ratlier an allurement to our sect. Our numbers increase in proportion as you mow us down. The blood of Christians is . tlieir seed. ^lany among yourselves exhort to the endurance of pain and death .... yet their words do not gain as many disciples as Christians gain who teach by deeds. That very obstinucy wliich ye reproach us with, is a teacher. For who is not incited l)y the contemplation of it to inquire, What is the reality which can produce if? And who that has inquired, does not join us? And who that joins us does not long to suHer? . . . Hence it is that we thank you for your judgments; such is tlie rivalry between divine and Imman things; when we are condemned by you, we are acquitted by God."^ Tlie same 'JY-rtullijui who, of all the Christian Fathers m » Cap. xlviii. a Q.,p ^ DE TESTIMONIO AXIMiE. 55 j> the primitive ngc, has most emphatically testified of the evil adhering to Imman nature, and its need of redemption, has also expressed in the strongest terms the consciousness of the original, ineffaceable alliance to the divine in human nature. As on the former side he was obliged to recognise what stood in opposition to Christianity, so on this side he found a point of connexion for it. He who so often and so broadly ex- hibited the opposition between the supernatural and the natural, was j'et led by that consciousness to recognise the supernatural as corresponding to the peculiar and true (though disturbed by sin) nature of man. Christianity thus appeared to him as that by which the proper nature of man attained to its true self-consciousness and to its true rights. Hence he could describe the human soul as Christian by nature. In his Apology^ he has appealed to the testimonia animce naturaliter Christian(je, by which he specially intended the involuntary manifestations of an universal consciousness of the Deity, the consciousness of one God. A pregnant sentiment, which might be carried out to a far greater extent than was done or could be done by Tertullian ! It was indeed the office of an apologetic to point out, that Christianity coitc- sponds to the essential necessities and postulates of the anima naturaliter Christiana ; the supernatural verifies itself as the truly natural. It was nothing new, when for apologetic pur- poses a point of connexion for Christianity was sought in that consciousness of God which existed previously in the human mind. A believer in Christianity possessed the consciousness that it could bring over to itself all the religious stand-points, and that the educated heathen who were converted to Chris- tianity must make use of the means by which they had them- selves been brought to embrace it, in order to lead others in a similar way to follow their example. The novelty consisted in the peculiar manner in which Tertullian made use of this method. Philosophy had developed among the Greeks the universal religious consciousness with freer reflection, had raised itself in many respects above the religious and ethical stand-point of the people, and had prepared the way for Christianity by the spiritualizing of rehgious ideas, by giving greater prominence to a religious consciousness, and by 1 Cap. xvii. In his book "Z>e Testimonio Animce," cap. v., he lets u« know that the Apology was written earlier. 2G0 DE TESTIMONIO ANIMiE. combating the popular supei-stitions. The Grecian apologists in particular availed themselves of this mode. Like Justin Martyr and Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian's contemporaries, they made collections of the expressions (genuine or spurious) of the ancient philosophers and poets, in order to employ them as testimonies against the popular religions from the stand- point of heathenism. Tertullian, -svho appealed by preference to the original and immediate, was disposed to regard culture, Bcience, and art as falsifications of the original ; he wished rather to adduce the immediate power of the undeniable sense of Deity as it expressed itself involuntarily without reflection in the life, — the testimonumi animce natwaliter Christianoe. Certainly it may be said that if philosophy had raised itself on many sides above the common religious stand-point, jet in other respects it knew not how to indicate clearly the truth that lay at the basis of the populai' religious conscious- ness though mixed with eiTor. In order to mai-shal against heathenism these testimonies of the immediate consciousness of God, Tertullian composed his little treatise De Testimonio Animce, ^' The Witness of the SouV " I call in," he says, " a new witness, yea, one more known than all literature, more active than all learning, more public than all publications, gi'eater than man altogether, for it is that which forms the whole of man. 0 soul, stand forth in the midst, whether thou art a thing divine and eternal, according to most philosophers, and so much the more not an utterer of falsehood ; or, as seemed to Epicurus alone, by no means divine because mortal, and therefore who oughtest so much the more to speak the truth ; whether thou art received from heaven, or conceived on earth, or fitly framed of parts or atoms ; whether thou hadst thy beginning with the body, or art sent into the body after it is formed ; from whatever source and in whatever manner tliou makest man a rational being, most capacious of understanding and knowledge. I summon thee not such as when, formed in the schools, exer- cised in libraries, nourished in the academies and porches of Athens, thou uttcrcst thy crude wisdom. I address thee as fiimplo, and rude, and unpolished, and unlearned,— such as they have thee, wlio have only tliee ; the very and entire thing tliat thou art, in the road, in the highway, in the weaver's factor^'. I have need of thy inexperience, since in thy expo- DE TESTIMONIO ANIM^E. 2GI rience, however snicall, no one puts faith. I demand of thee those truths which thou bringest with thyself into man, which thou hast learnt to know either from thyself or from tho Author of tliy being. Thou art not, as I know, a Christian ; for a Christian is wont to bo made, not born. Yet now Christians demand a testimony from thee who art a stranger, against thy own friends, that they may blush even before thee, for hating and scoffing at us, on account of those veiy things to which thy own consciousness testifies. It jjleases not when we announce him as the only true God from whom are all things, and to whom the universe is subject. Bear witness to this if thou knowest it to bo so ; for we hear theo saying openly and with full liberty, not allowed to us, both at home and abroad, 'Which God grant,' and, 'If God will.'" TertullJan not only appeals to the testimony of the soul respecting the being of one God, but he believed that he could point out in those involuntary expressions the consciousness of the divine attributes. He appeals to the recognition of tho goodness of God in those expressions which were heard in every-day life — "the good God," " God doeth good." When the philosophers asserted that the representation of the wrath ot God among Jews and Christians was gross Anthropopathism, Tertullian objected to them, that maintaining the divine origin of the soul, they must acknowledge some truth to lie at the basis of the general expressions of fear in reference to God, and of the appeal to God's judgment. He mentions such expressions as " God sees all things;" "I commend the matter to God ;" " God will recompense it;" " God will judge between us." He appeals to the fact that even in the temples of the gods the soul felt itself compelled to bear witness to the one God as a judge. He says, '• In the very temples them- selves thou callest upon God as thy judge. In thy own forum thou appealest to a judge in another place. In thy own temples thou allowest a foreign God. 0 testimony of truth, which amongst the very dEcmons makes thee a witness for the Christians ! " Tertullian likewise believed that ho could adduce a testimony of the soul to the fall of man, as when persons are heard saying, 'God is good, but man is evil." "By this contrast," says Tertullian, "thou utterest indirectly and covertly the reproach that man is therefore ^vil becaiise he has departed from the good God." Every- 262 DE TESTIMONIO ANIM^. where the voice of original natui'e appeared to Tertullian more powerful than the diversified opinions of men. It was his belief that the voice of this original nature could not utter falsehood. AVhatever the philosophers might think concerning the origin and nature of the soul, they must acknowledge this voice. To the Epicureans he opposed the testimony of the original consciousness respecting the unchangeable nature of the soul. But the fact was, that Tertullian's ingenuity some- times stood in the way of his finding what was natural and simple, and occasioned his attributing a false meaning to those phrases of every-day life by arbitrar}^ interpretations.^ Of these revelations of the religious consciousness, Tertul- lian says — " Nature is the preceptress, the soul is the disciple. Whatsoever the one has taught, or the other has learned, has been delivered to them by God, who is, in truth, the pre- ceptor of the preceptress herself. What notion the soul is able to form respecting its original teacher, it is in thy power to judge from that soul which is within thee. Perceive that which causes thee to perceive." He appeals to the divine in the soul, which displays itself in a certain power of divination. We see how, on this side, Tertullian does not reject an accom- modation between the natural and supernatural. Propjhecy in revelation will find its point of connexion in an indv>-elling divining element of the soul. Tertullian says — "Reflect on that, which in forebodings is a prophet ; in omens, an augur; in coming events, a seer. Strange, if being given by God to man, it knows how to divine ! Equally strange, if it knoweth him by whom it is given ! Even when compassed about by its adversary, it remembers its author, and his goodness, and his decree, and its own end, and its adversary himself. So it is a strange thing (is it ?) if being given by God, it sings the same things which God has granted his people to know!" Tertullian calls these "utterances" {erujotiones) the teaching of a congenial nature, and the silent deposits of an innate con- sciousness. But it then happened, as we have often seen it repeated since, that those who could not resolve to know the ' This is filiown in a very striking manner when Tertullian finds a witness for faitli in a future resurrection in the jocular expression of common life respecting: a deceased person, used l>y others who knew not of hU death, as of one . vElius Spart. c. 17. " Judeeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit, idem ctiam dc Christiania sanxit." ^ " Sed et clarissimas fcminas, ct clarissimos viros Severui? sciens hujuij sccftc esse, nou modo nou Ircsit, vcrum et tcstimonio exornavit et DE CORONA MILITIS. 2C).') An incident which occurred about this time, in a district unknown to us, might have been dangerous, especially under these circumstances, to the repose of the Christians, a.s this law liad now appeared, which certainly did not occasion a general persecution against the Christians. When the emperor, on one occasion, (we cannot certainly determine when,) distri- buted a sum of money, a so-called donaiivum, among the soldiers, they appeared, in order to receive the preseiit, in festive garments adonied with laurels. There were Christians among the soldiers, who felt no scruples about complying with the general custom. But an opinion was also spread widely, as it appears, among the Christians, that it was un- becoming for Christians to wear garlands on their heads. This was owing, in part, to the opposition against heathenism, since the wearing of garlands was connected with many heathenish festivals ; and in part to the notion that this use of flowers, which were destined for other purposes by the Creator, was absolutely unnatural. Such a view Tertullian had already expressed in his Apology,^ and this view we find in one of the Greek fathers, belonging to quite a different school from that of Tertulhan, Clement of Alexandria.- It so happened that one of the Christians appeared with a laurel-garland in his hand. He was immediately known to be a Christian, on account of his military disobedience, and likewise his public declaration that he was a Christian, and was thrown into populo fiircnti in nos palam restitit." — Ad Scap. c. iv. " But moreover Severus, knowing that certain most illustrious women and most illus- trious men were of this sect, not only did not harm them, but even honoured them by his oAvn testimony, and openly withstood the people ■when they were mad against us." Tertullian also gives here one reason ■why the emperor was favourably disposed towards the Christians, which was probably correct. A Christian named Proculus had anointed the emperor with oil in an illness, and prayed for him. The emperor regained his health, and attributed his recovery to the prayer of the Christian, and thus became favourably disposed towards Christianity. Tertullian calls this Proculus, "Procurator Eidiodice ;" this may mean overseer of the public roads ; but probably Euhodia was a proper name, and Proculus, a slave, and steward {oIkSvoixos) in the house of a Roman lady of rank, Euhodia ; as it is well known there were many Christians among the slaves in the early ages. When Septimius Severus became emperor, he allowed these slaves to come to him, and took many of them into his own service at the palace. ^ Apolog. cap. xlii. ? Psedag. lib. ii. cap. 8. 9(56 DE CORONA MILITIS. prison. 'Mauj Christians were dissatisfied with the conduct of this brother in the faith. It was still the duty of Chris- tians, they said, to avoid all culpable occasions of presenting Christianity in an unfavourable light, and to accommodate themselves to every existing regulation which did not contra- dict the law of God. And in what passage of Holy Writ (for that was the only authority to which they could bow) was it said that no man was allowed to wear a garland of flowers or laurels ? Such a person had, uncalled-for, taken the liberty to raise a disturbance about a thing perfectly mdifFerent in itself, and it was to be feared that this occurrence would affect the condition of the Christians generally in that district, and that the peace they had enjoyed so long — for upwards of twenty years — would run the risk of being destroyed.^ As the affair came to be much talked about, Tertullian stood forth to vindicate the soldier's conduct, and was in- duced to represent the practice of wearing garlands as incon- sistent with Christianity, in Ids treatise De Corona Militis. According to the principles which Tertullian held before he embraced ^lontanism, he must have defended the conduct of that Christian soldier and opposed his adversaries. The strict- ness of IVIontanism here combined itself with his former habits of thinking. Tertullian appears here only.still more zealous against his opponents, and endeavours to deduce all their errors from the same spirit which led them to attack ;Montanism. As a Montanist, Tertullian necessarily judged differently from other Christians respecting the duty of self- preservation and of martyrdom. While they held it a duty in times of persecution to use every means for self-preserva- tion which were not inconsistent with the Christian faith, the Montanists saw in whatever conduced to such an end, a denial of the faith, a disinclination to comply with the appointments of Divine Providence. The Montanist perceived in the various tendencies of the argumentation emploj^ed on the stand-point of the cluH'ch, that way of thinking which did not allow full scojKJ to the motions of the Holy Spirit, but set arbitrary bounds to them, whether in charisms or in martvrdom.'' From this Montanist stand-point, Tertullian attacked the ' " Tarn bonara cl lon,c:am paccm periclitari." » " Plane Pupcrcst, ut ctiam martyria rccus^re meditentur, qui pro- phctias cjusdcin Spiritus sancti respucrunt," DE CORONA MILITIS. 2G7 bishops who had endeavoured to check the spread of Mou- tanism. When such persons in times of persecution sought by every means to obtain rest for their flocks — when they themselves evaded the fury of the fanatical populace, and for a while betook themselves to flight, as they were the special objects of persecution, — in all this the Montanist Tertullian saw nothing but cowardice. He taunts them with being lions in peace, and deer in war ; as to the former expression, it may refer either to their bold style of speaking when no danger was at hand, or to their forwardness in ecclesiastical polemics, especially in their controversies with the Montanists. The demand made by his opponents, to point out a passage of Scripture in which the wearing of garlands on the head was forbidden, must necessarily have perplexed Tertullian. Only his deficiency in sound logic, combined with his inge- nious dialectic and propensity to exaggeration, could have seduced him to employ the retort, that when they maintained that the use of garlands was permitted, because it was not for- bidden in Scripture, they might as well say it was not per- mitted, because it was not expressly commanded in Scripture. He laid down as a maxim — " Whatever is not expressly per- mitted, is forbidden f' a kind of arguing of which other exam- ples may be found in Tertullian. The principle of vrhat he here asserts would be, that the Holy Scriptures are a code of special precepts, positive and negative, in order to determine precisely every action ; which would approach very nearly to the false positivism of Montanism ; yet it Avould be doing Tertullian injustice, if we attempted to deduce a principle from such a single instance of extravagant assertion ; and ex-' pressions of an opposite kind are to be found in other parts of his-Avi'itings. In defect of Scriptural proof, Tertullian appealed to Tra- dition. But he had to deal with opponents who would not pay much regard to the authority of tradition unsupported by the testimony of Scripture.^ We here see two opposite stand-points first brought into collision with one another ; a scene which has been often repeated ; — on the one side an appeal to Holy Writ alone ; on the other, an appeal to tradition. Thus we may here find the 1 "Etiaxn in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scrjpta," {De Cor. Mil. cap. iii.) was their watchword. 268 DE CORONA MILITIS. first germ of the opposition between the Protestant and Catholic stand-points. The appeal to tradition as the trans- mission by the living word must indeed be the first and original one, since the apostles aimed to produce and propa- gate fiiith in the Gospel by the preaching of the word, and their writings were added as an accompaniment, and as called forth by special occasions. As long as they operated by the instrumentality of the living word, it was right to adhere to that. But this habit was involuntarily continued to times in which the living word of the apostles no longer existed ; and then it was possible for many things of a foreign and non- apostolic character, which were said to be apostolic, to be mingled with the original tradition. When this mixture and confusion was perceived, those who had attained to a con- sciousness of it felt compelled to escape from this troubled source to the objective word, which became a substitute for the personal presence, the oral teachings of the apostles. Thus it came to pass, as we have seen, that a pai'ty was formed who set up the auctoritas scripta in opposition to tra- dition, and would only admit proofs from the former on points of faith and morals. We might be disposed to say, that one side was entirely in the right, and the other in the wrong. But it may be questioned whether we are justified in .such a decision. The party who would onl}^ admit proofs from Scripture, might still go too far if they believed that they must adhere only to what is literally expressed in Holy Writ, — if they did not distinguish between what is contained accord- ing to the letter, and what according to spirit and principle, in the Scriptures, — if they did not acknowledge that the truths promulgated by the apostles were not left as so much dead stock, but were to continue their influence by a living development. By indulging such one-sidedness they might ignore the right of tradition as the witness of a continued ])roce.ss of Christian development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They might overlook the significance of Chris- tian observances and customs as far as these were the natural expression of Christian consciousness in its historical develop- ment ; as, for instance, in the case now before us, — although the use of garlands was not expressly forbidden in the writ- in.gs of the New Testament, yet the Christian usage which forbade such a pmcticc might have its right, as drawn from th^ DE CORONA MILITIS. 260 sound developing process of the Christian life. But on tho other side, those who appealed to tradition alone did not attentively consider the various elements which, under tlio name of tradition, were collected together and placed in juxta- position to the auctoritas scripta. It is to be obsen'cd, that a distinct idea with clear consciousness was not formed at first of tradition, but this idea had been transferred from practice to theory in an arbitrary and unconscious manner. The two ele- ments and ideas contained in tradition were not separated ; a propagation of the truth originally announced by the apostles, and a continued development of the principles which it con- tains in thought and life : a tradition which related to the substance of the truth, as such, — and a tradition which related to the expression of that truth in the actual life of the church : then the unchangeable and the changeable in tradition were not distinguished, the former being what had really proceeded from the pure development of Christian principles, and the latter being what had been formed from tlie commixture of accidental or foreign elements. To make such a separation, a higher criterion was required, and this could with right be found only in the sure apostolic word of the auctoritas scripta; so that even at that time, though there was more right on the side of those who would only admit the auctoritas scripta, yet on both sides there was a portion of right and of wrong — tho contrariety was not altogether simple and absolute, but one that called for an adjustment that should ratify what was true, and correct what was erroneous, in each. Tertullian, in arguing against those who wished to adhere simply to the letter of Scripture, and were in danger of making a mere legal code out of it, had truth on his side when he traced back tradition and usage to an internal neces- sity, and found in it the expression of what was founded on the essence of Christianity, of the Christian consciousness or the Christian reason. The ratio must justify what w\as given to tradition. There must be an inward consciousness of tho reasons for holding w^liat is founded on tradition and usage. " That reason," says Tertullian, " will support tradition, cus- tom and faith, thou wilt either thyself perceive, or learn from some one who has perceived it. Meanwliile, thou wilt believe that some reason there is to which submission is due." ' He 1 Cap. iv. 270 BE CORONA MILITIS. acknowledges also the analogy between this importance of tra- dition in religious matters and the universal law of all human development, as is evident when he appeals to it, saying, that even in civil affiiirs, where no law exists, custom occupies the place of law. Hence it comes to the stime thing, whether men adhere to the plainly expressed law, or to the observance of custom ; both are in a similar manner an expression of the ratio, and on that their validity rests.^ Thus we find here the coiTect mean between the positive and the rational. But the positive is nothing else than the ratio historically developed and expressed, Tertullian proceeds from this view of a living perpetual development of the Christian Spirit, which must not be enclosed in the arbitrary limits of what is in practice at any one time. Hence he maintains that something new may be instituted by virtue of the same Spirit from whom the old proceeded, since a new insight may be gi'anted to a pei-son by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. " If law," he says, " be founded in reason, then will all that is founded in reason, by whomsoever brought forward, be law. Dost thou not tliiuk that any believer may have the power to conceive and to establish a thing, so it be agreeable to God, conducive to true religion, conducive to salvation, as the Lord says, ' And why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right I ' (Luke xii. 57,) and this not as touching judgment only, but every opinion also on things coming under examination. So also says the apostle, ' If in anything ye be ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you.' " (Philipp. iii. 15.) And he appeals to the instance of Paul, wlio, when he had no express com- mand from the Lord, interposed his own opinion, (1 Cor. vii. 25, 40,) since he was conscious of following the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly Tertullian maintains that when a person can adduce no express word of Holy Writ, it is allowable to appeal to what he knows to be true by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. No objection can be made from the genuine Christian stand-point to what Tertullian says, when he ascribes to the Christian ratio the right to distinguish between the true and false elements in tradition. But he sets out on the assumption * Cap. iv. " Consnetudo autem etiam in civilibus rebus pro lece suscipitur, cum deficit lex, noc diflbrt an scriptura an ratione consistat, quaiido oL le^cm ratio commcndct." DE CORONA MILITIS. 271 that tradition first of all requires to he oheycd on its own account. He assumes that it rests as such \ipon tlie ratio, and that the oidy point of importance is, to bring into tlie consciousness the ratio that lies at its foundation. * llencc arise the two stand-points; first, the belief in tlie authority of tradition ; then, the examination of the ratio that lies at the basis. We here see in Tertullian the germ of the Augustinian principle of the relation oi fides to ratio. In this development of Tertullian's, the influence of Mon- tanism cannot be concealed. Hitherto apostolic tradition had been understood only as a literal transmission of the things announced and ordained by the apostles, although not set down in WTiting; tradition was made use of only for holding fast what had been once given, — a conservative prin- ciple ; but through Montanism a new element was added to the progressive develo2)ment. It was the Montanist principle, that the Paraclete, combining himself with what was un- changeable in the foundation of the church-tradition by new illuminations, carried forward the life of the church in pro- gressive development. !Montanism therefore must pass over the opposing limits of the letter of Scripture as well as of tradition, which could admit nothing new. Tertullian endeavoured to convict his opponents of incon- sequential reasoning, by proving to them that they observed many things which could not be shown to be of apostolic pre- scription from the written records of the faith. Our former remarks will apply to the examples adduced by Tertullian against these adversaries. He appeals to the form of renun- ciation twice expressed at baptism. This was certainly not an observance enjoined by the apostles. It was perhaps gradually formed from Christian usages in which the idea of baptism had been expressed. But here the essential and the accidental are to be distinguished. The act of sucli a renun- ciation of the kingdom of evil certainly belongs to the essence of baptism and regeneration : but this form of expression was by no means necessary, or binding on successive ages, and not to be relinquished without injury to the idea. Then there was the trine immersion of baptism, as symbolically making » Cap. ii. " Plane, ut ratio quaerenda sit, sed salva obFervatione. nee in dcstnictionem ejus, sed in adilicationcm potius, quo magis cbscrvcs, cum fueris ctiam do ratione sccurus." 272 i>E CORONA MILITIi3. the reference to God the Father, ihe Son, and the Koly Spirit. Tliis, too, was a symbol that arose out of the Christian idea, but not necessarily connected with it. So likewise the gn\dually extended confession which was made at baptism. Moreover the tasting a mixture of milk and honey by the newly baptized, — a symbol that was taken from the pure Christian idea, being a reference to becoming a child again by regeneration, or to being made inheritors of the true Canaan flowing with milk and honey. The use of such symbols showed how the element of the Christian life filled tiieir souls— how entirely they were penetrated by Christian ideas ; yet the symbol was by no means necessary ; it was only an accidental expression of Christian truth. Then there was abstaining from the use of the bath for a week after baptism ; this proceeded from a consciousness of the higher reference to holiness contained in that water-baptism, which they felt compelled to distinguish from all other purifications. But here a false element might be introduced, the perversion of baptism, the false representation of a magical power in water-baptism. Further, the Lord had instituted the Holy Supper in connexion with a common meal, and all in an equal manner pai-took of it ; but in Tertulhan's time it was j)artaken of at the meetings of the Christians held before day- light, and received only from the hands of the presidents of the church. What Tertullian here reports, in part existed only in post-apostolic times, and arose not from an ideal cause, but gradually from the pressing influence of altered circumstances. Originally, the administering of the bread and wine was only something connected with the common meal which was held as an imitation of that last supper of Christ with his disciples ; it was only one ingi'edient in the w^hole of the festival, which, as the meal dedicated to the Lord, w^as designated "the meal of brotherly love." This connexion corresponded both to the original institution, and to the co!nplete idea of the holy act. It was only a relative neces- sity brouglit on by tlie increased size of the Christian com- munities, that led them to take one constituent part out of the wliolc, whicli was put in lieu of it, and designated the Juicharist. At a later period misapprehensions of the nature of the Holy Supper were connected with this deviation from the original institution that had been occasioned by circum- DE COKOXA MIL1TI3. 273 stances. Fiirtlier, all Christians, originall}", in virtue of their universal priestliood, were capable of perlbi-ming; sacred ser- vices; but in consequence of the necessary organization in the form of the Christian community, the right of the universal priesthood was committed to those whom the church chose to be the organs of their guidance. Hence arose the false notions of a peculiar priestly dignity attached to such persons. Then the custom came in, that on the anniversary of the death of their relations persons should partake of the Holy Supper in commemoration of their fellowship, not to be destroyed by death, with those who died in the Lord, and present a gift on the altar in their name, and that the deceased should be especially referred to in the devotions that accompanied the celel)ration of the Supper. Hi the same manner oblations were oflered at the celebration of the anniversary of the death of the martyrs, as their true birth-day, a custom which originally implied that the martyrs were also men who stood in need of redemption.^ All this beautiful symbolising of Christian ideas proceeded from the depths of Christian feeling ; yet it afterwards furnished a point of connexion for the false notion of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Again, on the Lord's day it was counted unlawful to fast or to worship on the knees; also full fifty days were marked from the celebration of the resur- rection to the commemoration of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. All this was a beautiful expression of the Christian consciousness. H testified what power faith in the resur- rection of Christ had over the minds of believers — how they were penetrated by the conviction that the resurrection of Christ must needs be the centre of the whole Christian life, and the festival of that event one of the highest joy, accompanied by the consciousness that Christ had thereby raised men who were sunk down to earth, in fellowship with him to heaven. On this account men were not to fast, but to pray standing upright when they celebrated the commemoration of Christ's resurrection and ascension even to that of the corroborative feet of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. But all this was only a single symbol of what must always fill the whole of the Christian consciousness. Tertullian says, " We feci pained if any of the wine or even of our bread be spilled upon the * See N"eander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 1. pp. 462—464. Stand. Library ed.— Tk. VOL. II. X 274 BE CORONA MILITIS. ground." Tlicre is implied in this a beautiful Christian sen- timent, the consciousness of the thanks due to God for his earthly gifts, which ought to be something sacred to Cliiis- tians ; perhaps also there is a reference to the consecration of the bread and wine in the Holy Supper. Nevertheless, it cannot be concealed, that the perversion of what was origi- nally a symbolical expression passed into a painful supersti- tion. What we have here remarked, is strikingly exemplified in the last instance TertuUian adduces of tradition, the cus- tom prevalent among Christians of marking the forehead with the sign of the Cross in all their travels and movements, in coming in and going out, in all the daily employments of life, such as dressing and washing. A genuine Christian idea was implied in this practice, that the whole life of the Christian in all its separate acts must be sanctified through the consciousness of redemption, through a reference to Christ the crucified as the Redeemer. The consecration of the Cross was to be extended to eveiything. This would indeed have been the perfection of the Christian life, if what this sj^mbol represented had met with its true fulfilment. But it came to pass, that what originally proceeded from the inward Christian life and was a sensible expression of it, afterwards degenerated into a mere mechanism, so that a supernatural sanctifying power was ascribed to the outward act in and for itself, and thus it served rather to obscm-e the idea of Christianit}^ than to make it the ever-present centre of the Christian life. These instances given by TertuUian of what w^as regarded in his time as having the authority of tradition, are suited to eluci- date om- remarks on the various elements of which tradition was composed. Tcrtulhan wished to prove by internal grounds, what was allowed ])y Christian usage. But since he wished to find reasons for prohibiting what in itself was permissible, he was obliged to have recourse to many unsound arguments. He wished to show that crowning with garlands was something unnatural. ]3ut even as a Montanist he would by no means renounce all jjlcasurcs of the senses. He says, " All sub- Btances are pure as being the creatures of God, and in this their character, fit for the use of all ; but the application of the very use makes the difterence. For even I kill a fowl for myself no less than Socrates did for ^sculapius ; and if the DE CORONA MILITIS. 275 odour of any place ofFcnds mo, I burn something frc^m Ambin, but not with the same ceremony, nor in the same di'css, nor with the same outward show which is employed upon idols." But he requires that all natural productions sliould be rnado use of agreeably to the laws established by the Creator, in a manner corresponding to their original destination. He attri- butes .every perversion of natm-e, every abuse of her i)ro- ductions, to Satan and sin. To support this view he refers to Rom. viii. 20, in which natm-e is described as subject to vanity through the sin of man. By means of Christianity natm'e reguins her original rights; all things are restored to their natural use. Tertullian has here recognised correctly the princii^le of Cluistian morals, and the depth of his mind is shown in his knowing how to institute an inquiry on a, subject so external and isolated in connexion with the highest truths. But the arbitrary manner in which he conducts it, lays him open to the charge of sophistry. He errs in his application of a correct principle, since he determines in an ai-bitrary manner, what is natural, and what is mmatural. He does not acknowledge the freedom with which man is called to use the productions of natm-e, and to use them as symbols for the spirit. The idea of the natural is formed by him in too mechanical a manner. Flowers are intended only to gratify the senses of sight and smell ; this alone is their natural use. To make them into garlands as symbols of joy and festivity appeared to Tertullian to be a perversion of nature, an act of sacrilege against their Creator. Here wo perceive the contraction of the ethical spirit which would narrow Christian freedom by arbitrary maxims in the appro- priation of the w^orld. We impute this to what might be designated by the name of pietism. As belonging to the passages in which Tertullian, who sometimes was overcome by a Jewish element, most clearly marks the peculiarity of the Christian stand-point in relation to the Old Testament, wo may quote the words, where, appealing to the typical character of the Jewish cultus, he says, " But if they were figures of ourselves — (for we are both temples of God, and his altars, and lights, and vessels) — this. also they foreshowed in a figure, that men of God ought not to be crowned." ' The question respecting this corona milUaris led him to ^ Cap. ix. 276 DE CORONA MILITTS. discuss the question whether military service in general was allowable for Christians. He declared himself against it on very similar grounds to those he had made use of before his tmnsition to .Montanism. The unconditional obedience to one man, to whose service the soldier sun-endered himself, appeared to liim as something unchristian ; and not less unchristian he considered it that man should thereby be released from all the bonds of nature which Christianity held sacred, though in subordination to Christ. He says,"" " Do «-e believe that a human sacrament may supersede a divine one, and that a man may pledge his name to another lord after Christ 1 and re- nounce fiithcr and mother, and all that are nearest to him ? — whom the law teaches should be honoured and loved next to God; whom the gospel also has in like manner honoured, only not valuing them more than Christ." After making an erroneous application (as we have noticed above) of Christ's words in ^Matt. xx^d. 52, "Re that useth the sivord shall joerish hi/ the sivord,'' he adds, "And shall the son of peace act in battle, whom it will not befit even to go to law 1 Shall he administer bonds, and imprisonment, and tortures, and punish- ments, who may not avenge even his ow^n injuries V Ter- tuUian is still bewildered in that misapprehension of the precepts in the Sermon on the Blount, and of the law of Christian love, for want of understanding the relation love bears to justice and right, of which we have spoken above. These were manifest defects, which could only be remedied by the progi'essive development of Christian morals and the progressive pervasion of earthly relations by Christian principle. In order to prove the irreconcilableness of the militia Christi and the militia secidi, he says, "Shall he keep his militaiT station for any other than for Christ ? or on the Lord's day, when he does not do it even for Christ ?" (This is an allusion to the times for fasting and prayer, for which, Wednesdays and Fridays were particularly chosen, and which by a common metaphor, being regarded as the w^atch-hours of the Cln-istian soldier, TertuUian here calls his stationes. The statio in Cicsiir's ser^-ice was inconsistent with his statio in the service of the one Lord Christ. But even on a Sunday the Clu-istian soldier must omit his watch-service, which appeared to be a desecration of that day, when even the stationes of the * Cap. xi. DE COllOXA MILITIS. 277 Christian militia were not allowable.) '• And .shall he keep watch before those temples which he has renounced? And shall he sit at mcif. where the apostle would not have him V {i. e. in idol- temples.) Here also we perceive a misunder- standing in the interpretation of Paul's words, for he is not there (1 Cor. viii. 10) speaking of eating in idol-temples, simply as such, but of partaking of the sacrifices offered to idols. "And shall he defend by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms," (this refers to the exorcising of evil spirits, whom Tertullian identified with the false gods,) " leaning and resting upon a spear wherewith Christ's side was pierced f (The watch-service before the heathen temples.) '-'Shall he also carry the standard, the rival of Christ 1 And shall he ask for a watchword from the emperor, who has already received one from God ? Shall he when dead be disturbed by the tmmpet of the trumpeter, vdio expects to be awakened by the trump of the angel? Shall the Christian be burnt according to the rules of the camp, whom Christ has freed from deserved fire ?" (Here we see the reason of the disinclination to burn the dead among Christians.) Yet in one respect Tertullian expresses himself more mildly than in his earlier pre-montanist writings. In those he appeared to disapprove of military service in general for Chris- tians ; although speaking objectively on the varieties of calling which Christians had to carry on with the heathen, he reckons among others, military service. He now distinguishes the two cases, — when a person being a Christian chooses the military life, or, when at his conversion to Christianity he is actually engaged in that vocation. In favour of the latter remaining in his calling, it was usual to adduce the example of the soldiers whom John baptized ; of the believing centurion whom Christ commended ; and of Cornelius, who was con- verted by Peter. And these examples appeared to have had some weight with Tertullian. Such persons, he declared, must either leave the army immediately on their baptism, as many had done ; or at all events they must take care to do nothing contrary to the divine law, which could not be allowed even in military service ; or lastly, they must suffer for the cause of God, to which likewise believers in the (jaj^acity of citizens were pledged. " A Christian is nowhere $78 DE CORONA MILITIS. anything else. Tlie Gospel is one ; and Jesus is the same. In liis sight the beheving citizen is a soldier " (namely in respect of his calling and duties as a miles Christi), " and the believing soldier^ is a citizen ;" (he has the same duties, and cannot excuse himself for neglecting them on the plea of his military profession.) Tertullian justly observes, that if the necessity of any worldly relation or calhng could furnish an excuse for the neglect of any Christian duty, the entire sanctity of Christian morals would soon be destroyed; for every voluntary act might qasily find an apology in the pressure of outward circumstances. 2 He touches particularly on the inducement lield out at that time for wearing laurel crowns, the donative to the soldiers on account of their victory, (probably that over the Pai-thians,) and says in this connexion — "The same laurel is denounced in the distribution of the donative. Evidently it is not a gi'atuitous idolatry, since it sells Clurist for certain pieces of gold, as Judas did for pieces of silver. Shall this be the meaning of, 'Ye cannot serve God and mammon;' to give the hand to mammon, and to apostatize from God ? Shall this be the meaning of, 'Kcnder to Csesar the things that are Cresar's, and to God the things that are God's;' not to render the man to God, and to take the denarius from Csesar ? Is the triumphal laurel composed of leaves, or of corpses ? Is it adorned with plates, or with the ashes of the dead 1 Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? perhaps even of some Christians, for Christ is among the barbarians." This last expression very well suits the victory over the Parthians, for Christianity at an early period had spread itself in the provinces of xhQ Parthian empire. Another occasion on which crowns of laurel were used, was to adorn slaves when they obtained their freedom. In passing his judgment on this use of them, Tertullian proceeds from an ideal i)oint of vicAv, and manifests that the reference to the highest good was ever present to liis thoughts. In opposition to the ancient stajvJ^ipiut, on which earthly freedom was the »Cap.xi. The W27f5licre must evidently be/cfg?i5, not tn^cZeZw. Caeterum subyerti t totnm substantiam sacramenti causatio eiusmodi ut ct.am vohmtanis dclictis fil.ulam laxct; nam et voluntas poterit nccc88itas contendi, habeas Bcilicct, undo cogatur." Cap, xi. DE CORONA MILITIS. 270 highest good, he regards all mere outward earthly frcodoni as only apparent and valueless ; and true frcedcjjn only tliat which has its foundation in the inner man, and })r()r'ee(ls fiv.ui redemption. But similarly to what we have ah'eady re- marked, in combating the excessive valuation of earthly freedom, he falls into the opposite extreme, since he does not acknowledge the importance of earthly freedom, even as a subordinate good in connexion with tlie highest good, the only true and essential freedom. That defect in his views is to be seen throughout, wdiich was founded on the complete one- sidedness -in his conception of the development of the Chris- tian life, — a one-sidedness which corresponded to the general character of -this first stage in the development of the church, and shows that he had not yet found the right adjustment of the relation of all earthly things to the divine. " Earthly free- dom," he says, "gives crowns. But thou art already redeemed by Christ, and that at a gi-eat price. How can the world set free another's servant 1 Though it seems to be freedom, yet is it seen also to be servitude. In the world all things arc imaginary, and nothing real. For even then thou wast free from man, being redeemed by Christ ; and now, though made free by man, thou art Christ's seiTant. If thou thinkest that the freedom of the world is true liberty, so that thou even distinguishest it by a crown, thou hast returned to the service of man, wdiich thou thinkest to be liberty ; thou hast lost the freedom of Christ, which thou thinkest to be servitude."' It is Tertullian's leading idea, that on the highest stand-point the antagonism of freedom and dependence is lost. True freedom is .inseparably connected with dependence on Christ, and only in this dependence on him is to be found freedom and independence in relation to all created objects. Hence the ideas of freedom and dependence, according to the common judgment of the world, were, in Tertullian's opinion, no reality, but a mere semblance. The Christian, as ho 1 " Coronat et libertas saecularis. Sed tu jam redcmptus es a Cbristo, et quidam magno. Servum alienum quomodo Btcculum luanumittctJ Etsi libertas videtur, sed et servitus videbitur. Omnia imagiuaria in pjeculo, et nihil veri. Nam et tunc hber hominis eras, redcmptus a Christo, ct nunc servus es Cliristi, licet manumissus ab IioTnine. Si veram putes sa3culi libertatem, ut ct corona consignee, rcdlsti in scrvi- tutem hominis, quam putas libcrta.tem; amisistilibertsvtcm Cliristi, quam putas scrvitutem." Cap. xiii, 280 I^I^ COKONA MILITIS. thought, had entirely renounced this stand-point. With a consciousness springing up in his own soul of this Christian freedom, Tertullian beautifully says— "So far must the Chris- tian be from putting this work of idolatry on his own head, yea, I mi<^lit even say on Christ, if so be that Christ is the head of the man, w^hich head is as free as Christ himself, not obliged to wear a veil, far less a bandage. Moreover, the head which is obliged to wear a veil, the head of the woman being already occupied by a veil, has not room for a bandage. She bears the burden of her own subjection. If she ought not to be seen with her head uncovered because of the angels, much more, having her head crowned, will she offend those who are, perhaps, at the same time wearing their crowns." It is evident that Tertullian understands the words ^id tovq uyyiXovc, 1 Cor. xi. 10, to be used respecting good angels. Before their sight the woman must appear with a veil as a sign of humility, of her natural dependence on the man. But if she would displease the angels by rejecting this mark of dependence, how much more if she stood before them (w^ho already wear a heavenly crown) with the proud ornament of a WTcath. Tertullian closes this book with w^ords which testify how, in the contemplation of the least important things, the reference to Christ was the central point that determined the w^hole style of liis contemplations.^ " If, for these things, thou owcst thy head to him, who for thee wore a crown of thorns, pay him, if thou canst, with such a head as his own w'as Avhen lie oftered it up for thine ; or wear not a crown of flowers, if thou art not able to Avear one of thorns ; if thou art not yet able to wear (the true) crown of flowers," (the martyr's crown, the testimonium for id um.) " Preserve undefiled for God what is his own. lie shall crown it if he will. Yea, he does wall ; ' The agreement is rcmavkablc in men of such different characters as Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, as to their peculiar modes of contemplating an ol.jecL in itself of such little importance. Clement hay« (lib. ii. p. 181), "The living ima'^c of God is not to be crowned like "-~u\6yi(rTou oK-nKooTas^y^nas rhu Kvpiov anivCais iarfixfxfvou avrovs ivr pv(p(^^v : as tco cejuvo rov nvpigv irde^i, dw,- Z'.'iGOct Ton- ciyOfmif. DE CORONA MILITIS. 281 ho even invites thee to it. *To him that ovcrcometh,' he Kiiitli, 'I will give a crown of life. Be thou' also 'faithful unto dealli. 'Fight thou' also 'the good fight,' for which the apostle, with good cause, trusted that there wiis 'laid up for him a crown.' . . . Why condemnest thou to the garland and the wreath that head which is designed for a kingly crown ? for Christ Jesus has 'made us kings unto God and his Father.' What hast tliou to do with a perishing flower 1 Thou hast a flower 'out of the rod of Jesse,' on which all the grace of the Spirit of Cod has rested, — a flower incorruptible, un withering, everlasting, by choosing which, the good soldier (the soldier who, despising the crown of laurel, meets martyrdom) has been promoted to honour in the ranks of heaven." Although Tcrtullian did not belong to those who, like the Alexandrian fathers, recognised in Pagan antiquity a preparation for Christianity, yet he also found in the myths and symbols of the ancient religion a shadowy image of divine truth, inasmuch as Satan, from whom he deduced these religions, appeared to him as the imitator of the true, the mimic of the divine. From this stand-point he also thought, in his Apology, that he could detect in the myths a counterfeit type of Christian truth.* He adduces, as one instance, the Persian mysteries of Mythras. '• Blush ye," says Tertullian, "his fellow-soldiers who shall now stand condemned, not by him, but by any soldier of Mythras, "who, when he is initiated in the cavern, the camp, in very truth, of darkness, w^hen the crown is offered him, (a sword being placed between him and it, as if in mimicry of martyr- dom,) and then fitted on his head, is directed to put it aside from his head, and to remove it, perhaps, to his shoulder, saying that Mythras is his crowui." In this Tertullian finds a counterfeit imitation of Christian self-denial, since the Chris- tian knows no other crown than Christ. When Tertullian wrote the treatise De Corona 3 f Hit is, he had already formed the design of discussing in a separate work,^ the question wliether a Christian might lawfully save himself from persecution by fliglit. This design he carried into effect. The immediate occasion of writing it was a ques- ^ Cap. xi. " Scicbant ct qui penes vos ejusraodi fabulas rcmulas ad dcstructioncra vcritatis istiusmodi prajministravcrunt." 2 "Scd de qurestionibus coufossiotium alibi doccbimus."— i?e Cor. Mil. cap. i, 282 DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE. tion proposed in a social meeting by one Fabius, a member of the catholic church, whether it became a Christian to flee from an impending persecution. It was the general principle practically adopted by many pious Christians, that this was entirely accordant with the doctrine and spirit of the Gospel. This gave rise to a dispute, since many of the persons present maintained it, but Tertullian held the contrary opinion. And since the warmth of the debate would not allow him to state all liis reasons, he composed, in the first instance for his friend Fabius, his work De Fiiga in Persecutione — (On Fhght in Persecution). Probably the point here brought under discussion was only a question disputed between the Montanists and their oppo- nents. Among the Montanists themselves there could be no dispute respecting it. According to their general ethical ten- dencies and principles, it was already decided ; for an enthu- siastic over- valuation of martyrdom and an inclination towards it belonged to the essence of Montanism ; and in this respect a tendency that had existed at an earlier period in the church had fixed itself in Montanism; and the predominant passivity, the quietism which belonged to the very nature of Montanism, did not admit of the employment of himian means, to contra- vene a divine dispensation, which could only be met, it was believed, by absolute resignation. The Montanist spirit was characteristically expressed in the mysterious oracular voices of the Montanist prophets, as quoted by TertuUian in this treatise. " Wilt thou be made publicly known 1 it is well for thee, for he who is not made public among men, will be so before the Lord ;" i. e. will be denounced before him as one who has denied him. " Be not ashamed; justice brings thee forth into public." "Why art thou ashamed, since thou bearcst the gloiy of it 1 An opportunity is given since thou art seen by men." " Bo unwilling to die on your beds, in miscarriages or in soft fevers ; but wish to die in martyrdom, that He may be glorified who suffered for you." We recog- nise in these passages that enthusiastic tendency of Christian feeling for which the sick-bed and the pains of a natural death were something mean and despicable ; as if the genuine Chris- tian resignation, the disposition to imitate the sufferings of Christ, could not be maintained on a sick-couch or a death- bed as well as in a martyrdom. This contempt of what was DE FUGA IN rEHSECU'nONE. 283 natural to man, stands in contradiction to the impress of the Christian spirit. For the Montanists, tlicrcforc, no examina- tion was here required ; a positive autliority had ah-cady decided tho question for them. The new utterances of tlio Paraclete had for them the same authority as the expressions of -Holy Writ. And as at a later period the advocates of the stand-point of the Roman Catholic church employed as an argument in its favour, that what among others who call themselves Christians was still disputable, could no longer bo so among those who regarded the authority of the chm-ch, but had been decided in a manner raised above all doubt ; so without question Tertullian wished to make use of this for the advantage of Montanism among those wlio were not dis2)osed to acknowledge the new j^rophets, when he says of his oppo- nents, that " they were deservedly in doubt respecting other things, since they did not acknowledge the Paraclete who led into all truth." ^ We here see what is shown in many other respects, that many things have passed over in a milder and modified form, into Ptoman Catholicism from ^Montanism, which represents one side of an ultra-catholic stand-point. But Tertullian, when he wrote this, had so much gi'cater rea- son for wishing to represent Montanism in a favourable light, since he was discussing the question with persons who do not appear to have belonged to the decided violent opponents of ihat system.^ Hence it may be accounted for, that Tertullian does not exhibit so much vehemence in this treatise as in his other writings against the opponents to Montanism. Yet wc perceive the sectarian spirit of Montanism, which regarded the refusal to acknowledge the new prophets as a denial of the Holy Spirit, and which would only acknowledge the full operations of the Holy Spirit, in those quarters where these new revelations of the Paraclete were received. According to this Montanist view, the true power for mart}Tdom was want- ing to others, because they did not surrender themselves to the operations of the Holy Spirit which were poured forth in all their fulness over the cluu'ches by the new prophets. This is tery manifest from the closing words of tlie book, to which we shall come in the sequel. ^ " Qui si forte Paraclctum non recipicndo, deductorcm omnis vcri- tatis merito adhuc etiam aliis qnaRstionibus obnoxii c.^tis." Cap. i. 2 As we may infer from the expression, "si forte/' &e. 2S4 DE FUGA IN PEESECUTIONE. Tei-tullian, in this inquiry, sets out from tlie question, Are the persecutions against the church an operation of the evil spirit, as many pei^sons maintained, but which the Gnostic ])asihdcs (only on another side) as well as Tertullian impugned, or are they, either immediately or mediately, a work of God, and take place under his direction 1 He endeavoui^s to prove, that although persecutions proceed from Satan, yet he can effect nothing against the will of God, and can onty act as his instrument. They take place, as he thinks, for a two- fold object ; to prove and purify true believers, and to make a separation between them and those who are only apparent believers. The former operation of persecutions he thus describes : " When is God more trusted but when he is more feared ? and when is that but in times of persecution 1 The church is struck with amazement. Then faith is more anxious in its undertakings and more regular in fasts, and watchings, and prayers, and humility, in diligence, in love, in holiness and in sobriety." Tertullian only sees weakness of faith, when in times of impending persecutions Christians hold their meetings less frequently and use gi'cater caution in order to escape the notice of the heathen. He says to them, " Know you not, that God is Lord of all 1 and if it be God's will, you will suffer persecution ; if it be not his will, then the heathen will be silent. Only believe : — thou believest in that God without whose will not a spaiTow falls to the ground. I think that we are of more value than many spaiTOws," But Tertullian's opponents certainly need not submit to this re- proach of weakness of faith. They could assent to everything which Tertullian siiys of Christian confidence in divine guid- ance, and yet maintain that they must do their part, as much as in tliem lay, not to awaken the suspicion and wrath of the heathen, and to maintain peace in the churches. The manner in which Tertullian applied a principle correct in itself, could not justify the conclusion, that men were to leave everything in God's hands, and make no use of human means. This sentiment was certainly connected with Montanist quietism. Tertullian quotes expressions of his opponents in which they a])peal to the necessity of doing their utmost while exercising trust in (Jod. " I do my part," says the representative of the (>l>l.ositc system, " I flee, lest I shJuld perish if I denied the faith. It depends on God to hviw^ me back n^ain from flight OE FUGA IN PERSFX'UTIONlil. ^85 wliGii he pleases.'" But Tertullian, who judged differcutly from the party he opposed respecting the relation of human action to the Divine will, charged them with the want of true faith in God, which would impel believers, not to flee, but to commit everything to God, w^hile they remained with confi- dence. He says, "Do we not acknowledge the power of God, that, as he can bring us back from flight, so also, if we do not flee, yea even if we walk in the midst of the people, he can protect us? How is this, that thou, in order to tlee, givcst God the gloiy of being able to bring thee back from flight; but thou dost not give him the glory when thou testifiest of him that thou doubtcst of'the power of his protection? Why dost not thou rather say with steadfast trust in God, I do what is my part ; I do not depart ; God, if he pleases, will protect me." But yet his opponents might answer in an evangelical sense, " I distrust not (jod's almightiness, but my own weak- ness. I know, indeed, that he can give me power to remain steadfast and faithful to him under all tortures ; but I do not venture to request this of him that he would grant me such power, until he places me in a situation from which I have no other means of escape. The example of my Lord admo- nishes me not to tempt my God, as long as other means ot deliverance are left me. If I find no deliverance in human means, then I know upon whom I must depend." This has been the principle of all thoughtful Christians, who hence have looked upon it as a punishment of insolent pride, when a Christian, who exposes himself to danger, afterwards falls a victim to it. Tn order to show the uselessness of fleeing from persecution, and that no one can avoid what is God's will, Tertullian adduces an example that in reality rather tells against him. One Rutilius had often saved himself by flight, and also endea- voured to purchase the connivance of the othcers who were sent in pursuit of him. At last he was unexpectedly seized, and brought before the governor. He underwent torture, but recovered, and had strength sufficient to die on the funeral pile. It is evident that this example might have been justly adduced in favour of the lawfulness of flight. Since this Rutilius (it might be said) had not trusted himself too 1 " Quod mcura est, fugio ; ne pcrcam si ncgavero, Illiiis est si Voluerit, etiam fugientein me rcducere in medium." Cap. v. 286 DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE. much, nor tempted God; but had humbly acted according to the Lord's directions in Matt. x. 23; the Lord granted him strength when he stood in need of it. ' TcrtuUian, in order to set aside the rule drawn from Christ's words, that "a man, if persecuted in one city, should flee to another," applies the hermeneutic canon, that no w^ords are to be taken in an unlimited universality, but that much depends on the circumstances imder which, and the persons to whom, and the particular reference with which, anything is said ;- and he correctly perceives that the directions which Christ at first gave to his apostles in reference to their preaching, were modified by the circumstances of the times, since it was of the last importance for all future ages that the apostles should lay the foundation of the church by preaching the Gospel. He knew how to avail himself of the fact that the direction the apostles received, "not to enter the cities of Samaria, nor go the way of the Gentiles," could only belong to the first period of their ministry. We see that Tertullian could discover what was true in the historical references of exposition, wdien he was not led away by some party interest. But though, on other occasions, he was aware that a more general maxim might be drawn from what was at first said with a peculiar, restricted reference ; yet here he makes no such application of the passage, but, involved in the im- mediate interest of controversy, confines himself to the tem- porar}'- meaning of the words, which, moreover, he explained in far too limited a manner. He maintains, that as soon as the Gospel had been published in Judea, the rule lost its application, and as a proof he adduces the example of Paul. That apostle, while this rule was still in force, saved himself by flight from Damascus ; but at a later period, no danger, however threatening, could deter him from undertaking his la«t journey to Jerusalem. But Tertullian did not take into consideration what he himself deemed necessary for the right understanding of Scripture — the peculiar circumstances under wliich this happened; that Paul was assured of a special Divine call, and satisfied with obeying this, left the event to God. And tliose persons who pleaded for the liberty of fleeing in ^ "Quiaproeccptiim adimy.levit, fugiens de civitate in civitatem," ' Tliat the *' census Domiui ct personas suas habuerit et tempora et caufcas." Cap, vi. DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE. 287 times of persecution, certainly never imagined that it would be lawful in contravention of a divine call. His "opponents appear to have appealed to the cxani[)le of Christ, who prayed to God that, if possible, the cup of sufier- ing might pass from him. Tertullian replied — It would be allowable for them to pray to God as Christ did, that they might be spared the cup of suffering, not fleeing, but enduring the conflict, and withal saying like him — " Not our will, but thine be done." But however just this might be, his o|)po- nents were not silenced by it, since they would agree with Tertullian, tliat men should commit all things to God's will, and be ready to subordinate their own to it. Fm'ther, his opponents appealed to the passage in Eph. iv. 27, according to the version used in the African churclies, "Ne locum malo detis." Tertullian justly remarked, that this passage referred to a totally ditferent subject, — the moderating of anger, that persons might not bo diuwu into sin by the evil spirit. 1 But his opponents drew from this passage — and perhaps not without reason — the general position, that we must not at any time roTroy ^Ldupui rw ^ta/SoAo;, — that we must not wilfully fall into temptations which it is in our power to avoid. They further appealed to Eph. v. 16, according to the existing ancient Latin version, "Redimendum tempus quia dies nequam sunt;" which passage — contrary, indeed, to the con- nexion— they thus explained : that by Christian prudence, per- sons should try to escape persecution, and preserve their lives. Tertullian more correctly understood it to mean, that by a wise course of conduct, they should, as it were, purchase the time as it passed away, as an opportunity for the practice of goodness. From the question respecting flight in times of persecution, Tertullian passed to another, closely connected with it. Taking advantage of the corrupt state of the Koman func- tionaries at that period, it had become usual for whole Chris- tian societies or individuals to pay the police or military who were sent after the Christians a certain sum of money, to leave them unmolested. The question might very i)roi)erly be raised, whether Christianity allowed the employment of an evil instrument for a good object, — whether the peace of the chm-ch might be purchased by bribery. In reference to this 1 Yet it is doubtful whether TertuUian had here in view viahts^ the evil one ; or malum — evil. OSS DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIOXE. subject, Tortullian says — "How unworthy is it of God and his salvation that thou shouldst redeem that man with money, whom Clu'ist has redeemed with his blood The Lord has redeemed him from the evil angels, from si^iritual wicked- ness, from the darkness of this world, from eternal judgment, from perpetual death. But thou makest terms for him with an informer, or a soldier, or some paltry officer, in an imder- hand, stealthy manner, — for him whom Christ purchased and manumitted before all the world." However beautifully this is expressed, Tertullian confounds things totally distinct; what relates to earthly arrangements, and what belongs to a far higher order. The Christian can, certainly, without detriment to his inward freedom, which is elevated far beyond all the shackles of earthly relations, submit to worldly ar- rangements in things that relate to the outer man. Yet it is very different when the point in question relates to an im- moral disgi-aceful means, which may with truth be described as inconsistent with the exalted dignity of a Christian. Ter- tullian's remark involves the requirement, that Christians should only employ such means for their repose as corre- spond to their own dignity — that they should seek to obtain only a legal freedom for the exercise of their worship. Thus Tertullian might protest against a practice by which Christians promoted and made use of immorality, and led others into an immoral course by a neglect of duty and receiving bribes. '' Here he could appeal to the example of Paul, who would not employ bribery in order to gain his release from the governor Felix. He also could justty call it disgraceful for Christian con- gregations, wlien in the list of the head of the police, among tliose who bargained for following a forbidden, immoral or disgraceful calling, even Christian churches could be found. - Tertullian, who as a Montanist was at isaue on many points with tlic clergy, was disposed to represtut the clergy, and especially the bishops, in an unfavourable light, of which wo have already seen an instance. And in this treatise he * " ^lilcs mo vcl delator vcl inimicua concutit, nihil Cresari exigens, imo conira facicns, cum Cliristianum, legibus humanis reum, meicede diiuittit." Cap. xii. ^ "Ncscio dolcndum an cruliesccndura sit, ciira in matricibus bene- ficiariorum et curiosonim inter tabcrnarios ct lanios, ct fures balneorum «t aleoncs ct lenonc?, Chriftiani quoquc vcctigalcs contineutur." Cap. xiil DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE. 289 reproached them for setting a bad example to their flocks, by timidly foi-saking them in times of persecution. " But wlieu those who stand at the head" (i. e. the deacons, presbyters, and bishops) " flee, how can the laity understand in what sense the Lord says, that his disciples should flee from one city to another? When the leaders flee, who of the common soldiers will listen to those who exhort them to stand their groimd in the field of battle ?'' ^ It might certainly happen that in many cases the clergy absconded through cowardice ; but the bishops, as we have remarked above, might liave good reason for withdrawing themselves awhile from their congregations, in order to preserve themselves for them and to obtain rest. But TertuUian, owing to his Montanist principles and the warmth of his temperament, was not capable of discriminating in such cases the difference of circumstances. He particularly reproached the clergy for employing those unworthy means which we have already noticed, and which he terms 7iu77i- maria fuga,^ in order, as they said, to procure rest for their congTCgations 1 '' Did the apostles," he says ironically, " give this form to the episcopacy with foresight, in order that they mio;ht securely enjoy their rule under the pretence of pro- curing peace 1 Such a peace, forsooth, did Christ procure when he returned to the Father, which is to be redeemed from the soldiery by presents at the satm-nalia !"' To the question, How then can we hold our religious assemblies, our meetings for worship? he answers, "Cer- tainly in the same manner as the apostles, who were safe through their faith, not through their money. Guard thyself by wisdom, not by bribery ; for thou wilt not be safe before the people, though thou hast bought thyself off from the militaiy." Indeed these instances of bribery only increased the exactions on the Christians, since many persons employed it as a means to extort money from them. The practice which on moral gi*ounds could not be sanctioned, proved to be equally objectionable on the score of prudence. " There- ' Cap. xi. • Cap. xii. 3 "Hanc episcopatui formam apostoli providentiua condiderunt, ut regno suo securi frui possent sub obtentu procurandi pacem," (this last word has evidently fallen out, as the following sentence shows.) " Scilicet enim talein pacem Christus ad Patrem rcgrediens mandavita militibua per Saturnalitia rcdimendam." Cap. xiii. VOL, II. U 290 DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE. foro employ only for thy safeguard, faith and wisdom ; if thou makest no nse of them, thou mayst lose thy redemption ; and if thou dost use them, thou Tvilt not want thy redemption. Lastly, if thou canst not hold meetings by day, thou ha&t the night, wlien the light of Christ is luminous against it. ^ Thou canst not go about to individuals ; let the church consist of three. Better not to see the multitudes that compose thy church for some time, than dispose of them by auction." Tertullian concludes in the spiritual pride of the Montanist party, who regarded all other Christians as belonging to the world, and believed that they alone were spiritually minded and possessed the Holy Spirit. " On this account," he says, after apologizing for the severity of his requirements, " the Paraclete was necessarily the leader into all truth, the exhorter to all endurance. They who receive him understand neither to flee nor to redeem themselves, having him who will be our advocate — as he will speak when we are examined, so he will assist us in suffering." These continued persecutions induced Tertullian to urge the obligation of steadfastly confessing the Christian truth, not as in his writings before mentioned in controversy with a party in the chm-ch, for here he had to treat of a subject in which he agreed with the members in general of the church, though in opposition to the Gnostics. But among these there were in this respect various opinions which Tert-ullian knew hardly how to distinguish, from the stand-point of his enthu- siastic zeal for martyrdom and his passionate polemics. Some contended, like a Heracleon or a Basilides, only against an excessive veneration for martyrs, and an over-valuation of martyrdom as an external and isolated act. It was far from thcu intention to restrict in general the duty of confession. But others, as the Pscudo-Basilidians whom Irenceus describes, and those against whom the treatise of Tertullian we are about to mention was directed, were really compelled, by the opposition wliich they made between the esoteric and exoteric Btand-point, to I'epresent confession before the heathen world as something not obligatoiy, and even useless, by which a person sun-endcrcd himself to death without necessity. The multitude, tlicy thought, could understand nothing at all of ' " ITabcR noctem, luce Christi luminosa adversus earn " is evidently tlic coircct rcadinjr. ' •' CONTRA GNOSTICOS SCORPIACE. 291 higher truth ; it must be kept concealed from them. Every- thing depended on internal devotion, not on external confes- sion. A blood-thirsty God could not be the tnie God. Tertullian says of such persons, that on first hearing tliem, as they manifested their sympathy with suffering Christians, it might have been supposed that they belonged to the l)cttcr- disposed among the heathens who testified their regard for the Christians. We see from these words of Tertullian tliat there were persons among the heathen who, untouched by tlie popular fanaticism, and not entangled in the principles of the Roman law, following a better feeling, witnessed with regret the persecutions against the Christians. Since those Gnostics accommodated themselves to the common church views in order to gain an entrance for themselves, they said, — " Christ has died once for us in order to free us from death. If he should desire that we should die again for him, does he expect his salvation from our death 1 How should God, who rejects the blood of animals in sacrifice, desire human sacrifices? Certainly he would rather have the repentance of a sinner than his death." Also here we recognise Tertullian as the representative of An- tignosticism, of the erroneous tendency diametrically opposed to the Gnostics. Here is exactly that over-valuation of martyr- dom, which regarded it as a second baptism — the haptisjnus sanguinis, as Tertullian calls it. This was connected with a twofold error, the false view of repentance, and of martyrdom. In all three points there was the same fundamental error of externality and of isolation, which arbitrarily seized upon one spepific point out of the whole. The view on which the whole was founded was, that by baptism, an individual received, once for all, a complete remission of sins — that ho became at once a pure man throughout. Whoever did not i:)reserve this purity, but defiled it again by sins into which he fell after baptism, w^ould require a new satisfaction for the divine jus- tice, and a new purification, since he had lost by his own neghgence, that Avhich had been granted him through tlie re- demptive sufi'erings of Christ, in connexion with liis baptism. Now, by the sufferings of maiiyrdom, the new satisfaction required is perfectly rendered, and tlie fallen person receives again complete purification ; henceforward he is a newly baptized man, and, as such, is raised after death to Paradise, 292 CONTRA GNOSTICOS SCORPIACE. instead of being, like others, in the intermediate state of Hades. Now, if baptism ^Yere placed in the right relation to rciicneration, as an act embracing the whole life, with all the individual points of repentance, fliith, and baptism taken iu together, it would have followed that this was not a final act concluded at once, but that the subjective appropriation of the objective salvation given through Christ, must advance through the whole Christian life, and martyrdom would be viewed in connexion with this purifying jjrocess of the whole life. The former view of martyrdom, simply as a new baptism, Tertullian might have had before his passing over to Montanism; the latter is connected, as we have seen, with that generally spread and fundamental error of externality^ But it was something different when Tertullian says that God came to the help of human weakness, and since he foresaw that many would perish after baptism, he left them one means of help in martyrdom. Still there appears to be something contained in this which could only be said from the Montanist stand- point. It is presupposed that those who sinned after baptism, that is, committed 2)eccata mortalia, must perish ; that no sure help could be promised them by repentance, as the church party maintained, but only in the second baptism of martyrdom. But here we find the strictly Montanist doc- trine of the second repentance, as we shall develop it further in another section.^ * Cap. vi. " Prospexerat et alias Deus imbecillitates conditionis huraanae, adversarii insidias, rerum fallacias, seculi rctia, etiam post lavacrum periclitaturam fidem, peritui'os plerosque post salutem, qui vesiitiim obsoletassent nuptialem, qui faculis oleum non prceparassent, qui requircndi per monies et saltus et humeris essent reportandi. Posuit igitur secunda solatia et extrema prsesidia, dimicationem mar- tyris et lavacrum sanguinis exinde securum .... Proprie enim marty- ril)ns nihil jam reputari potest, quibus in lavacro ipsa vita deponitur." The image of the shepherd who carries the lamb on his shoulders would be employed by the opponents of Montanism for the vindication of a repentance referring to all the sins committed after baptism, and suffi- cient for oiitaining absolution, and so far this passage would support the opinion that this treatise was written by Tertullian before he became a ]^Iont.anist, if we could so understand it, that by the " lavacrum san- fjuinis" the person who had sinned after baptism obtained the privilege of being restored to the absolute purity of the baptismal garment. But Tertullian in this passage speaks of God's having left this way for the Avcaknoss of men, since they would otherwise perish; it implies, therc- fyrc, that for tiic sins committed after baptism, and dissolving the CONTRA 6N0STIC0S SCORrlACE. 203 But the Gnostics found, since the convictions of men are often determined by their incHnations, more easy entrance because they made the conflict easy for hikewarm Cliristians in a trying time ; for it was a time of bloody persecution. "Some," says Tertullian, "are proved as Christians by fire, others by the sword, others, again, by wild beasts. Others hunger in prison after martyrdom, which they have already endured by blows and tortures. We ourselves are watclied from afar." On this account he considered it nccessaiy to counterwork their influence on weak Christians, for wliose safety he wrote his treatise entitled, " The Antidote to the Scoryions Bite' {Contra Gnosticos Scorpiace). What is licre said of persecutions, is indeed a chronological mark of the time in which Tertullian must liave already passed over to Montanism ; as he also says himself, that he wrote this book after his manifestly Montanist work against Marcion. Since he here treats of a subject in which he agreed with all parties in the church, and wrote against their common advei-saries, he had no occasion to make special mention of Montanist authorities and principles. Tertullian appeals to the enforcement of the duty of con- fession before the world contained in the Sermon on the Mount. To the objection that that discourse was addressed only to the apostles, and that no general obligation resting on all Christians could be deduced from it, Tertullian replies — that although these words primarily referred to the apo- stles, yet they applied, equally with tlie communication of- the Holy Spirit, to all Christians who were the fruits of the apostolic labours. Now, it was a point of importance in Montanism, to testify of the connexion between the apostolic and the succeeding age, as regarded the operations of the Holy Spirit, to oppose that broad line of demarcation Avhicli had been placed between the apostolic age and the follo^ying, and not to put so restricted an aim to the promise of the Paraclete ; meanwhile this was not by any means so charac- teristically Montanist, that it might not have proceeded baptismal covenant, no help could be left, which Tertullian before he was a Montanist could not say. The shepherd who carries tlic lamb ou his shoulders, is therefore the Redeemer who comes to aid sinners that have fallen after baptism, by their martyrdom. Cap. xii. "Sordca quidem baptismate abluuntur maculte vero martyrio caudulantur. 294 CONTRA GNOSTICOS SCORPIACE. simply from the suggestion of the Christian spirit in Tertul- lian. Those Gnostics, who, by adopting the principle of a deeper hidden sense of Scripture, opened the door for all kinds of arbitrary meanings, maintained that in those pas- sages which treated of the duty of confession, another kind of confession was intended than that before earthly inilers. These passages related to the confession of the soul, ascending after death through the kingdom of the Demiurgus, the regions of the various star-spirits, into the kingdom of light or into heaven, — the confession that it must courageously make before the higher powers that would obstruct it in its way, in order by its magical power to obtain a free passage from them. Only those souls who were not afraid freely to con- fess Christ before these powers of the star-world, would be received by him into his kingdom. Such expressions ot Christ, they said, were totally misunderstood by carnal men. Tcrtullian, in answer to these absurdities, says — "If this were an allegory, or a parable, the reality must be something different from what is expressed in the words. But now we see everything which is indicated by such expressions, actually come to pass. Behold, we are hated of all men for his name's sake, as it is wiitten. We are betrayed by our nearest rela- tives, as it is wiitten. We are dragged before rulers and examined ; we are tortured and confess, and we are executed ; and all this, as it is written." "This is the pei-version of faith," he says, " not to believe what is proved, and to take for granted the unproved." He speaks forcibly against such principles of interpretation as would make Holy Writ the sport of human caprice. "Who ought to know," he asks, " the marrow of the Scriptures better than the school itself of Christ? than those whom the Lord chose for his disciples, in order to teach them all things, and whom he ordained as our teachers that we might learn all things from them ? To whom should he have imfolded the figurative meaning of his discoui'ses but to Peter, James, and John, and afterwards to Paul ?" In order to put tlie apostle Paul on a level with those apo- stles whom Christ allowed to witness his transfiguration, he describes him as having been raised by Christ to Paradise during his lifetime (2 Cor. xii. 2), to which others coidd only be admitted by martyrdom. " Do they write otherwise than as they thought; teachers of falsehood, not of truth?" It is CONTRA GNOSTICOS BCORriACE. 295 remarkable, how TcrtuUian misunderstood the passage in 1 John iv. 18, and referred the fear which is there said to be cast out by love, not to the fear which has for its object God and his punishments, but the fear of man, wliich might lead to a denial of Christ. The misunderstanding of this passage, which is to be found in other parts of his writings, perhaps may be accounted for on the ground that the idea of such a love as is there described, w^as not congenial to his spirit. TcrtuUian guards against a too indefinite application of the apostle Paul's words respecting obedience to governors, by introducing the limitation which is laid down by Paul him- self in Rom. xiii. 7, that we should " render to all their dues ; tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ;" in other words, " Render to Coesar the tilings that are Ca3sar's, and to God the things that are God's ;" but " Man belongs to God alone," and therefore Diust be dedicated to him alone. Peter indeed commanded to " honour the king," but only so far as he kept within the proper hmits of his office — as he stood aloof from claiming divine honours. Father and mother also are to be loved, but not to be set on a level with God. And a man is not to love himself more than God. After adducing the examples of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, he concludes with these powerful words, — *' If a Prodicus or a Valentinus had been present, and had suggested that there was no need to confess before men because God did not thirst for human blood, nor Christ require any recom- pense for his sufift rings as if he himself must obtain salvation by them, immediately those words would have been heard from the servant of the Lord which were addressed by the Lord to Satan, ' Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offence unto me.' " (Tertullian confounded in his memory Matt, xvi. 23, and Matt. iv. 10; "For it is written, Thou slialt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.") It was probably at the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Caracalla, about the year 211, that the persecution of the Christians by the proconsul Scapula induced Tertulhau to write an apologetic and hortatory address to that func- tionary. He begins in the following manner : — " It is not that we are terrified, or greatly dread those things which we suffer from ignorant men; seeing that we have joined our- selves to this sect, taking of coui'se upon ourselves its condi- 296 AD SCAPULAM. tionS; and approach these contests, having pledged our vei-y lives ; desiring to obtain those things which God has promised in return, and fearing to suffer those things which he threatens to a contrary course of life. Finally, we conflict with all your cruelty, rushing of our own accord to the charge, and rejoice more when condemned than when acquitted. We have sent you this memorial, not fearing for ourselves, but for you and all our enemies, not to say our friends. For so our religion commands us, to love even our enemies, and to pray for them who persecute us, that this our goodness may be perfect and peculiar, not common ; for to love friends is common to all ; but to love enemies belongs to Christians alone. We then who grieve for your ignorance, and pity human error, and look toward to futm-e things, and behold the signs of them that daily threaten, are under the necessity of forcing our- selves in this manner to lay before you things which you will not hear publicly. '' We worship one God, whom je all know by nature ; at whose lightnings and thunders ye tremble, in whose benefits ye rejoice. But other beings ye think to be God, whom we know to be daemons." We perceive here that Tertullian pre- supposes the consciousness of one God as undeniable by all men. He then appeals to the right of universal liberty of conscience, which, as we have already seen, was first distinctly recognised by means of Christianity, and says, — " Yet it belongs to man's natural right and privilege that each should worship as he thinks fit; nor does the religion of one man injiu-e or profit another. But it is no part of religion to compel men to religion, which ought to be taken up volun- tarily, not of compulsion, seeing that sacrifices also are required of a willing mind. Thus, although ye compel us to sacrifice, ye will render no service thereby to your gods ; for they will not desire sacrifices from unwilling givers, unless they be contentious. But our God is not contentious. Finally, the true God bestows his gifts equally on the profane and on his own people." Tertullian liolds up as warning cxami^les to tlie proconsul, the misfortunes which had befallen many persecutors of the Christians in Afi'ica. Well might many of these persecutors — for similar examples fi-equently occur in the history of the spread of Chiistianity among heathen nations— be brought to At) SCAPULAM. 297 the conviction that they had roused against themselves tho anger of a powerful Divine ]^eing by their persecution of Christianity. TertuUian saw in the public cahunities winch followed the persecutions of the Christians, divine judgments, and announced them as such to the proconsul, wliose con- viction, however, was not effected by this means. The burial- places of the Christians were special objects of the popular fury ; for as a secta iUicita they had no legal right to possess them, and from their meetings at the graves they were wont to return with invigorated energy of faith. Thus at an out- break of popular fury the cry was raised, "Away with the areas of the Christians !" by which was meant their places or interment. When a season of sterility followed, TertuUian saw in it a fulfilment of that demand in a different sense. " When they cried out concerning the open spaces of our burying-place, ' Let there be no area%' there were no arece to themselves, for they gathered not their harvest."^ In a nocturnal phenomenon of a fire on the Avails of Carthage, and a former thunderstorm, Tertidlian beholds the sign of a special divine judgment, and says, " All these are the signs of the wrath of God Avhich we must necessarily, as we are aljle, proclaim and teach, while we pray that it may be only local ; for the universal and final judgment they shall feel at its own time, who in any other Avay interpret these samples of it." He adds, alluding probably to a severe illness which the pro- consul suffered, " We wish that to yourself it may be a warning, that immediately after your condemnation of Mavilus of Adrumetum to the beasts, your affliction followed, and now from the same cause the stoppage of blood," ^ (or, the warning by blood.) " But remember, we who fear thee not wish not to terrify thee ; but I would that we could save you all, by warning you j.u} deopaxur." He calls upon him at least to exercise as much humanity towards the Christians, as after all the strictness of the laws was permitted him. ¥oy according to the laws that existed since the time of tlie Emperor Trajan, those who avowed themselves Christians, and would not let it be thought that they would be untrue to their faith, were condemned to death. Tortures were only 1 " Arese non sint, arese ipsorum non fucruut, mcA^es enim suas non cgcrunt." . . „ n 2 " Et nunc ex eadem causa intcrpellatio sanguinis, tap. m. 298 AD SCAPULAM. to be applied, as in other cases, in order to extort a confession from suspected parties who denied that they were Christians. Tertulhau appealed to the fact, that the President of Leon in Spain, although a persecutor of the Christians, yet in confor- mity with the ancient edicts used only the punishment of the Bword. As the Christians often met with worse treatment from the cruelty or fanaticism of the populace than they would have suffered by legal infliction, many magistrates relaxed the strictness of the laws in their favour. Tertullian adduces examples of this sort : persons who were otherwise noted for harshness manifested their regret at being obliged to act in such matters, and sought to aid the Christians by various expedients ; for instance, there was one who, when a Christian was dragged before his tribunal by the populace, let him go, telling him that it would be a breach of the peace ^ if he complied with the popular demand. To another a Christian was sent with a written specification of his offence, (elogium,) from which he saw that he had been suddenly seized and arrested by the military. He tore the document in pieces, saying, that according to his instructions {secundum man- datum) it was illegal to receive an accusation without the name of the accuser. There is a reference here to Trajan's rescript, which contained such ; a prohibition ; and we learn from this incident that it was the general rule in such cases. Further, Tertullian gives an account of a proconsul in Lesser Asia in the reign of the Emperor Commodus, before whose tribunal when he began to persecute the Christians, all the Christian inhabitants of the city appeared. Alarmed at their Dumbers, he sentenced only a few to death, and said to the othei-s, " Miserable men ! if ye wish to die, ye have j)r.€cipices and halters r- Tertullian then goes on to say, — " If the same thing should be done here, what wilt thou do with so many thou- sands of human beings, so many men and women, of eveiy sex, of every age, of every degree, giving themselves up to thee? ^^ "Qui Christianum quasi tumultuosum civibus suis satisfacere dimisit." A difl'ercnt interpretation is possible according as the word iumvltuosum is taken as the neuter or the masculine. We have explained it in the former sense. According to the second the passage would mean, be regarded him only as a noisy turbulent person, and without troubling himself any further would leave him in the hands of his fellow-citizens. AD SCArULAM. 299 How many fires, how many swords would be needed ! What will Carthage itself, which thou must decimate, endure, when every man recognises there his own kinsfolk and comrades, when he beholds perchance men and matrons of thy own rank, and all the chief persons, and even the kinsfolk and friends of thy own friends ! Spare then thyself, if not us ; spare Carthage, if not thyself ; spare the province which as soon as thy design was perceived, became exposed to false accusations both from the soldiery and from each man's private enemies. We have no master save God alone, lie is before thee and cannot be hidden ; but he is one to whom thou canst do nothing. But those whom thou thinkest to be thy masters are men, and must themselves one day die. Yet this sect shall never fail, for know that it is the more built up when it seems to be stricken down. For every one who beholds so much endurance, being struck with some misgiving, is kindled with the desire of inquiring what there is in the cause, and when he has discovered the truth respecting it, forthwith he follows it himself." ^ 1 Cap. V. TAUT II. Tin-: SECOND CLASS OF TEUTULLIAN's ^YRITL\CS. wiirnxGS WHICH relate to chkistian and chuuch life, AND TO ECCLESIASTICAL DL'^CIPLINE. SECTION I. PUK-MOXTANIST VKITIXGS. "Wk begin this series with Tcrtullian's beautiful treatise De Patlcntia (On Patic-nce). The predominant s])irit of love and gentleness wiiich animates this work, strikes us at once as not corresponding to the harshness of Montanism. Yet we cannot accept this as a proof that it belongs to the pre- !Montanist class ; for even as a Montanist there were intervals in Tertullian's life in which the peculiarly Christian element gained the ascendancy over the gloom of Montnnism; or possibly he might have passed from a more rugged to a more moderate Montanism. Still w^e shall find in this work some ccrtixin marks of pre-Montanism. The peculiar subject of it neccssai-ily brings out more prominently the characteristic distinction of the pure Christian stand-point. This treatise is important in the history of Christian ethics ; for it is the lii-st which discusses at length the nature of a virtue that occuiiies an important place among the cardinal virtues of CIn-istianity, and forms a striking feature in that new^ ethical spirit which emanated from Christianity, and is closelv con- nected with the peculiarities of the Cln'istian fliith. "if wo trace back the idea of this virtue to that of the ancient gi'oup of cardinal virtues, it will correspond to drcpda ov fortitndo. Tt is the more passive in relation to the predominantly active, wliich is the fundamental idea of the term, but both' are one in the ethical outline of the Christian stand-point, — ^that'one DE PATIENTIA. 301 suvrciidcr of the life to God which is the same in doiii^- and snffering ; both are one in the outline of the Christian conflict with tlie world, of the victory over the world which cviriccs itself in doing and suffering. Both are included in the New Testament idea of utto/zoj'//. But on the ancient stand-point of self-complacency and self-sufhcicncy the idea of active conflict was predominant ; in that virtue the passive element was suppi-essed ; as tlie idea of humility was altogether foreign to antiquity. But in the Christian mode of contemplation, the passive element is ]-en.dcred more prominent in connexion with humility, surrender to God, and a holy love. It is among the leading principles of Christianity tiiat Christ by suffering overcame the world, and that believers, following his example, must overcome by suffering. The condition of the church at that period aroused the consciousness of the call to overcome by suffering, and how the suffering church had in times past overcome the world, I5ut suffering is naturally connected with doing. Of that peculiar leading principle of the Christian disposition we find an animated delineation in this treatise. It certainly owes nothing to the pcc\diar temperament of Tertidlian. His naturally rugged unbending disposition must have disposed him rather to self-willed action, to a proud defiance of his lot; according to his own peculiar nature he might most readily be hurried away into self-willed impatience and precipitate action ; it was only by a hard, unremitting conflict that he could become master of his rude refractory nature. He felt this himself, as he says, — " I confess before God my Lord, that I venture, rashly enough, if not shamelessly, to write concerning patience, for tiie practice of which I am altogether unfit, as a man in whom there is no good thing ; whereas it is fitting that they who attempt to set forth and commend anything, should first themselves be found in the practice of that thing, and should direct the energy of their admonitions by the authority of their own conduct, so that their word need not l)lush for their deficient deeds. And I wish that blushing woidd bring its own remedy, so that the shame of not showing forth in our- selves that which we go about to advise for others, might school us into showing it forth ; wei-e it not that the great- ness of some good things, as well as of evils, so overbears our powers that the grace of the Divine Spirit can alone work in 302 DE PATIENTIA. US for the comprehension and performance of it. For that ■which is the most good is the most in God's hands, and no other than he who possesses, dispenses to each as he will." As to these words a question arises, whether, as Rosselt and Von Colin think, they have an impress of Montanism. Cer- tainly we must admit that they contain more than the expression of the general Christian sentiment, that all good proceeds from the operation of the Holy Spirit that animates believers. They contain, no doubt, a distinction of degrees; the higher the kind of good is, so much more must the divine agency predominate. There are, moreover, in the Christian life many gifts of grace of so high a kind, that nothing in them depends on human self-activity, but everything on the divine influence — Avithout human agency they proceed alone from the will of God — he imparts them to some, and not to others. This is certainly more than would be admitted by the general Christian consciousness of that period. We find here a human passivity which corresponds to the Montanist view of inspiration, in which man remains altogether passive, and to the Montanist tendency in general, which causes the human to retire before the divine. Yet we are by no means authorized to maintain that the admission of certain in- dividual gifts of grace, of such a kind, is explicable only from Montanism. If, in this treatise, we find no other marks of Montanism, but rather those of an opposite kind, we must attribute what has been quoted, to those sentiments in Ter- tuUian before he became a Montanist, that showed a certain affinity to the spirit of Montanism, and afterwards furnished a point of connexion for it. We recognise in it the peculiar tendency of the Christian spirit in Tertullian, which, being rooted in his whole Christian personality, would have made him the forerunner of Augustine, if that peculiar tendency which the transforming power of the Divine Spirit had allowed to be specially prominent, had not been still more developed in him by the influence of Montanism. This is also shown by the mode in which Tertullian, in this treatise, describes faith as the operation of God, in the words, " His quibus credere datum est." While Tertullian, therefore, expresses the consciousness how f\\r he was from corresponding to the ideal which he wished to describe, he says—" It will bo a consolation to me. to reason DE PATIENTIA. 30.3 about that which it is not permitted to enjoy ; hkc thoso f-ic-k persons who, while they lack health, know not how to he silent about its blessings. In like manner, I, Avretchcd man as I am, ever sick with the fever of impatience, must needs sigh for and invoke, and discuss that healthy state of patience which I possess not, when I call to mind, and in the contem- plation of my own weakness ruminate on the thouglit, that the good health of faith and soundness in the Lord's religion are not easily attained by any one unless patience lend licr aid." Tertullian well knew how to distinguish Christian patience from the cold resignation of a stoic, and from tlic stupid unfeeling equanimity of a cynic. " This doctrine," he says, "represents God himself as the example of patience, first, as the Being who scatters the dew of his light equally over the just and the unjust, who suffers the offices of the seasons, the services of the elements, and the tributes of the whole creation to come alike to the worthy and the unworthy And this instance, indeed, of divine patience being, as it were, afar off, may perchance be reckoned among those things that are too high for us. But what shall we say of that which has, in a manner, been handled among men openly in the world ?"^ Thus Tertullian recognises here, as also in other references in the revelation of the di^dne attributes antecedent to Christianity, a pointing to the fuller representation of the image of God in Christ. In the incarnation of the divine Logos, and the act of his scif- humihation from the beginning, Tertullian sees an image of patientia, and the whole life of Clarist appears to him as the continuous revelation of that principle from which his appear- ance in humanity itself proceeded. " God suffers himself to be conceived in the womb of a mother, and abides the time; and being born, endures to grow up into youth ; and being an adult, is not eager to be known, but puts a further sliglit upon himself, and is baptized by his own servant, and repels the attacks of the tempter by words only. When from the Lord he became the Master, teaching man to escape death, having well learned the forgiving spirit of offended patience, ' he strove not, he cried not, nor did any one hear his voice in the streets ; a bruised reed he broke not, the smoking aax he quenched not.' He rejected none who wished * Cap. iii. init. 304 DE PATIENTIA. to adhere to Iiim ; he despised no one's table or house. He poured out water to wash his disciples' feet. He despised not publicans and sinners. He was not wroth with the city that refused to receive him, when even his disciples wished that fire from heaven should hastily descend on the insolent town. He healed the u.nthankful, and gave place to those who laid snares for him. This were but little, if he had not had even his betrayer with him, without constantly pointing him out. But when he was delivered up, when he Avas led as a sheep to the sacrifice, he opened not his mouth any more than a lamb under the hands of the shearer. He whom, if he had wished, at one word, legions of angels from heaven would have attended, would not approve of a disciple's avenging sword. The patience of the Lord was wounded in the person of Malchus He who had purposed to hide himself in the form of a man, imitated nothing of man's impatience. Herein especially, ye Pharisees, ye ought to have recognised the Lord : such patience as this no man could exercise. The greatness of these proofs of patience, is for the nations a cause for refusing belief, but for us a reason and a building up of faith." An ingenious thought ! Those who from the stand-point of faith contemplated the life of Christ, recognised in that j)atientia as it was never found in humanity before Christ, the true impress of the divine, the moral glory of the Divine Being revealing itself beneath its covering ; and thus the servant form of the sufferer who bore all sufferings patiently, the self-emptying of divine power in patientia, becomes an incentive to unbelief for those who can only recognise the divine in superhuman ranlv and power, and who are not at home in the sphere of Christian contemplation. Tertullian describes 2KUientia as the soul of the genuine imitation of Christ, as well as the Christian cardinal virtue which distinguishes the New Testament stand-point from that of the Old. He finds this particularly expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. He recognises in that discourse a liighcr law substituted for that of the Old Testament, which fulfils in a higher manner whatever it takes from the Old Testament. As fii-st by Christ the living image of j^ctiientia had been given, so first by (Christianity was the requirement made for such a cardinal virtue ; in place of that law of retaliation, which the Old Testament allowed to exist, that DE PATiKXTiA. ;;().5 perfect love, wliich endures all things, wliicli expels nil im- 2mtie)itia, and even the wish for retaliation, was aj)pointe(l. In this reference, Tertullian says — *• Christ has appointed patience as a help for enlarging and fulfilling the law, becauso this alone had been wanting to the doctrine of righteousness. For in times past they demanded eye for eye and tootli for tooth, and rendered with usury evil for evil. Patience was not yet upon earth, for faith was not; impatience, meanwhile, made use of the opportunities of the law ; it was easy while the Lord and Master of patience was absent. But wlieu he afterwards appeared, and joined the grace of faith with patience, from that time it has not been lawful to provoke even by a word, nor to say — ' Thou fool!' without danger of the judgment The law has gained more than it lost ; for Christ says — ' Love your enemies, and bless them that curse you, and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be tho sons of your Father in heaven.' " Tertullian further points out, that patience must manifest itself in the renunciation of all earthly things, " Covetous- ness consists not only in the desire for that which is another's, for that which appears to be our own is another's ; for nothing strictly speaking is ours, since all things are God's, whose also we are ourselves. We seek what is another's when we bear impatiently the loss of what is another's. Whoever is disturbed by impatience for a loss, by preferring earthly to heavenly things, sins immediately against God ; for the spirit which he has received from God, he distrusts for the sake of earthly things. Let us willingly, therefore, lose the things of earth, and keep heavenly things. Let the whole world perish, if only I gain patience." "Nor is that kind of impatience excusable," he says, in another part, " when we have lost our fiiends, and some feeling of sorrow is pleaded for. Regiu-d must be paid to the apostle's injunction, 'Let us not sorro\r as others that have no hope,' (1 Thess. iv. 13,) and rightly. For if we believe in Christ's resurrection, we beheve in our own — we, for whom he both died and rose again. Therefoii), since the resurrection of the dead is certain, there is no room for gi-ief on account of death, no room for the impatience of grief. For why dost thou mourn, if thou dost not bclievo that thy friend has perished? Why dost thou impatiently bear his being taken away for a while who thou believcst VOL. II. X 306 I>E PATIENTIA. will return 1 AVliat thou tliinkest death, is setting out on a journey. He who goes before is not to be gi-ieved for, but lono-ed for, and this longing is to be tempered with patience. For* why dost thou feel excessively for his departure wliom thou wilt soon follow? Impatience after this sort is a bad omen of our hope, and is treachery towards our faith. And M-c injure Christ when, as his people are called away, we do not take it with equanimity, as if they w^ere objects of pity. ' I desire,' says the apostle, ' to be taken back and to be with the Lord.' How much better does he show the wish of Christians ! Therefore, if we grieve impatiently for those w^ho have obtained their wish, we do not wish to obtain it ourselves,"^ Tertullian then points out how the spirit of Christian patience should be manifested in the treatment of fallen brethren, who by gi'ievous sins had broken the baptismal covenant. ^ " We must not remain a single day without patience. And since it guides every kind of salutary discipline, what wonder if it ministers also to repentance that comes to the succour of the fallen, when in the case of a matrimonial separation for some cause which allows a man or woman to continue in a state of widowhood — this (patience) waits, this desires, this prays for their salvation as for those who will one day repent. How much good does it bring to both ! — it hinders the one from adultery, it improves the other. Thus it appears in those holy examples of patience in the Lord's parables. The patience of the shepherd seeks and finds the wandering sheep. For impatience would easily despise a single sheep. But patience undertakes the labour of seeking, and the patient bearer carries the neglected sinner on his shoulders. The patience of the father also receives and clothes and feeds that prodigal son, and excuses him to the impatience of the angTy brother. He therefore who had been lost is saved because he repented, and his repentance was not lost because it met with patience. For what is love, the highest pledge of faith, the trea.sure of the Christian name which the apostle eulogises with all the powers of the Holy Spirit, unless trained by the discipline of patience?" The passage we have quoted on repentance is of special importance in deciding the question whether Tertullian wrote this work as a Montanist. AVe have already seen that from ^ Cap. ix. 2 c.^p, ^11 . DE TATIENTIA. 307 the stand-point of Montanism the peccafa mnrfnJia committed after baptism were regarded as incapable of ecclesiastical abso- lution. Now, if in the above passage the contrary is implied, this would be a certain sign that the treatise was composed before TertuUian joined the Montanists. ]jut two exceptions may be taken against this conclusion : first, it may be sjiid that in that passage the repentance spoken of is not for j;ec- cata mortalia, but for the so-called ^^(joca^a venalia ; or, secondly, it may be maintained (as has been done by Nosselt and Von Colin) that the reference is not to the absolution of the church which might be granted for such sins, but only to the possibility of divine forgiveness. The Montanist never denied that even those persons who had sinned so grievously after baptism must be exhorted to repent. Accorchng to their views there was therefore always room for the manifes- tation of 2^(iii^^itia in their conduct towards the fallen ; only the divine forgiveness of sins which they had once trifled with, could not be again promised, — absolution in the name of the church could not be imparted to them. But as to the first supposition, it is evident that not merely small sins, but the so-called peccata mortalia are here spoken of; for adultery is expressly named, which belongs to the latter class. Moreover, TertuUian describes in general the sins of that class which without repentance must issue in the perdition of those who commit them. As to the second sup- position, the manner in which TertuUian expresses himself implies the certainty that salvation may be attained through repentance. The whole tone of his discourse proves that he is spcaldng of the succour rendered by patience, by which the follen are led to repentance, and at last made partakers of the forgiveness of sins. It appears that TertuUian wished to con- trast the ^;a^i>72^«a, in the matter of repentance, with the iiiqKitientia of the too strict. The impatience of the elder brother in the parable reminds him of the want of forbearing patience in too strict a party ; and it is worthy of notice that he adduces as instances of patience exactly those parables the application of which to the point agitated in the church ou the subject of repentance, he combated in his later Montanist writings. Still, it h:as been objected, that the ;Mont- a Montanist, Tertullian could believe that this might be infeiTcd from the passages in the Gospels compared with 1 Cor. vii. 11. Such a view would harmonize better with the stern character of his piety, which led him on all occa- sions to take the more rigid side, and with his ideal concep- tion of the marriage union among Christians ; so that instead of our being obliged to explain and defend his statements on the ground of his Montanism, we should rather find in this earlier tone of his sentiments a point of connexion for his later Montanist opinions. The same explanation may be given, when Tertullian commends as an effect of j^ciH^ntia, that a widow declines marrying again, without rendering it necessaiy to suppose that he regarded such a second marriage as in itself unchristian. He simply classes this among those things which denote a higher degree of Christian perfection, but can by no means be considered as absolutely enjoined. This applies also to his high estimate of celibacy, connected with a misconception that early arose from a too literal inter- pretation of the blessing pronounced by Christ on those who abstained from maiTiage for the kingdom of heaven's sake. The same may be said of his representing patientia in the ascetic life as evincing a higher stage of Christian perfection. This also was a tendency of the Christian life preceding Mon- tanism, which, as we have already remarked, might have been easily produced in the first opposition of Christianity to the world. On the other hand, we find a mark of non-Montanism m the manner of his describing the operation of _?ja^«>7<^za in times of persecution. " The patience of the flesh fights in perse- cutions. If flight urges, the flesh fights against the discomforts of flight.^ If even the prison oppresses, the flesh is in chains, the flesh is in tlie stocks, the flesh is on the bare gi'ound, and in that poverty of light and in that penury of the world. But wlien the Christian is led forth to the trial of fclicitv, to the DK TATIENTIA. 3(39 opportunity of the secoiul baptism, to the ascent itself of the divine seat, no patience is of more value than that of the hody." TertuUian here describes the successive stages in which jxiti- entia verifies itself under persecution. The highest stage is that of martyrdom. But he does not require that a ('hristian should give himself up to martyrdom. He considers even flight under persecution, by which the Christian at once fullils the dnty of preserving his life and of keeping the faith, as a Christian act, by which patieutia is proved. A I^Iontanist W'ould certainly not thns have expressed himself. Had TertuUian been at this time a Montanist, could he have omitted, as he described the progress from the Old Tes- tament to the New in jxitiejitia, to mention what was allied to it in the Montanist connexion of ideas, the still further i)ro- gress • in it made by the new revelations of the Paraclete ? He closes the treatise wdth a beautiful and graphic delineation of patience and its agency : — '- She fortilies faith, guides peace, aids love, promotes humility, waits for penitence, affixes the seal to a full confession ;" (no doubt llojxo\6yr]mQ is here spoken of as belonging to church-repentance, and TertuUian would hardly have so expressed himself if he had not admitted a repentance which would lead to absolution ; if, therefore, he had not at that time assented to the current church prin- ciples ;) — " she controls the flesh, preserves the spirit, bridles the tongue, holds back the hand, treads underfoot tempta- tions, drives away scandals, consummates martyrdom, consoles the poor man, moderates the rich, strains not the weak, wears not out the strong, delights the believer, invites the heathen, commends the slave to his master, and his master to God ; adorns the woman, approves the man ; is loved in a boy, is praised in a youth, is honoured in the aged, is beautiful in every sex, in every age. Come now ! if we can describe her looks and demeanour. Her countenance is tranquil and placid ; her forehead clear and contracted by no wrinkle of grief or anger; her eyebrows cheerfully imknit, her eyes directed downwards in humility, not in grief; her mouth is sealed^with the honour of taciturnity ; her colour, such as belongs to the unanxious and the innocent ; lier head is fre- quently shaken at the devil with a smile of defiance ; lier bosom is covered with a white garment, fitting close to the bodv, not blown about nor soiled ; for she sits on the throne 310 DE ORATIONE. of his most mild and gentle spirit who is not gathered in the •whirlwind, nor darkens in the cloud, but is of tender serenity, open and simple, whom Elias saw at the third time. (1 Kings xix. 11.) For where God is, there is his foster-daughter, Patience. When, therefore, the Spirit of God descends. Patience is his inseparable companion. If we admit her not with the Spirit, will he always remain with us 1 Nay, I know not whether he will continue any longer — without his companion and handmaid he must necessarily feel pained at all times and in all places. Whatever his enemy inflicts, he cannot bear it alone, wanting the instrument of beai'ing it. This is the method, this the discipline of patience, this a work celestial and truly Christian ; not like the patience of the nations of the earth, false and shameful." After contrasting divine patience with its caricature in the endurance practised by the wicked, he concludes with saying, " Let us love the patience of God, the patience of Christ. Let us repay to him what he has himself paid for us. Let us oifer to him tho patience of the spirit, the patience of the flesh, we that believe in the resun-ection of the flesh and of the spirit." In respect of that mild and liberal spirit which was at the greatest remove from the Montanist stand-point, the treatise on Prayer (De Oratlone) is most akin to that on Patience {pe Patientia). When we distinguish in TertuUians life epochs of a freer and milder, as well as of a more severe and contracted spirit, we must either suppose that his stern and rough natm-e was at first more completely subdued by the transforming spirit of Christianity, but that it afterwards, revived, was the means of leading Tertullian in his concep- tions of Christianity to Montanism, and under that system attained to still greater vigom-; — according to these internal marks we should place the treatise on Prayer in this class of Tertullian's writings, let it follow the treatise on Patience, and regard botli as productions of this first epoch; — or, we must admit, that Tertullian at a later period had stripped ofl" his Montanism and had become more mild and liberal in his Christian disposition; then these two treatises would belong to the later epoch. We might deem the latter supposition to be psychologically probable, if it only had a historical basis. Meanwliile it is questionable whether we are justified iu distinguishing according to such internal marks, various DE ORATIONE. 311 epochs in the Christian development of the man ; whether w(^ ought not rather to assume that there were some special moments when the transforming principle of Christianity liad the ascendency — as in the life of every one certain moments may occur wdien the Christian spirit penetrates more freely and manifests itself in a more generous elfusion. If owever that may he, this treatise on Prayer is an important memo- rial of a spirit not confined within the limits of Montanism. He was impelled by his living zeal for internal practical Christianity, to compose this work, especially in order to exhibit by an analysis of the Lord's Prayer the essence of Christian prayer, to point out tlie importonce of prayer fjr Christians, to describe the right disposition from which Christian prayer must proceed, and to warn against several superstitious tendencies of heathen and Jewish origin which had mingled with Christianity. " Om- Lord Jesus Christ," so TertuUian begins, " pre- scribed for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer. For it behoved in this case also, to lay up new wine in new skins, and to sew a new piece on a new garment." The peculiar character of the Christian stand- point must, as TertuUian thinks, be especially apparent in the method of prayer. Here we see how he distinguished the two stand-points of religious development in Judaism and Christianity. He says that in part the Old Testament stand- point was altogether removed, as in the instance of Circum- cision ; in part its defects supplied, as in other parts of the law ; in part fulfilled, as in prophecy ; and in part carried on to completion, as in the Christian faith itself.' He therefore assumes here a continuous development of the faith from the Old Testament to the New. All has been transformed from the carnal to the spiritual. These are the ideas by which TertuUian rises above himself, and had he pursued them to their logical consequences he would have been led to a more correct conception of many particulars, and preserved from that mingling of the Old and New Testament stand-i)(>int3 which already had become too prevalent. He considers John the Baptist as the transition-point from the Old Testament 1 "Cetcrum quicquid retro fuerat aut demutatiim est,ut circumcisio; aut suppletum, ut reliqua lex; aut impletum, ut prophetia; aut pci> fectum, ut fi ies ipsa." Cap. i. 312 DE ORATIOXE. development to the New. He had drawn up a particular form of prayer for his disciples, suited to his jjeculiar stand- point ; yet everything connected with John was only a pre- paration for the appearance of Christ, and in him must everything terminate. So because John's form of prayer belonged only to such a preparative transition-point, it could not be retained. Referring to this, he snjs of the relation of John's stand-point to Christ's appearance generally, that " the whole work of the forerunner with the Spirit itself must pass over to the Lord." We find here already the germ of those peculiar views which Tertullian afterwards developed more fully as a Montanist, that as the operation of the Divine Spirit in John was only preparatory and fragmientary, this Spirit departed from him when He appeared in whom dwelt the fulness of the Spirit, and hence it happened that he who by the illumination of the Spirit had at first testified of Jesus as the Messiah, became perplexed about him. But had Ter- tullian been at this time a Montanist, he could not, vvhen treating of the various stages of development, have omitted to mention the last, perfecting the whole by the revelations of the Paraclete. Tertullian then proceeds to consider the directions relative to praying that precede the Lord's Prayer, and the prayer itself in its separate parts. He first notices the exhortation to pray in secret. This should serve, as he says, to press upon us the belief that the eye and ear of Almighty God is present in secret, and to promote that modesty of faith which would cause us to offer our devotions to him alone whom we believe to see and hear everyv,-here. He then comes to Christ's injunction not to use many words in prayer, which is con- nected with the preceding, that men should not apply to the Lord with a host of words, since it cannot be doubted that he will provide for his own people of his own accord. He discovers heavenly wisdom in presenting such a rich fulness of thought in so few words. We may, he says, call the Lord's Prayer in fact an epitome {hreviarium) of the whole Gospel. He then goes on to the Lord's Prayer itself " This," he says, "begins with a testimony to God, and the dignity of faith. That we can call God our Father is gained for us by faith, for it stands written, 'To them who believe on him he gave power that they should be called the sons of God.' How DE ORATIONE. ."^13 very frequently has the Lord called God our Father; yea and has taught us to call no one father on earth hut cmjv Him whom we have in heaven The name of Cod tho Father had been disclosed to no one ; even ^[(jses who asked concerning it, heard in truth another name. To us it has been revealed in the Son. For now is the Son a new name of the Father."' He then appeals to the words of Christ, " I am come in the Father's name," John v. 43 ; and, *' Father, glorify thy name ;" and, " I have manifested tliy name unto men," John xvii. 6. " We pray therefore that this name may be- hallowed. Not as if it became men to wish well to (lod, as if there were any other from whom it could be wished for him, or that he suffered unless we so wished. Evidently it is becoming that God should be blessed everywhere and alwavs, by every man, for the remembrance always due of liis bene- fits When has not the name of God been holy and sanctified by himself, since he of himself sanctifies others. To whom that company of angels ceases not to say. Holy, holy, holy ! Wherefore we also, aspiring to be angels if wo so deserve, learn that heavenly address to God, and the source of future glory. Thus much as regards the glory of God. On the other hand, as to our petition when we say, * Hallowed be thy name,' we pray that it may be hallowed in us, who are in Him, and at the same time in others also, whom the grace of God yet awaits, that we may obey this command in pra3'ing for all, even for our enemies ' Th}'- will be done iu heaven and in earth.' Not that any one can hinder the doing of his will, and that we pray for success to his will, but we pray that his will may be done in all men." Tertullian says, that this would be the meaning even if we took the words heaven and earth figuratively for flesh and spirit. Although it is to be understood simply, yet is the sense the same, that God's will may be done in us on earth, that it may ^ "Jam enim Filius novum Patris noraon est." In the first edition I considered an emendarion necessary of this, certainly, rather obscure expression. I proposed to read, "Jam enim Filius Patris nouieu est." Yet I now consider this correction as not necessary or snflicienfly justified. The words of Tertullian may bo so understood that since Christ has revealed himself to men simply as the Son of God, and as father and son are correlative ideas, the new specific relation of (iod ai father to those who become his children through Christ his Sou, was thereby introduced. 314 DE ORATIONE. hereafter be done in heaven also. " But what does God will, excepting that we should walk according to his rule? We pray therefore that he would supply us with the substance and power of doing his will, that we may be saved both in lieaven and earth, because the salvation of those whom he has adopted is the sum of his will. This is that will of God which the Lord has administered by preaching, working, and enduring. For thus he himself said, he did not his own will, hut his Fathers ; without doubt, what he did was the will of the Father, to which as to an example we are now called that we may preach, and work, and endure, even unto death. That we may be able to fulfil these things the will of God is necessary." In these words he no doubt means to call atten- tion to the necessity of divine grace. " When we say, ' Thy will be done,' even in this we wish well to ourselves, because there is no evil in God's will, even though according to the deserts of each, it be otherwise inflicted. By this saying we forewarn om-selves for endurance. The Lord also when he had wished to exhibit in his own flesh the infirmity of the flesh with the reality of suffering, ' Father,' said he, ' let this cup pass away;' then recollecting himself, ' not my will, but thine be done.' ." Also the prayer ' Thy kingdom come,' is to be understood like ' Thy will be done,' namely, in ourselves. For when does not God reigii, in whose hand is the heart of all kings ? But whatever we wish for ourselves, we presage in him." Thus he refers the doing of God's will to the coming of his kingdom. Here a remai'kable contrast is presented in TertuUian himself. We have seen that in his Apology he distinctly specifies as an object of the prayers of Christians the delay of the consum- mation of all things, on account of the expected severe tribu- lation, and their dread of the divine judgment. But here, on the contraiy, he combats the notion of the adoption of such a prayer }jy Chiistians. Whatever stood in contravention of that petition in the Lord's Prayer on the coming of God's kingdom, appeared to him as absolutely unchristian. " Where- fure, if tlie ai)pcaring of God's kingdom belongs to the will of God and to our earnest expectation, how can some pray for a lengthening out of the age, when the kingdom of God, for which we pray tliat it may come, tends to the consummation of the age? We wish to reign earlier, and not to serve longer. DE ORATIONE. 315 Even if it were not prescribed in tlic prayer, fibout praviri;^ for the coming of the kingdom, we should, of our own accortC offer that petition, hastening to the fruition of our hope. . . . ! Yes, Lord, let thy kingdom come with utmost speed ! Tlic wish of Christians, the confusion of the lieathen, the joy of angels, for which we struggle ; yea, more, for which we i)ray." We here recognise in Tertullian, who at different periods of his life advocated both this view and tlie otlier, a con- trariety of disposition and sentiment. Here the ])revailing tone is the confidence of child-like faith and of child-like love! The believing soul, in yearning, devoted love, unmixed with fear, presses forward to the end, the appearing of Christ. But in the other mode of contemplating the future, the soul is strained and put upon the rack with images of terror. The awfulness of the interval which separates the present from the last glorious futiu'e, presses^ too powerfully on the soul to allow of her surrendering herself to the joyful ])rospect tliat forms the final aim of all her aspirations. The cliild-liko relation is disturbed and infringed by the legal stand-point. Tertullian finds a pccidiar revelation of tiie divine wisdom in the construction of the Lord's Prayer, that " after heavenly things — that is, after the name of God, the will of God, and the kingdom of God — there is a place found for a petition relating to earthly wants." " Yet," he adds, " the petition for daily bread may be understood spiritually. For Christ is our bread, because Christ is life, and bread is life ;" that is, Christ is for the life of the soul what bread is for tlie life of the body. If these words are so understood, two things are contained in them ; the petition for continuous spiritual communion with Christ as tlie true bread of the soul, and for an insepa- rable union with him, for which the Lord's Supper is a medium, and (secondly) a justification for always participating in the Holy Supper, and thus to be continually placed in this peculiarly sanctifying connexion with the body of Christ, of which the supper is the medium, and which Tertullian dis- tinguishes as something specific^ from that divine vital com- munion with Christ which ought to exist throughout tlio whole life of a Christian. From this passage two things aro evident, that Tertullian disting\iishes the manner in which ^ Cap. vi. "Itaquc pctcndo pancm quotidianum pcrpctuitutom pos- tulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corporc ejus." 31 G r>E ORATIOXE. Clirist commmiicates himself in the supper by a certain bodily contact, from the supernatural spiritual communion with him as embracing the whole Christian life, and 3'et (secondly) that he by no means admitted the penetration of the bread and wine by the body and blood of Christ ; for he thus describes the participation of Christ in the supper : "Tum quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur."' Tims he ex- plains the words of the institution. We notice this in passing, because we are prepared to consider in the sequel more fully, Tertullian's doctrine of the supper in connexion with the general develojoment of this doctrine. From the communicative love of God to wliicli the pre- ceding petitions refer, Tertullian passes to the grace of God in reference to sin, to which the following petitions correspond. " It follows, that having noticed the liberality of God, we should also supplicate his clemenc}^ For what would bodily nourishment profit, if we are reckoned in reference to them as a bull for sacrifice 1 The Lord knew that himself only was without sin. He teaches, therefore, 'Forgive us our debts.' Prayer for forgiveness is a confession, for he that asks forgive- ness, confesses transgression. Thus is repentance shown acceptable to God, because he jDrefers it to the death of a sinner .... For the completeness of so brief a prayer, that we may pray not only for the remission of sins but for their turning away, it is added, 'Lead us not into temptation,' that is, suffer us not to be led by him who tempts .... This is explained by the next clause, 'but deliver us from the evil one.'" After this explanation of the Lord's Prayer, Tertullian says, " God alone can teach us how he would have us pray. The sacred duty therefore of prayer, ordained by himself, and animated by his Spirit even at the time when it proceeded from his divine mouth, ascends by its own right to heaven, commending to the Father what the Son has taught." Kespecting the state of the disposition that is suitable for prayer, he thus speaks :— '• The exercise of prayer ought to be free, not only from anger, but from all disorder of mind whatever, being sent forth from such a spirit, as is the Spirit to whom it is sent. For a polluted spirit cannot be acknow- ledged by a Holy Spirit, nor a sad spirit by a joyful one. nor ' " Tunis est oorpns Chrir-ti— corpus Chiisti ccnsetur in pane." DB ORATIONE. 317 a fettered spirit by a free one. No one receives an adversjuy ; no one admits any save a compeer." From what he says respecting the internal state of the dis- position necessary for prayer, he takes occasion to enter liis protest against many superstitions practices wliich had found their way among Christians from the Jews and licathens, such as washing the hands before every prayer. " What reason is there," he asks, *^ in entering upon prayer Avith the hands indeed washed but with the spirit foul '? when even for the hands themselves spiritual cleanliness is necessary, that they may be lifted up pure from fixlsehood, murder, cruelty, poison- ings, idolatry, and other defilements, which, being conceived by the spirit, arc brought to maturity by the labour of the hands. This is true cleanness, not that which many super- stitiously observe, using water before every prayer and even washing the whole body. But the hands are pure enough which we have once Wcished with the whole body in Christ ;" that is, if we only preserve the purification granted to the whole man through Christ, henceforth every thing will be pure. The hands require no special purifying. In all this we recognise the pure Christian element of Tertullian's spirit in contrast to the other element of externality, which wo elsewhere observe in him, and which on many points pre- vailed in Montanism. The internal free Christian spirit in Tertullian expresses itself here emphatically against the acti- vity that loses itself in outward acts and stands opposed to the rational worship of Christianity. " Such things are to be set down, not to religion, but to superstition, being affected and forced, and belong rather to an over curious than rational service, certainly to be restrained because they i)ut us on a level with the Gentiles." ^ He therefore marks that clement of externality in religion as heatlienish, and adduces another example of such a mixture of heathenism in prayer — the practice of throwing off the pwnida or over-cloak before praj'er, — or sitting down as the heathen are accus- tomed when they perform their devotions on their scjd-rings before their idols."-^ As the hypocritical and artificial which 1 "Hujusmodi enim non rcligioni scd superstitioni deputantur, aflcc- tata et ccacta et curiosi potius quam rationalis officii, ccrtc vol co coer- ccnda, quod gentilibus adeequent." 2 See Apuleius tic Magia : " IMorem mihi habco, quoquo cam, Simula- '318 I>E ORATIONE. •u-islics to gain acceptance ■«'itli God and man, easily joins itself to the simple and genuine, so there were at that time many, who by their outcries and outward gestures made a show of their devotions. Tertullian declared himself strongly againt all this — " The publican who, not only in his prayer, but in his looks, was humble and dejected, went down justified rather than that most impudent Pharisee. God as he is the be- holder, so also he is the hearer, not of the voice, but of the heart. As Christ the crucified, risen and ascended to heaven, is the central point of the Christian system, so from the first these were regarded as the two most essential points of the Christian life — as rooted in Communion with Christ ; to follow the Crucified in repentance and self-denial ; in him and with liim to die to self, the world, and sin, in order to rise in and witli liim to a new divine life. This was also the central point of the Christian festivals. A general fast corresponded to the remembrance of the sufferings of Christ as an expres- sion of repentance, and a preparation for the festival of the resurrection and for communion on the following Sunday, and the succeeding fifty days dedicated to the remembrance of the risen and ascended Saviour, till the effusion of the Holy Spirit. That was at first the only regular church fast, in support of which Matt. ix. 15 was erroneously appealed to, and in the mode of keeping this fast, various usages existed in different churches. The Montanists wished to prescribe several laws relative to fasts, but met with warm opposition in the existing spirit of Christian freedom. Tertullian here sliowcd himself not yet disposed to Montanism. Among the Christians of the primitive age, the beautiful custom existed of closing all their meetings for prayer with the kiss of brotherly love and of peace. The common eleva- tion of their hearts to the Lord issued in fusing their hearts •together, and in giving this token of love and peace. But now crum alicujus dei inter libcUos conditum gestare, eique diebus certis thurc ct mcro ct aliquando victimis supplicare." How similar to later Kupcrstitions in reference to the saints and the Virgin ! As the imaires oi the false gods were so common on the seal-rings, Clement of Alex- andria in his Pctdaijofjvs forbids Christians express^' wearing such rings. According to Clement, Pythagoras in order to counterwork the superstition that cleaves to objects of sense, had spoken against the seal- rings ornomented with images of idols. AaKriXiov i^ cpopelv, juTjSe tiKiva^ avTo7s iyxapaaffnv Otwv, Strom, v. f. 659. DE ORATIOXE. 319 there were for individuals freely chosen days for flisting and penitence. If at such seasons they joined in tlie general devo- tions, many believed that they could not partake of this brotherly kiss as a token of joy — tliat it wjvs not suitable to days of fasting and penitence. Tertullian blamed this scrupu- losity, so foreign to the unprejudiced Christian mind. He beautifully terms that Christian brotherly kiss the seal of prayer {signaculum orationis). " What prayer," he says, " is perfect, if separated from the holy kiss ? . . . . What sort of sacrifice is that from which one returns without peace 1 And whatever the reason for our conduct may be, it cannot be more powerful than the observance of the precept by which we are commanded to conceal our lasting. ]jut hy withhold- ing the kiss we are known to be fasting." In remembrance .of the passion of Christ and its preparatives, Wednesdays and Fridays were appointed for prayer-meetings ; and many per- sons, according to their peculiar wants, were accustomed as a self-imposed duty, without any legal compulsion, to fast for a certain time.^ At these prayer-meetings the Lord's supper w\as also celebrated. But many of those who fasted believed that this participation of the highest joy was incompatible with fixsting, and since at that time, according to the original institution, all the members of the chm-ch partook of the holy supper, those who did not partake of it, were knowni to -abstain on account of their fasting. This also Tertullian disapproved of, for the same reasons as those just men- tioned, and expressed himself pointedly against it. "Does then the Eucharist relax a service devoted to God, or does it not the more bind to God 1 Will not thy station be more solenui, if thou standest at the altar of God V (In this passage the metaphor of the idea of an altar which is connected with that of a sacrifice, and which for the first time appears here, is worthy of notice.) Tertullian then recommends a method for uniting the two, not to withdraw from the com- munion, and yet not to interrupt the fasting on account of the holy supper. They might receive (he suggests) the Lord's body, and not allow themselves to partake of it, but keep the consecrated bread by itself, and partake of it after their fast ^ On the dies siationum, so called from its analogy to the statio ndlitc9ri»,diP, Tertullian himself describes it; " Statio demilitaric.xcmplo nomcn accipit, nam et militia Dei sumus." 320 I>E ORATIONE. was over. This passage is in several respects a remarkable one. We observe here a custom of which we frequently find traces in Tertullian, and which is founded on a peculiar con- ception of the relation of the thing represented to the sym- bols of it in the holy supper. However Tertullian might otherwise have thought, yet we notice here, at all events, that externality, in virtue of which that was transferred to the outward element which should only have been expressed of the whole of the sacred ordinance in the harmonious combi- nation of all its parts. In consequence, to the bread once consecrated, an indwelling, inalienable efficacy was ascribed. Hence the custom of taking away the consecrated bread as the Lord's body from the communion service, and laying it up at home. We also see here, the participation of one clement of the holy supper separated from participation of the other. When Tertullian in this treatise speaks of usages which differed in different churches, he passes judgment with a moderation which would little suit the legal spirit of Monta- nism. It is true, he even already approved of the custom, that not merely mamed women, but virgins should appear veiled in the church.^ But on this point he spoke with a discretion which he could not have shown had he been a !Montanist who depended not on his own intelligence, but on the divine utterances of the Paraclete. And while as a Mon- tanist he must have appealed in the examination of a dispu- table opinion to this divine decision, he here appeals only to the authority of Holy Writ and exegetical reasons.^ On this ' To this custom we shall have occasion to refer in our notice of Tcrtullian's book on the subject, that v/e may not interrupt the con- nexion here, nor repeat what has been already said. We would here notice a diflercnce in the explanation of the passage in 1 Cor. xi. 5, in relation to a vievr taken of it by Tertullian, which we have already given. We remarked above that he regarded this as a symbol of the feeling of dependence in the female sex,^by which they were to honour the presence of the good spirits; but here he understands by the angels, the evil angels, the fallen spirits, and applies to them the representation which was taken from Gen. vi. 2, and had been spread more widely by the JJook of Enoch; this sign of dependence and shame would protect the virgins airainst the plots of the fallen spirits, since such had once mixed with the daughters of men. 2 ]Iow could hcasa Alonlanist, whilst following the utterances of the I'aracletc, say, " In so great a variety of usages it would appear impu- dent, if fco inconsiderable a man as I am were to examine these thiuirs t)E ORATIONH. 321 occasion the liberal spirit of Tertullian declares itself against that reverence for tradition which stood in the way of the progressive church development. " But let no one think tl.at she" (the married woman) " ought to be moved by tlic rule of a predecessor. Many persons surrender their own understanding and its firmness to the practice of others." We liere see Ter- tullian coming forward as the opponent of the bishops, who appealed to the authority of their predecessors. In this manner it was possible to oppose the pretensions of the Bishops of Rome, who were accustomed to appeal especially to the authority of their predecessors. Tertullian showed this moderation still more in his judg- ment on another difference of usage, in which, however, he might speak in a more decided tone, since he had the whole Western church in its flivour. The celebration of Sunday, as we have already remarked, as the day dedicated to the resur- rection of the Lord, was distinguished in this way, that no fasting was allowed upon it, and persons prayed not kneeling but standing upright. In addition, it was also believed that persons should abstain from all labour on Siuidays, a regula- tion based on the Old Testament stand-point of a day specially dedicated to God, which is quite at variance with the original Christian conception of it; this appears from the words of Tertullian: — "We ought to guard against every posture of painfulness, and to forbear offices, putting off even business, lest we give place to the devil." Tertullian therefore regarded the tem23tation to labour on Sunday as proceeding from Satan. But in many parts of the East there was still in connexion with Judaism a special regard paid to the Sabbath, and it was kept in the same manner as Sunday. In the Roman and other Western churches, on the contrary, no scruple was felt to fast on the Sabbath, but that day was sometimes prefcn-ed for the purpose, by way of opposition to Judaism. Now as some members of Oriental churches where that regard for the Sabbath still prevailed, settled down among Western connnu- nities, and continued their wonted custom, or wished to intro- duce and establish it as the only right one, controvei-sics arose afresh after the holy apostle ; but yet it is not impudent if it were only agreeable to the doctrine of the apostle." — " Varictas observationum efficit, post sanctissimura apostolum nos vol maxime null ins loci homines impudenter retractare, nisi quod nonimpudentcr, si secundum apostolum retractemus." VOL. II. Y 322 DE ORATIOXE. respecting it. To those who were warmly interested in the dispute, it seemed very e^vident that there was something- Jewish in placing the Sabbath and the Sunday on a level, and they did not hesitate to load their opponents with a variety of consequences deducible, as they affirmed, from the practice. But Tertullian, with greater liberality of mind, gave it as his opinion that "the Lord will grant his grace that they may either yield or hold their own opinion without offence t-o others."' TcrtulHan recognises that characteristic of the Christian stand-point which is shown in its freedom from the elements of the world, in reference to prayer, when he asserts that prayer is not confined to any time or any place. "Concerning times of prayer nothing at all is prescribed, unless simply to pray at all times and in every place. But how in every place, when we are prohibited in public ? ' In every place,' he says, where opportunity or necessity has given occasion. For that is not reckoned contrary to the precept which was done by the apostles, who in prison prayed and sang praises to God, and the prisoners heard them (Acts xvi. 25) ; and in the case of Paul, who in the ship celebrated the Eucharist^ in the presence of all." ^ In reference to the time for prayer, Tertullian declares that it is not necessarily confined to any time whatever, but still that it would be beneficial to have something determined in this respect, as a requirement to withdraw sometimes from -v^'orldly business to prayer. He considered it to be best to adhere to the three dail}- hours of praj^er customary among the Jews, (tiie third, sixth, and ninth hours, or nine, twelve, and three o'clock,) and which occur in the New Testament; besides, according to ancient usage, prayer at the beginning of the day, and at night. Tertullian, agreeably to the Christian principle of transforming all earthly things by a reference to the divine, desired that all transactions of earthly life should be sanctified by prayer. Although this might become mere * " Dominus dabit gratiam suam, iit ant ccdant aut sine aliorum scandalo Bcntcntia sua utantur." Cap. xviii. ^ The Lord's supper is not referred to in Actsxxvii. 35 ; but the free- dom of Tertid Han's mind in so understanding it is worthy of notice. •■' " Xon cnim contra priccoptuni reputatur ab apostolis factum, qui in carcerc. audicntil)us custodiis, orabant ct cancbant Deo,apud Paulum, qui in navi coram omnibus cucliaristiam fecit." DE ORATIONE. 32'3 mechanism, yet there is an important Christian principle involved, from wliich this requirement proceeds. He says that hehevers ought not to bathe or take food, without tii-st praying, for which he gives this reason,—" l^he refreslnnent and nourishment of the spirit are to be esteemed before those of the flesh, and the things of heaven before those of earth."' " Dismiss not without prayer, a brother who has entered thy house. ' Thou hast seen,' saith he, ' thy brother, thou hast seen thy Lord.' Especially a stranger, lest he be an angel. Neither should he partake of earthly refreshment before heavenly from the brethren who receive him." ^ He points out in what manner prayer is the true spiritual sacrifice of Christians. "This is the spiritual victim whicli has abolished the ancient sacrifices. ' To what purpose,' saith He, 'is the multitude of your sacrifices unto mef (Isa. i. 11.) But what God requires, the Gospel teaches. *The hour Cometh, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is a Spirit.' We are the true worshippers and the true priests, who, praying in the spirit, sacrifice in the spirit the j)rayer peculiar and acceptable to God, which he has required and wdiich he has provided for himself This, devoted by the whole heart, fed by faith, tended by truth, complete in innocence, pm-e by chastity, crowned by love, we ought to bring up to the altai' of God, with the train of good works, amid psalms and hymns ; to obtain all things for us from God. For what has God denied to the prayer offered up in spirit and in truth — that prayer which he has required ? We read, and hear, and believe how great are the proofs of its efficacy." We recognise in these expressions the great Christian idea of the universal priest- hood and the universal sacrifice ; we see how ilir the writer still was from holding the notion of a peculiar priesthood and a sacrifice coiTcsponding to it in the presentation of the Holy Supper, and hence are led to put a modified sense on his reference to an altar in connexion with the Euchai'ist. He develops in a very beautiful manner the peculiar power ^ "Piiora etiam habenda sunt spiritus refrigcria quam carnis, ct priora coelestia quam terrena."' Cap. xxv. ■-* Tenullian informs us that often after praying, Christian^ .^ang tho hallelujah and similar psalms, in the closing words of which those who were present responded. 324 DE ORATIOXE. of Christian prayer according to the peculiarity of the Christian stand-point. " Prayer in ancient times delivered from flames, and wild beasts, aud hunger, and yet had not received a form from Christ. But how much more largely does the Christian prayer operate ! It does not place the Angel of the Dew in the midst of the flames, (Dan. iii. 28,) nor shut the mouths of lions, (Dan. vi.) nor bring the dinner of rustics to the hungry, (2 King-s iv. ;) the gi*ace vouchsafed takes away no sense of suffering, but it arms with endurance men Avho are suffering, feeling, and giieving ; by its power it enlarges grace, that faith may know what it obtains from the Lord, knowing what it suffers for the name of God. In time past prayer brought down plagues, routed hostile armies, prevented beneficial rains. But now the prayer of righteousness turns away all the wTath of God, keeps watch for enemies, suppli- cates for persecutors. Is it wonderful that that could extort celestial waters, which could bring down fires? Prayer is the only thing that conquers God. But Christ knew that it could work no ill. He has confeiTcd upon it all power for good. Therefore it knows nothing unless to call back the souls of the departed from the way of death itself, to renovate the weak, to heal the sick, to piu-ge the possessed, to open the prison-doors, to loosen the bonds of the innocent. It washes away sins, it repels temptations, it extingiiishes persecutions, it consoles the feeble-minded, it delights the magnanimous, it brings back travellers, it stills waves, it confounds robbers, it nourishes the poor, it controls the rich, it raises up the fallen, it props the falling, it preseiwes the standing. Prayer is the bulwark of faith ; om- arms and weapons against the adversaiy, who watches us on every side. Therefore, let us never walk unarmed. By day let us remember our station, by night our watch. Under the arms of prayer let us guard the standard of our general; praying let us await the trumpet of the angel." He then points out the symbols that are to be found throughout nature of the creation praying to the Creator, and says, " All the angels pray. Every creature prays. The cattle pray, and the w ild beasts, and bend their knees, and issuing from their stalls and dens, not meaningless look up to heaven. And the birds now rising soar towards heaven, and extend the cross of their wings for hands, and utter sounds which seem a prayer." In this passage several expressions may offend a DE BAPTISMO. 325 sober iiiidei-standing and a classical taste; but it is leased on the truth of a symbolic conception of the life of nature from the depths of Christian feeling, the effort of the si)irit to con- ceive itself symbolically in nature. TertuUiau closes ^Yith the words, " What more then can I say concerning the duty of prayer? Even the Lord himself has prayed, to whom be honour and power for ever and ever." We now proceed to Tertullian's work " On Baptism." It strictly belongs to the class of his dogmatic writings ; but since it contains many particulars relating to subjects of Christian and church life, and stands in close connexion with another work belonging to this division, wc have determined to place it here. Tertullian was induced to compose this treatise for the purpose of vindicating the necessity of baptism for all Cliris- tians, and at the same time he wished to discriminate its true import ; what was necessary as a prepai'ation for it, and what belonged to its right administration. He wished to qualify all believers for rightly understanding their faith, and for giving a just account of it. The general principle respect- ing the relation of dogmatic knowledge to faith, which passed from him to 'Augustine, was applied by him in reference to this particular subject. First of all, men ought to submit themselves to the divine institution in humble faith, in order to experience in themselves the divine power which lies in it ; and then they should advance to an insight into the necessity of such a divine institution for the object to be attained by it ; — first of all the credere, then the intellujere} Teilullian had specially in view the instruction of catechumens, who ought to come with a right consciousness to baptism. As to the vindication of the necessity of baptism, this was acknow- ledged on the whole as a divine institution for all ages, not only in all parts of the church, but by almost all sects. Even the Gnostics, with whom the variance was greatest, agTced for the most part on this question. Baptism was to them especially important as a medium of communion with Christ J of freedom from the kingdom of the Demiurgus, as well as from the power of the hylistic principle. There was only a small party vvdio by their opposition agtunst nature and ' Cap. X. "Non intclHgcntes, quia nee crcdcntcs. Nos porro quan- tula tide sumus, tantulo ct iutcUoctu possumus a;stimare." 326 DE BAPTISMO. everything natural that was taken from the kingdom of the Demiurgus^ and by their spiritnaHzing ideahst tendency, were impelled to a rejection of outward baptism. It is doubtful whether the Quintilla who came forward at Carthao-e as an opponent of outward baptism and thus occa- sioned Tcrtulliau's yindication of it, really proceeded on Gnostic princiiDles. She belonged to a sect of Cajanites. According to some this was identical with the Gnostic sect of the Cainites. The name is no argument for the identity ; for it would be far more natural to suppose that the once existing sect of the Cajanites had been mistaken for that of Cainites, than that the name Cainites had been altered to Cajanites, since the name Cain was universally known, and the sect named after him was, on account of name, peculiarly odious. But as the Cainites were of a wild fanatical spirit, insulting all morality, it is not probable that Tertullian would think such a sect deserving of a special refutation. But if any one should say, as it might be said, that the refLitation of the reason alleged against baptism by this sect was onlj'' regarded by him as a secondary matter, and that he only availed himself of this opportunity to discuss the whole doc- trine of baptism in a separate treatise, still it is very sur- prising that he makes no allusion whatever to the other abominable tenets of this sect. Moreover, it is not probable that a female belonging to such a sect should have met with so much favour among the Christians at Carthage ; we must then admit that she had gained access by keeping back the peculiarities of her sect, and by pretending an adherence to the views prevalent in the church, in order to clear the way for herself And certainly it cannot be denied that the Gnostics often misled persons by such means. The same explanation must also be given of the reasons against baptism brought forward by this female, since they contain nothing necessarily Gnostic. The appeal to Abraham's being justified by his faith, is quite contradictory to the spirit of that sect ; for this anti-Jewish tendency chose for its heroes exactly those pei-sons wlio are represented in the Old Testament in the worst liglit, as the strong spirits who would not submit them- selves to tlie rule of the limited Demiurgus ; and the per- sons commended in the Old Testament were rejected by it. A Cainitc female woukl indeed have acknowledged Paul as UE BAPTISMO, 327 the only gcnuiuo Apostle, and have stigmatized the rest as Judaizing corrupters of the doctrine of Christ. Ihit wo cannot be certain that all the reasons which Tertulliau men- tions against the necessity of baptism, proceeded from Quin- tilla. Probably she gave only tiie first impulse to a contro- versy on the subject which was afterwards taken up, and pushed further by others. Many of Tcrtullian's expressions indicate that opponents of the necessity of baptism, of various kinds, had appeared ; jDcrhaps many who did not intend absolutely to reject baptism, but only, when the matter was once mooted, felt impelled to cast doubts on its necessity. If, on the one hand, in consequence of externality in the concep- tion of baptism, of confounding baptism and regeneration, an unconditional necessity for salvation in an unintelligible man- ner w^as attributed to baptism, and too much was ascribed to the outward element; yet, on the other hand, a one-sided ten- dency to separate the outward from the inward, an under- valuation of outward baptism, might be called forth by it, and probably the whole opposition against baptism which we notice in this book, and in which we find nothing allied to Gnosticism, is only to be accounted for aS the reaciion of such an opposition. But yet it is to be remarked that Tertulliau in his treatise De Prcescriptionihus Ucereticorum, compares the Cajanites to the Nicolaitanes in the Apocalypse, as those who had held the eating of meat offered to idols, and impure habits, to be matters of indifference ; which would tell against the conception given throughout of the character of the Cajanites, unless Tertulliau has in that last jjassage done them injustice; and perhaps the same tendency which caused them to appear against externality in the case of baptism, also led them to oppose the prohibition against eating meat offered in sacrifice. Such arguments as the following wei'c used by the persons whom Tertulliau opposed : — Christ himself never baptized ; none of the apostles besides Paul were baptized : — Paul him- self says (1 Cor. i. 17), that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel ; Paul teaches not that man is jus- tified and obtains salvation by baptism, but by fliith ; Abra- ham also was justified by faith alone. Tertulliau would have been more successful in proving that although justification and a divine life arc received by faith. 328 DE BAPTISMO. jct baptism has its necessaiy place in the connexion of the process of Christian development, if he had possessed clearer views of the relation of faith and regeneration to outward baptism, of the relation of the inward reality to the outward appearance, of divine things to their representative signs. But for this pm-pose certain mental activities were required which in that age were very imperfectly developed, and for which Tertullian's mental constitution was not fitted. In that age generally, and especially in Tertulliau, there was a much greater predominance of the vital energy of feeling, than of the discriminating, sifting activity of the understanding. Hence TertuUian w^as disposed to blend in his intellectual apprehension what had been combined and indissolubly incor- porated with his feelings in the experience of his religious life ; and when he found in the New Testament such phrases as " the bath of regeneration " and the like, he did not make use of the necessaiy means in order to lead back what is here popularly expressed to the thought contained in it, but ad- hered to the outward. Thus, he was now fixed on the stand- point of an error diametrically opposite to the one-sided internalism w^hich he combated, and hence his argiimentation necessarily took a false direction when he wished to prove that water could produce such great effects. Tertulliau recognises as the characteristic of Christianity, which is shown even in baptism, the union of the simple with the sublime, simplicity with divine power, the divine in the most unpretending fomi ; as, on the contrary, in the heathen cultus might be seen a pomp of manifold preten- sions without internal significance. " Nothing," he says, " so hardens the minds of men, as the simplicity of the divine works which appears in act, and the glory wiiich is promised in the result ; as here also, a man going down into the water without expense, and, whilst a few words are uttered, being washed, with so much simplicity, without pomp, without any new preparations, rises again not much or at all cleaner, — on which account his gaining eternity is thought incredible. I am mistaken if the rites and mysteries pertaining to idols do not build their credit and authority on their equipments, their outward show and sumptuousness. 0 wretched unbelief! which denies to Cod his esscntitd attributes, simplicity and power." TertuUian makes the ingenious remark, that what f DE- BAPTISMO. 30() gives a point of connexion for luibclief, belongs to the peculiar impress of the divine. What arouses minds of greater dejith to faith, is the prop of unbelief to the superficial. Ho si'.ya further, " If we are not to believe because it is M-onderful, on that account we ought rather to believe. For what else should the divine works be, imless above all wonder { Wc ourselves also wonder, but because wc believe. But unbelief wonders and believes not. For it Avonders at simple thin^-'s as foolish, and at magnificent things as if impossible." ^Ye here recognise in Tertullian the forerunner of the profound reflection of a Pascal. What depth' and truth of idea in liis strong, original language which we cannot fidly express in a translation ; the great but (by the superficial) often un- acknowledged truth, the divine paradox, the foolishness of the divine wisdom, as Paul terms it, the admiration of wisdom first and last, the unsusceptibility for it of the spirit of un- belief! Such and similar expressions, as we still find them in Tertullian, are often cast at him as a reproach by shallow and superficial minds, and he has been charged on account of them with the grossest misology. But when Tertullian so strongly presents the hyperbolic;d, the super-rational and the supernatural, he recognises not the less the union between the divine and the truly rational — that God performs all things ratione, that everytliing divine rests upon ration We must also be careful to distinguish the deep tiiith lying at the basis of what Tertullian says, from the erroneous addi- tion in the application he makes of it, owing to that tendency to externality in the opposition, carried by him to an extreme, with one-sided spiritualism. Thus he would point it out as wonderful that in the simple rite of baptism, the element of water can produce such great effects, and in attempting to show that it was prefigured in the Old Testament, loses him- self in mystical frivolities. He distinguishes in baptism two essential ingredients ; one negative, the forgiveness of sins, the purification from sin, the preparatory work : secondly, the positive, — the restoration of the divine image, the internal transformation, the participation of a divine life by the com- munication of the Holy Spirit. But however far Tertullian loses himself in the magical when treating of the supernatm-iil ^ DeFuga in Perseciit. cap. iv. " Quid cnim divinum non rationale 1" Contra Gnost. tScorp. cap. viii. ••'Nihil Deus non raiiouc pnvcipit." . 330 DE BAPTISMO. effects of the water, yd he remarks correctly, that the for- giveness of sins is obtained by faith. ^ He then comes to the question/ What relation does the baptism of John bear to Christian baptism 1 And this ques- tion he answers with peculiar acuteness. This baptism is related to the Christian as the earthly to the heaventy. The baptism of John could impart nothing heavenly, but could only prepare for the heavenly. It related only to repentance, which stands in the power of man. This baptism could not impart forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. That, none but God could do. The Lord himself said that the Holy Spirit would not come down, till he had ascended to the Father. The cUvine in John was not his baptism, but the gift of prophecy ; and even this spirit, after the transference of the whole Spirit to the Lord, so far left him, that he sent to inquire whether that very personage whom he had announced, whom he pointed out as " he that should come," was really the Clnist. (Matt, xi.) We here find Tertullian's view of the relation of John the Baptist to Christ, which we have already seen indicated, still further developed. It is evident in what manner Tertullian distinguished the divine and the human in him whom Christ described as the greatest of prophets. In this view of the passive relation of man to the Divine Spirit, who makes use of him as an organ for a definite purpose, and again withdraws from him, we recognise, as in other ideas of Tertullian, that which was allied to Montanism in his style of contemplation, although by no means in itself montanistic ; and there is, after all, this truth at the basis, that the prophet who stood on the boundary line between the two dispensa- tions might rise, at the greatest elevation of his inspiration, to a heiglit of contemplative vision, which nevertheless he was unable constantl}^ to maintain. The baptism of repentance was therefore a preparation for the forgiveness of sins and sanctification which must follow througli Christ. Repentance goes before, — the forgiveness of sins follows after — this it is, ' to prepare the way.' In answer to the objection that the apostles were never baptized, Ter- tulHan maintains that they liad received John's baptism as preparatory. But apart from that, he thinks that the man- ner in which Christ personally admitted them into his com- * "Ablatio (lelictorum quam tides impctrat." 2 Cap. x. DE BAPTISMO. 331 miinion, was in their caso an equivalent for baptism.* llo perceives correctly that as long as Christ was on earth tlicro could be no church and no Christian baptism, that this insti- tution 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.- Then he guards himself against the objection, that inasmuch as Christ, while he was on earth, for all the cm-es he performed required only faith, tliorefore afterwards only faith and not baptism was needed. On the contrary, ho says, after the actual institution of baptism, it was needed sis the seal appointed by Christ, as it were, the garment in wliicli faith was attired.^ Moreover, had Tertullian only confined himself to what he had said respecting baptism as an ordi- nance of Christ, — respecting its connexion with the historical development of Christ's work — and respecting it as the ob.^l^- natio 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 prin- ciple held by the African chiu'ch, that all religious ceremonies can possess their objective validity only in that one visible ehurch which was divinely instituted, and endowed with the operations of the Holy Spirit. He maintains this princi- ple in such a manner as would hardly have been possible after his separation from the universal church as a ^Mon- 1 Cap. xii. "Primse allectionis et exinde individuaj cum illo farnili- aritatis prferogativa compendium baptism! conferre })0Psct." 2 Cap. xi. " Sed ne moveat quosdam quod (Cliristus) non ipse tin- guebat. In quem enim tingucretl iu Spiritum sanctum, qui uondum a Patre descendcrat 1 in ecclesiam quam nondum apostoli struxerant ? Itaque tinguebant discipuli ejus, ut ministri, ut Joannes ante pra^cursor, eodem baptismo Joannis, ne qui alio putct, quia nee cxstat alius nisi postca Christi, qui tunc utiquc a disccntibus dari non potcrat, utpoto nondum adimpleta gloria Domini, nee instructa efficacia lavacri per passionem et resurrectionem." ^ Cap. xiii. '' Addita est ampliatio sacramento, obsignatio baptisml vestimentum quodammodo lidei." 332 DE BAPTISMO. tauist. ' 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 Irenseus, yet in this treatise ^ve find an intimation which would lead to a more spiritual form of this idea, when he says, " But since both the testi- mony 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 chm-ch as the community founded on faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; a community originating in au internal principle ; therefore not according to the formula in Irena^us, " Ubi Ecclesia, ihi S'piritus,'' but " Ubi Spiritus, ibi Ecclesia.'" According to a mode of conception very widely spread in his day, Tertullian distinguishes between the imago and the similiiudo 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 2^otential 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 ])eccata mortalia. But where this original purity was lost, he supposed only one expedient to be left by which it could be regained, namely, that bajHismus sanguinis, the sig- nificance of which in Tertullian's Christian scheme we have ' "Ilajrcticos cxtrancos tcstatur," he says, cap. xv. "ipsa adenitio coramunicationis." According to this definition, the Montauists might have been called heretics. Indeed this is not altogether convincing, since not all the churches refused communion with the Montanists — since even the h'onii.^h churcli, up to a certain period, accorded to them brotherly communion. Jn general, tho relation of Montanism to the church was a uiorc traubicuL one. i)E BAPTISMO. 335 already described. Now this rnay be so imdcrstooJ as if Tei-tiillian allowed, for cases in which tlic orir,nual baptismal grace had bceu lost throiigli 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 this treatise. But we are by no means obliged to undei-stand the passage in this sense, and if other indications of Tertul- lian's non-Montanism at this period can be found, this passage alone will by no means support the opposite view, that he had embraced ]\Iontanism. These words do not necessarily imi)ly 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.* Tertullian next proceeds to the question. By tvhom is baptism to he administered] and he answers; first of all, the summns 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 autliority depends the maintenance of the peace of the church. " Otherwise lay- men also have the right ; for that which is equally received maybe 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 bo 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 tlicm 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 ]\[outanist : "Aliiul est ad veniani stare, aliud ad gloriam pcrvenire, aliud pro peccatis longo dolorc crucialum emimdari et purgari diu igne, aliud peccata omnia passionc purgasse, ahud deniquc pcndere in diem judicii ad sentcntiam Domini, aliud ftatim a Domino coronari." Ep. lii. 334 DE BAPTISMO. has said, ' All things are lawful, but all things are not expe- dient.' Let it suffice to use such things in thy necessities, when the circumstances of place, or time, or person, are com- pulsory ; 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 corre- sponding to the position of the High Priest on the Old Testa- ment stand-point. Such a view did not originate with Ter- tullian, 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 main- tained 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 virti^e of the ecclesiastical organization, is first of all committed to the bishop, then to the presbyters and deacons, who exercise tliis right under the authority of the bishop. To this arrangement the laity ought to submit themselves ; but in cases ot 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 w^ould be DE BArilSMO. ^do bound to do so. We know indeed that Tcrtidlian, wliilc he allowed this universal right of the laity, made a point of guarding against a wilfnlness in the exercise of it to the injury of ecclesiastical order, thereby to prevent divisions wliicii might arise if the laity were disposed to contest witli tlic 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 TertuUian says of the duty of tlie laity, to administer baptism in cases of necessity, we detect the error which has already been animadverted ui)on, of attaching undue importance to the outward rite, since the sentiment is implied that whoever wanted outward baptism would remain excluded from salvation. TertuUian expresses himself in very strong terms against the right of females to baptize or to teach.' " How veiy credi- ble 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 TertuUian have spoken thus as a Montanist ^ AYas it objected to Montanists that they had for teachers a ]\Iaximilla and a Priscilla 'I 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.^ ' Cap. xvii. 2 " Qui ne discere quidem constanter mulicri permisit." 3 As a Montanist TertuUian says, Be Virrjinibus Velandis, cap. ix. "Non permittitur mulicri in ecclesia loqui, sed nee docerc, nee tinguerc, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis muncris, nedum saccrdotalis officii sortcm sibivindicare ;" and lib. v. c. Marcion. cap. viii. "Prrescri bens ( Paul u.s Apostolus) silentium mulicribus in eeclesia, ne quid discendi duuLuxat gratia loquantur. Ca;terum proplietandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit quum mulicri etiani prophctanti velamen imponit." Thus also urirucs Ircnrciis, who was no ^^lontanist, (for TertuUian expressly disiiniruisbca him from the Montanists, Adv. Valait. cap. v) a^^ainst the Alogi, the 33 G DE BAPTISMO. But could TertuUiaii have expressed himself so uncondition- ally against the teaching of women, without gaiarding him- self against the objection which might be made to the Mon- tanist prophetesses — without mentioning the prophetesses as an exception to the rule 1 Tertullian shows his zeal for practical Christianity, in speaking against the too easy administration of baptism with- out a suitable preparative trial. " But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not to be rashly granted. ' Give to every one that asks thee/ comes under its own head, and belongs to almsgiving. That saying is rather to be con- sidered, ' Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast ye your pearls before swine ;' and, ' Lay hands suddenly on no man, lest thou be a partaker of other men's sins.' If Philip so easily baptized the eunuch, let us recollect that the manifest revealed approbation of the Lord intervened, . . . But Paul was baptized suddenly. Yes ; for his host Simon knew that lie was a chosen vessel. God's appro^^al ushers in its own claims. Every desire (of man) may deceive and be deceived. * Wherefore the delaying of baptism is more advantageous according to the condition and disposition of each person ; also their age ; but especially in the case of children." Tertullian also makes us acquainted with his position on the boundary line between two stages of Christian develop- ment, by his judgment respecting infant baptism. We have every reason for holding infant baptism to be no apostolic institution, and that it was something foreign to that first stage of Christian development. At first, baptism necessarily marked a distinct era in life when a person passed over from a different religious stand-point to Christianity, when the regeneration sealed by baptism presented itself as a jDrincii^le of moral transformation, in opposition to the earlier develop- ment. But it was very different, when, from the midst of an already existing church-life and of a Christian family-life, the individual life was to be formed in communion with Christ: The objective consecration by communion with Christ, which passes from the collective body to the individual, must be the preparative in order to lead the individual to Christ. Regene- Ultra-antimontanists. "Apostolus scit viros et mulieres in ccclcsia prophctantcH." ^ "Omnis petitio (hominum) et decipere et decipi potest." DE BAPTISMO. 337 ration must unite itself as something gradutil to the first movements of the conscious life which was sanctified by the connexion with a Christian collective-hfe. Inflint-ba])tism proceeded at first from this idea, as it is represented in the words of Irenreus, that Christus infantibus infans fddm, ut in- fantes sandijicaret. But Tertullian, whose opposition testifies that infant baptism could not then be regarded as an a})ostohc tradition, came forward as the antagonist of this new institu- tion, and peculiarly in-ges that other important point in bap- tism which relates to the subjective appropriation of the individual, the personal conviction intelligently expressed, the personal fliith, the personal obligation. Thus, at that time there was a conflict betw^een two parties, and from what Ter- tullian says on the subject, we become acquainted with the arguments urged on both sides. When it was objected that infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in Scripture, its advo- cates replied, that as the Redeemer during his bodily presence on earth had reproved those who w^ould not let the little ones come to him, and granted theiii his blessing, so he would still operate in a spiritual manner. Why then should not children be brought to him in like manner that he may bless them ? Tertullian replies : — " Let them come when they grow up ; — let them come when they learn ; when they are taught whither they are coming ; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins ? " It is remarkable, that the very person wdio, as w^e shall afterwards see, was the first who distinctly developed the doctrine of original sin, could express himself in this manner. We may also here discern the con- flicting elements of a dogmatic mode of thinking gradually expressing itself more sharply. " Men," he goes on to say, " will act more cautiously in worldly matters, so that to one to whom no earthly substance is committed that which is divine is committed. Let them know how to ask for salvation that thou mayst seem to give to him that asketh. .... They who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement ; a perfect faith is secure of salvation." No doubt, what Tertullian means to say is this: — The catechumen lias no cause for luisten- ing to baptism, so that he should fear if death should over- take him before he has received baptism, lest he should not VOL. II. z 33 S DE BAPTISMO. bo a partaker of siilvation ; for where the right faith exists, and a person who has the desire to be baptized, is prevented in a manner that involves no blame on his part, he is certain of salvation in virtue of his faith. On the contrary, a person has reason to dread receiving baptism too hastily, since when he has once lost baptismal grace, no means of compensation is left him. AVe see how exactly the perversion of baptism, which made so great a difference between sins before and after baptism, promoted the delay of baptism. From this point of view Tertullian argued ; — that those persons should rather defer it, who by their peculiar circumstances were ex- posed to peculiar temptations, as those who were unmarried or the widowed. " Let them wait until they either maiTy or are confirmed in continence." ^ But still it may be said, that Tertullian did not absolutely reject infant baptism ; all he meant was, that in general bap- tism should not be hastened, but deferred to a riper age. But this would not forbid that in cases of necessity children must be baptized as the only means of securing their salvation. In favour of this view might be adduced what, as we have seen above, Tertullian said respecting baptism in cases of neces- sity being administered by laymen, when he presupposed that those who in such cases of necessity made no use of their right to baptize, hazarded the perdition of the unbaptized. Then it might be said, Tertullian cannot have been thinking of adult catechumens, since he supposes the opposite re- specting them, that provided their faith was of the right kind, they would suffer no detriment for the want of baptism, not involving their personal blame. Therefore he can refer only to children in whom no faith could yet exist. But on the other hand, Tertullian expresses himself as the unconditional antagonist of infant baptism too sharply, and presupposes too distinctly the necessary connexion between faith and baptism, to allow of our imposing such a limitation on his language. * "In quil)us tentatio prseparata est tam virginibus per maturitatem qnam viduis per vacationem, donee aut nubant aut continentiae corrobo- rentur." From this passac^e it might be inferred that Tertullian at that time held second marriages to be lawful, and therefore had not yet adopted Montanist views. But this would not be a correct conclusion ; for the Montanist ppoke only of a second marriage after haptism. It •was only Christian marriage, sanctified by religion^, which they regarded 88 not dissolved even by death. DE BArTISMO. 339 Ho also examines the question, wliat seasons arc peculiarly suited for the celebration of baptism. At that time Cliristians were far from the narrowmindedness of later ages, iu which it was thought necessary to confine baptism to certain seasons. He says, " Every time is the Lord's ; every hour, every sea- son is suitable for baptism ; if there be a difterence in its solemnity, there is none as to its grace. Only on account of the special reference in Avhich the events celebrated at Easter and Whitsuntide stand to the significance of l)aptism, these two festivals appeared to him the most suitable seasons for baptism. The preparatives for baptism were prayer, f;Lsting, and the confession of sin. New temptations awaited the bap- tized. Without temptation no one can enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ himself was tempted after baptism. It might be said that flisting ought to be j)nictised innnediately after baptism. But this would interfere with the joy for the salva- tion obtained. He closes with a beautiful address to the newly baptized. '• Therefore, ye blessed ones, whom the grace of God waits for, when ye ascend from that most holy laver of the new birth, and spread your hands for the firet time in your mother's presence with your brethren, ask of the Father, ask of the Lord, who supplies goods, graces and divei'sities of gifts. ' Ask, and ye shall receive,' he says ; for ye have sought, and ye have found ; ye have knocked, and it has been opened to you. Only I beseech you, that when ye ask, ye will also remember the sinner Tertullian. " The treatise on Baptism naturally leads us to one on a kindred subject, that on Kepentancc (De Pcenitentia). In both works the subject of baptism is handled, but under different aspects. In the former, Tertullian speaks, as we have seen, against the over-hasty administration of baptism ; in the latter, against an improper delay of it. But the fii-st of these writings is devoted entirely to the question of baptism ; every- thing else is subordinate. The second, on the contrary, treats only in passing of baptism as far as its introduction is re- quired by the main subject, which is nothing else than an exliortation to true repentance in reference to sins connnittcd after baptism. Such was the object for which Tertullian composed this treatise. On the one hand, he wished to summon the catechumens to prepare themselves for baptism by true repentance, in order that they might be properly 340 I5E PCENITEXTIA. receptive of the operations of grace at baptism, and not be in dani^er of requiring afterwards a second baptism by forfeiting by their sins the baptismal grace. On tlie other hand, he wished to admonish those aU^eady baptized who had relapsed into sin, to recover themselves quickly, and not to shrink from the humiliation of a public confession, which would conduce to their restoration, and at the same time to guard against despair, as if they were beyond the possibility of rescue. Probably Tertullian felt himself particularly called upon to combat that stricter party who altogether excluded the lapsed after baptism from the hope of absolution, and the forgiveness of sins. The chronological relation of the two treatises is determined by the opposite reference of their contents. Repentance for sins committed after baptism, presupposes baptism. Had Tertullian, when he composed the work on baptism, already experienced that many catechumens on account of the want of a right disposition to prepare for baptism, were constantly putting it off ; or at least, had he been led to direct his attention to such a fact, he could not have omitted, when he expressed his opinion against the over- hastiness for baptism, to have warned against the opposite error. On the other hand, it is evident that as Tertullian in his earlier composed treatise on baptism, had declared him- self against a too early baptism, and had only at a later period become acquainted with the opposite error and abuse, he must have felt compelled in that second work to have 'warned against that also. Such is the mutual connexion of the two treatises. First of all, he represents repentance as the preparation for baptism, " that the house of the heart might be purified and prepared for the coming of the Holy Spirit, that he might wilhngly enter with celestial gifts." Then he proceeds to consider the true idea of repentance. The idea of re- pentance and sin are intimately connected. As the whole depth of the consciousness of sin and guilt was wTmting to the ancient world, so also was the full idea of repentance. This rendered it the more needful to treat of the nature of sin first of all, a.s a preparative for the right idea of repentance. Here Tertullian was obliged to guard against the superficial conception which does not detect the essence of sin equally in all the forms of its appearance. That superficial conception DE POSNITENTIA. 341 was always disposed to take peculiar cognisawco of sins of the flesh, which arc open to the eye of man ; and, on the otlicr hand, to veil, or to pass a gentle sentence on, the more hidden and deeper sinful tendencies of egoism — an ethical ciTor which we have often seen spread widely in the church. On the contrary, Tertullian says — '' Both flesh and spirit arc things of God ; the one formed by his hand, tlie other made perfect by his Spirit. Seeing, then, that they equally pertain to the Lord, whatever in thcni sins, in an equal manner offends God. "^ Moreover, the superficiality of the ethical spirit was shown in this, that men conceived of sin only in the outward act, without tracing it to its internal root in the directions of the will. Now it is the peculiarity of the Christian stand-point, that it recognises sin in the innermost depths of a will estranged from God, w^honce all individual manifestations of it proceed. In reference to this Tertullian remarks, that sin, although it does not come into visible act, may still be present in the tendency of the will ; that the guilt of man is not lessened, though the sinful tendency may not have an oppor- tunity for carrying out the sin, whether of omission or com- mission, which proceeds from the tendency of the will. " It is plain," he says, "that sins not only of deed but of will must be avoided and cleansed by repentance. For if human little- ness judges only by deeds, because it is no match for the coverts of the will, we must not be careless of the sins of the will before God. God is sufficient for all things. Nothing, whence any sin proceeds, is hidden from his sight The will is, in truth, the source of the deed The will is not acquitted of the sin when any difficulty prevents its perpctra tion, for the will to sin is imputed to the will." Tertullian pointed out that the Sermon on the iMount distinguishes the Gospel from the external Law, by the reference of the judgment passed on transgi'cssions to the tendency of the will. " It is most idle to say, I willed, but I did not do it. But thou must needs do, because thou wiliest ; or not will, because thou doest not. But thou passest sentence by the confession of thy own conscience, 1 Siquidem ct cavo et spu-Itu; Dei res est, alia nianu cjii.-< cxpressa, alia afflatu ejus con.-^ummata. Cuui ergo ex pari ad Dcnm pertinoant, quodcunque corum dcliquerit ex pari Dominum oftendit." Cap. iii. 342 BE PCENITENTIA. For if thou desiredst a good thing, thou wouldst have longed to do it, and so since thou doest not a bad thing, thou oughtest not to have desired it. Turn which way thou wilt, thou art fettered in guilt, because thou either hast willed evil or hast not fulfilled good." Thus the connexion of the ethical and the religious, in Tertullian's supernatural theism, is exhibited when he brings forward the sentiment, that it is important to will what is good, not because it is good, but because it corresponds to the will of God. " I consider it audacity to dispute concerning the goodness of a divine precept ; for we are not bound to obey because it is good, but because God commands." These words, taken apart from their connexion, may, indeed, be so understood, as if the difference between good and evil was only an arbitrary distinction made by God, so that something else might be good if God so willed it. Such a conception would certainly turn the will of God into caprice, and not be pervaded with the consciousness of the internal necessity of the moral, and its being one with the essence of God and with his holiness, as that on which morals are grounded. But we should be doing Tcrtullian palpable injustice if we were dis- posed to ascribe such views to him. Yet we may consider it as the opposition against the other equally false view of a one-sided rationalist stand-point, w^hich would say — " God wills the good, because it is good ;" so that the good is represented as something antecedent to the will of God, and placed in an outward relation to it. Tcrtullian expresses himself very pointedly in opposition to a creaturcly egoism and Eudse- monism, as appears when he says — " For the maintaining of obedience, the majesty of the divine power precedes ; for the authority of the commander precedes the usefulness of him who serves." His meaning appears to be, God is not to bo obeyed for man's selfish interest, but for God's sake; true morality has reference to the glory of God. How far Tcrtullian was from a false irrational supernaturalism, which transformed the will of God into caprice, and admitted an opposition between the divine and the truly rational, is evident from his words quoted above, on the relation of God to the ratio ; and in the beginning of this very treatise we find an important passage relating to it, where he says of those who occupied the stand-point of the ignorance of heathenism DE PCENITENTIA. 348 previous to Christianity, "From the reason of the thing tlicy are as far distant as from the Author of reason himself; for reason is a thing of God, seeing that God, the Creator of all things, has provided, ordained, and disposed nothing without reason, and has willed that nothing should bo handled or understood without reason. Therefore, those who are ignorant of God, are also ignorant of that thing which is his ; so that floating over the whole business of life without the helm of reason, they know not how to avoid the tempest that threatens the age." It is evident, then, that, according to Tertullian, true reason is in Christianity. He distinguishes between the first and the second repent- ance ; that he regards sins committed after baptism as so much more criminal and punishable, is, in his case, not an arbitraiy assumption, nor is it necessarily connected with his eiTors in his conception of baptism ; but it rests with him on the principle, that in proportion to the degrees of knowledge and grace imparted to any one will be his criminality in the neglect of them. As we have already seen, he presupposes an original universal sense of God as lying at the foundation of humanity, and distinguishes this from the higher stand- point of Christian consciousness ; he says — " Even those who know not the Lord, no exception protects from punishment ; since God being clearly manifested, and to be understood from his heavenly gifts themselves, cannot be unknown, how dangerous is it, that being known, he should be despised I Now he despises him who, having obtained from him the understanding of good and evil, in taking up again what ho understands ougiit to be slnmned, and which he has already shunned, insults his own understanding, that is, the gift of God He shows himself not only rebellious, but im- grateful against the Lord. Moreover, he sins not lightly against the Lord, who, having renounced liis enemy, the devil, by repentance, and having by this token put him in subjection to the Lord, again exalts him by returning to him, and makes himself a cause of triumph, so that the evil one, having recovered his prey, rejoices against the Lord Does he set the devil before the Lord 1 He seems to liavo made a comparison between them who has known l)oth, and to have pronounced a solemn judgment that lic is the better whose he has chosen to be again." 344 DE PCENITENTIA. Vv'e find everywhere in religion and morals the contrasts of a one-sided externality and of a one-sided spiritualism. As there are those who, in their moral judgments, refer every- thing to the outward act, so, on the contrary, there are others who make a false separation between the will and the deed — who, though they justly assert that everything depends on the will, are not willing to acknowledge that the right v/ill verifies itself in action, — that where this is not the case, the right will must be wanting. Of such persons Tertullian speaks when he says, "Some affirm that God has enough,' if he be reverenced in heart and mind, though this be not done in the outward act ; and so they sin without prejudice to tlieir fear of God and faith ; that is, they defile the marriage bed without prejudice to chastity, and mix jDoison for a parent without prejudice to filial j^iety ! Thus, also, they will be thrust down to hell without prejudice to their pardon, Avhen tliey sin without prejudice to their godly fear !" Although Tertullian, as we have seen in the foregoing treatise, was very much entangled in the external idea of baptism, yet this was in his case modified by his genuine Christian spirit, his deeper conception of the nature of baptism in relation to regeneration. He always gave promi- nence to its inner nature as his genuine Christian spirit gave liim an insight into it, although he did not clearly understand the relation of that inner nature to the mediating outv\'ard element. Thus, in this work he combated a practically injurious conception, which, indeed, found its support in that externality, and could not be thoroughly eradicated excepting by a clearer understanding of the inward to the outward in baptism. That same practical Christian interest which moved liim to oppose infant baptism, made him become an opponent in this treatise of an erroneous delay of baptism. The same externality which mingled itself with infant baptism,^ which was the origin of baptizing persons at the point of deatli (iioihtaufe), promoted in another way the longer delay of baptism. There were, in fact, persons who remained longer in the class of catechumens, that they might for a longer time indulge their sensual inclinations, under tlie notion that when in danger of death they submitted to ' " Satis Dcum habere si cordo ct animo suscipiatur, licet actu minus fiat." Cap. V. DE PCENITEXTIA. 345 baptism, they should at once be purified and fitted for eternal life. Tertullian wished particidarly to influenee the cateclui- mcns who were enthralled in this delusion, and thereby })re- vented from rightly preparing for baptism. He says to such — " How foolish, how unjust it is, not to fulfil repentance, and yet to expect the forgiveness of sins ! that is, not to jiay the price, and yet to stretch forth the hand for the gc^ods ! For at this price the Lord has determined to grant forgive- ness ; by tlie payment of this re])entance, he oflers impunity to be purchased. If, therefore, those who sell first examine the money w^hich they agree to take, lest it be cHppcd or scraped, or base, we believe that the Lord will first test our repentance before he grants us the goods of eternal life." As the catechumens imagined that the Christian life need not be entered upon in real earnest till after baptism, Tertulhan endeavoured by various illustrations to make it evident, that the time of preparation for baptism in the class of catechu- mens must be verified as such by a moral coui-se of conduct. " For what slave, after he lias been changed into a free man, charges himself with his theft and desertions ? What soldier when discharged from the camp makes satisfliction for his brands ? The sinner ought to lament his sins before he receives forgiveness, for the time of repentance is the same as that of danger and fear." When an appeal was made to the gi'ace of the divine forgiveness of sins at baptism, Ter- tullian replies — "I do not deny the divine gift; that is, the blotting out of sins is entirely secured to those who are about to enter the water ; but to obtain that, men must lal)our for it. For who w^ill furnish to tlice, a man of such faithless repentance, a single sprinkling of any water 1 It is easy for thee to come hither by stealth, and for him who is ovei*seer in this business to be cheated by thy affirmations. But God provides for his own treasure, nor suffers the unwortliy to creep in. What, finally, does he say ? ' There is nothing covered which shall not be revealed.' Whatever darkness thou shalt spread over thy deeds, God is light." Tliere were some, who, after the manner of the Jews, miagined tliat God's promises being once given must be fulfilled, even to the unworthy; that her grace was necessarily connected with the outward baptism and the outward confession. *'Somo make God's free bounty a bounden service ; but if he docs it, 346 DE rCENITE^-TIA. beino- necessitated, and therefore against his will, lie gives us, instead of a sign of hfe, a sign of death." ' TertuUian appeals to experience. Many after baptism had apostatised from Christianity, or on account of their ofiences had been exchided from the comm-union of the church. "■ For do not many afterwards fall away 1 is not that gift taken away from many 1 These are they in truth w^ho creep in unawares, ■who haying undertaken the engagement to repent, build on the sand a house that is about to fall." Of course, the proper eftects of Christianity are not manifested in such persons, who have no idea of the nature of justification, nor of what Christ should be to them. " Is there one Christ," TertuUian asks, " for the baptized and another for the hearers 1 Is there a different hope or reward? a different fear of judgment? a dilFerent need of repentance'? That laver is the seal of foith, which begins with the faithfulness of repentance and is commended by it. We are not washed that we may cease to sin, since we are already washed in heart." TertuUian pre- supposes that a man must come to baptism as one wdio has already renounced sin, and has been purified in heart by true repentance ; and then says, " If w^e first cease from sinning when baptized, we put on innocency of necessity, not of free will. Which, then, excels in goodness ? he that is not per- mitted, or he that is not disposed to sin ? he that is com- ^ According to the received reading, " Quodsi necessitate nobis sym- bolum mortis indulgot, ergo invitus facit" — some understand by eymholum, a bond, x^'-Php°^ ^^ said that the Montanists, even to such persons, did not aeny ^ hope o salvation. ISut Tcrtullian encourages them o i h^;eTn such a manner as it ,ould have beci inijiossih for him to adopt on Montamst pnnciples. It is as it . This lie. in thewords, "Otacrvat ('"^»;;3''3Sf,::'frS: tianitv, the tmrificaU and sacrijiadi. in times oi jiuis certapcrvcisisl/adUionihusdctorqncro ter^^^^^^ ,., = It ccrlainly cannot be proved « l™^/"™ ' „f .fn before tho to those ^vho were ashamed of a if,'';;^^;- ^^7 ° ,„ „Wri?" church, "An nielii.s est j'-™"^.'™' ^f ;,^;,Xabsoiution ; for since JK;;.r:r:frt"tS5^^^^^^ 348 DE PCENITENTIA. designedly -^'islied to defend the milder principles against the stricter party.* He adduces precisely those arguments, of which he combated the validity at a later period as a ^Mon- tanist. He appeals to the exhortations to repentance in the epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocah^se. " The Lord admonishes all to repentance, though with threatenings. But he would not threaten the impenitent, if he were not willing to pardon the penitent. This might be doubtful, if he had not elsewhere demonstrated the abundance of his clemency. Does he not say, ' He who has fallen shall rise again, and he who has turned away shall return.' This is he who ' will have mercy rather than sacrifice.' The heavens re- joice and the angels there, over the repentance of one man. Ho! sinner, be of good courage; thou seest where they rejoice at thy return." He appeals to the parables of the lost piece of silver, the lost sheep, and the prodigal son. In reference to the last, he says, " "Whom are we to understand by this Father 1 verily God ! — none so much a father, — none so fatherly in love. He will receive thee as his son, though thou hast wasted what thou didst receive from him ; though thou returncst naked, he will receive thee because thou returnest." He only requires that the repentance should be sincere, com- ing from the heart, — that the outer life should not stand in contradiction to the feelings of penitence, — that the internal disposition should manifest itself by works. We only notice as erroneous that certain forms, in which pain for sin is to be expressed and self-humiliation manifested, are prescribed and Yet Tcrtiillian as aMontanist would certainly not have expressed him- self so distinctly respecting the acquittal of sinners. And though the nalam may be understood of a judicial act of God, such as will take place at the last judgment, yet it would be used more naturally for a public church-absolution, especially as the topic in hand is, con- fessions made to the church, and not mere confessions of the heart before God.^ Also the antithesis between damnatum (understanding this of the divine judgment) and absolvi, since according to Tertullian's views at that time, which agreed with the prevalent church doctrine, the admis- sion into the kingdom ofGod was eonnectedwith absolution by thebishop, (the true internal repentance as in this instance being presupposed, and the acquittal by God,) and with admission into the visible church. ' This treatise may very well be the epistle mentioned by Pacian, Bisliop of Barcelona, in which Tcrtullian, before he passed over to Montanism, vindicated the principles of the catholic church of that age respecting repentance after baptism. Sec hisEp.3, Bihl Patr.Lugd. t. iv. DE rOGNITENTIA. 049 considered as necessity expressions of the state of the soul since all this might be more or less unreal, and this mc- thodism, prescribing to all persons one delinite form for expressing their feelings, might easily lead to the artificial and the untrue. There was also another error which was con- nected with the errors already mentioned in the ideas formed of baptism and regeneration, — a peculiar satisfiiction rendered to the offended divine justice for sins committed after bap- tism, on Avhich Tertullian first imposed the name satisfaction — penance viewed in the light of a voluntary sclf-toi-ture. This was the juridical point of view oi Poenitentia, the source of a variety of errors wliicli were developed from it, down to the system of indulgences. In reference to the shame Avhicli held many persons back froin a public confession of sin, Avhich Tertullian regarded as belonging to the self-humiliation of repentance, he says, in a true Christian, not Montanist sense, while exhibiting the nature of that brotherly communion which Avas still experi- enced in that age, — " Among brethren and fellow-servants where there is a common hope and fear, a common joy and sorrow and suffering (because there is a common spirit from the common Lord and Father), why regard these (or, accord- ing to another reading, thy own) as something ditlerent from thyself? Why shun the partners of thy fall, as if they re- joiced over it % The body cannot rejoice at the hurt of one of its members ; all must grieve together and labour together for its cure. Where there are two believers, the church is ; but the church is Christ.^ Therefore, when thou fiiUest on thy knees to thy brethren, thou handiest Christ, thou suppli- catest Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over thee, Christ suffers, Christ intercedes with the Father. That is ever easily obtained which the Son asks for." This passage, like those mentioned above, bears strong marks of a free spiritual conception of the nature of the church, as proceeding from communion with Christ, in opposition to that mode of contemplating it which was rapidly gaining ground, wliich placed in the foreground the idea of the outwai'd organism of the church, and made communion with Christ dependent upon that. We now pass on to the two books of Tertulhan addres.sed 1 Cap. X. '•' In uno et altero ccclesia est, ccclcsia vcro Christus." 350 AD UXOREM. to his Avife, Ad Uxorem, lib. duo. Though he wished to bequeath these to his wife as exhortations for the promotion of the Christian hfe, yet he had, doubtless, the design to con- tribute to a more general interest, and to bring to a decision questions on Christian morals which were then agitated in reference to the marriage relation. We find in these treatises, as in the preceding, many things allied to the spirit of Mon- tanism which jet all must distinguish from what was strictly montanistic. Among these we class the Tiew of single life as a higher stage of Christian perfection. What reasons does TertuUian adduce in its favour ? He appeals to Paul's lan- guage in 1 Cor. vii. 9, Ei 3e ovi: kyKparevovTai, yafx-qad-ojaav' Kptiaaov yap lart yafxfjaai, i) Trvpovffdai.^ He finds in this passage that Paul is flxr from pronouncing marriage as good in itself, but only permits it in comparison with something worse, as a safeguard against the temptations of the flesh. He thinks that the apostle only permits marriage ; that he does not absolutely forbid, but by no means enjoins it ; that he marks it as a lower stage of the Christian life. The apostle even wished that all could follow his own example, that of celibacy. As to the exposition of this passage we must allow, with all respect for the temperate spirit of Paul, who with all his preference for a life devoted only to the advancement of the kingdom of God, and freed from all earthly ties, was still more enlightened in the distinction of objective and subjective, — yet we must allow that from the stand-point of an expositor of Scriptm-e in that age a recommendation of a single life might be easily found in it. Not to infer this from it, and yet to do no violence to Paul's words, would require a hig-her stage of historical and Scriptm-al knowledge, and a philoso- phical distinction of the various stages of the development of Christianity. To attain to such a philosophical insight, more would be requisite than we can expect from the age of Ter- tuUian. ^ Certainly his view of the higher perfection of the single life did not proceed from an erroneous view of this l)assage, but was founded on the whole connexion of his ethical stand-point ; but this being presupposed, he would easily believe that he found a confirmation of his view in Paul's words. Now certainly the over-valuation of the single life is connected with a view which knew not how to under- ' Lib. i. cap. iii. AD UXOREM. :]r)\ stand tlio higher spiritual meaning of marriage as a pecuhar form of revcaUng the kingdom of God as known by Chris- tianity,— a view which fixed the attention on tlie sensnous element in marriage dissevered from its connexion with its higher and spiritual relations. But it is evident even from these two books how deeply TertuUian recognised the signifi- cance of the higher Christian communion in marriage, and that to his apprehension the communion of the divine life constituted the true essence of Christian marriage. First of all, he says, after depicting the evils of a mixed marriage, and endeavouring to show that a true Christian marriage can only be formed between Christians, — " What will her husband sing to her, or what will she sing to her husband? She may liear, yes, she may hear something from the theatre, from the tavern, from the brothel ! But what mention of God ? what invocation of Christ? Where will be tlie noui-ishing of faith by the occasional reading of the Scriptures ?" (that is, in their Christian conversations with one another, will they be led to take up the Scriptures in order to nourish their faith ?) where will be the refreshment of the spirit ? where the Divine bene- diction?" He then describes the blessedness of a Christian marriage, — " How can we find words to express the happiness of that marriage which tlie church effects, and the oblation* confirms, and the blessing seals, and angels report, and the Father ratifies ! AVhat a union of two bclievei-s, of one hope, one discipline, one service! Both brethren, both fellow- servants, no distinction of spirit or of flesh. Together they ,pray, together they prostrate themselves, and together keep their fasts, teaching one another, exhorting one another. They are both together in the church of God, in the feast of God ; they are together in straits and in refreshments. Neither conceals from the other, neither avoids the other, neither is a burden to the other ; freely the sick is visited, the needy is supported ; alms without torture, sacrifices (the gifts presented at the altar) without scruple ; daily diligence without liin- drance ; no using the sign" (of the cross) " by stealth ; no hurried salutation " (of fcllow-Chi-istians), " no silent benc- ^ Ohlatio denotes the presentation of a common gift in the name of the newly married couple, which was mentioned in tlie prayers of the church at the celebration of the supper, and by which the j')int com- munion of the newly married was confirmed. AD UXOREM. diction. Psalms and liymns resound between tlie two, and they vie with each other which shall sing best to their God. Such things Christ seeing and hearing, rejoices. To these he sends his peace. Where the two are, there he is himself; and where he is, the evil one is not." It has been laid to Tertullian's charge,^ that in his eulogy on Christian Marriage there is a want of real earnestness; that Avhat is individual in marriage is not rendered prominent, but everything is merged in the general Christian character, which is applicable to every kind of union ; that the relation to the wife is no other than might exist towards every other Christian female. — To this we must reply, that certainly his expressions contain everything that is required to adorn a Christian marriage, this relation being apprehended in its specific meaning. What is natural in this relation is pre- supposed, and as such is adorned and sanctified by a divine life. The highest spiritual unity of two personalities sepa- rated by the distinction of sex is here described as realized by communion in the divine life. The sentimentality of natural feeling is indeed foreign to Tertullian. Christ is to him, with fellowship and brotherly love founded in him, the animating principle of all the relations of life. This cannot be urged as a charge against him, for it belongs to the essence of the Christian stand-point. Still we cannot deny that although the principle is to be found in Tertullian from which married and family life may acquire their true ethical importance and position in Christianity, yet in himself there were many obstacles to the right application of this principle. We always perceive in him the disturbing and contracting influence cf that one-sided ascetic element in the predominant negative tendency in reference to earthly relations. From this point of view all earthly connexions must be regarded as so many checks to the divine life which longs to divest itself of all that is earthly. He sees in marriage nothing which could be transferred in a glorified form to another world. The idea was floating in his mind that according to the promise of Christ all this must be stripped off" in the angelic life of the other world. Hence, even while here below, the earnest longing of Christians must be directed beyond all earthly 1 By Ilaubcr. Stud. ti. Krit 1845. Ilcft 3. AD UXOREM. 3j3 limits.* Wc learn this from the manner in which lie decides from that one-sided point of vicAv of the wish to leave de- scendants. He calls it, " Liberorum amarissima voluptato ;" "That most bitter pleasure of children." "Also this," lio says, " is, with us, hateful. For why should we long t(»'bcar children, since if we have them we wish to send thcin before us on account of the threatening tribulation, we ourselves also longing to be taken away from this most wicked world, and to be received by the Lord, which was the wish of the apostle." Here is a strong expression of a Christian principle of action which is inseparable from the essence of Christianity, and which was particidarly vigorous in the first age of the church, the longing beyond earthly things after that heavenly flxther- land in which the spirit finds its true home. And certainly that other w^orld w\as not to a Tertullian a mere external thing, but became to him an internal reality such as belongs to tho essence of Christianity. This also was the root of his earnest longing. But the other principle, of the appropriation of all other relations for that divine life of the other world, was not felt by him so forcibly. He had an overpowering conscious- ness of the pei-petual antagonism between the higher world of the future, and the present world "lying in the wicked one." We must always bear in mind that Tertullian, as we have before remarked, believed that this antagonism in earthly relations must last, till all things should be made new by the second advent of Christ. In connexion with this subject wo must notice another reason which he gave why Christians should not Avish for children. " Offspring are necessary, for- sooth," (he says in an ironical tone,)" "to the servant of God. We are so sure about our own lot, that we have leisure for children !" We notice here, as in many passages, the key- note of legal fear is sounded rather than that of child-like love. To corroborate such a sentiment in Christians in refe- rence to offspring, Tertullian adduces the woe uttered by Christ in the prospect of the approaching tribulations on "those who should be with child." Matt. xxiv. 19. A spe- cimen this of tho injurious influence of grammatolatiy in 1 Lib. i. cap. 1. "Ccterum Christianis scculo digressis nulla resti- tutio nuptiarum in diem resurrcctionis rcpromittitur, translatis scilicet in angelicam qualitatem ct sanctitatcm." 2 Tfie word niniirum expresses the irony. VOL. II. A A 354 ^^ UXOREM. Scripture, against which the rules elsewhere developed by Tertullian on the exposition and application of the Bible contain a preservative ! In everything that has hitherto come under our notice, we recognise what is akin to Montanism, but by no means what is absolutely montanistic. We may add what he says as an example of the relation of flight to martyrdom in times of persecution. " Even in persecutions it is better to flee as is permitted from city to city, than being seized and tortured to deny the faith And on this account are they blessed who are enabled to depart from this life with a glorious con- fession." It is evident that Tertullian here contemplates that Christian stand-point on which a man, in the consciousness of his weakness, escapes from persecution by flight, as quite inferior to that heroic faith which boldly meets and even longs for martyrdom. As he regards single life as praise- worthy in and for itself, and the highest stand-point of Christian perfection, but wedded life as something inferior, so he decides in a similar manner on the relation of the two stand-points of Christian conduct under persecution. But still he recognises flight under persecution as not absolutely unchristian, but a thing permitted to Christians. In accord- ance with the views then prevalent among Christians, he acknowledges in those words of Christ in Matt. x. 23, an authority for it, though he afterwards explained the passage differently. Here we have a proof of non-Montanism. This is also the place for noticing the passage respecting the different stages in the religious and moral development of mankind, in which Tertullian distinguishes the stand-point of the still unbridled nature in the patriarchal age before the law, — that of legal correction and restraint, — and still higher, that of the perfection introduced by the Gospel. Here we have the germ of those views that were afterwards developed in Montanism, but still there is wanting the stage added by Montanism of the higher development introduced by the I'araclete. Ifad Tertullian at this time been a Montanist, he would certainly not have neglected to mention this. Of these two books addressed to his wife, the first contains his exhortation that after his death she should remain un- married, to which he was prompted by the pre-eminence he gave to a single life. Yet he finds a special reason for it — ■ \T) UXOBEM. 3jJ namely, that a connexion dissolved by the ^vill of CJod ou'dit not to be restored by the wilfidnesy of man. " Tlio huHband being dead by the will of God, the marriage also in dead Viy the will of God. AVouldst thou restore a relation to wliicli God has put an end ? Why, by renewing the bondage of matrimony, dost thou refuse the freedom ofl'ercd to tiicc 1" As to the first expressions, the thought they contain, if carried out, would indeed lead to Montanist Quietism ; but, taken as they stand, they amount to no more than what any one might say from a Christian stand-point, if he wished to regard the dissolution of the first marriage by death as an admonition to form no new marriage union. The last quoted words contain certainly that ascetic view of all earthly unions as limitations of the freedom of the divine life, which we have already noticed. In the second book he adds a limitation to tlie exhortation against the formation of a second marriage, only expressing his desire that his wife should wed no one but a Cln-istian. He therefore allows the second marriage to bo a christian act, which was contradictory to the views of the Montanists. But he finds the prohibition of a mixed marriage in the words of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 19, since he lays an emi)hasis on tho words fuot'ov iv Kvpio). He explains this in nomine Domini, quod est iiiduhitate Christiana. And certainly Tertullian was so far right, that although these words do not refer merely to tlio point that no marriage ought to be formed between a heathen and a Christian, yet that sentiment is necessarily contained in the idea of i>/ Kvp/w. But there were many persons, as Tertullian states, wdio had pleaded in vindication of the prac- tice of mixed marriages, that Paul himself had approved of such in that part of his epistle. On the other hand, Tertul- lian justly remarked that a marriage now first contracted was one thing, and a mixed marriage was another, and which became mixed from one of the parties embracing Christianity. Only to such a relation could Paul's words refer, as could easily be proved from the reasons adduced by the Apostle. Ptightly understanding Paul, he thought tliat, wlien by tho conversion of one party the marriage became mixeil, God might gi-ant to the Christian party, if taithfid, tlie moans, not only of being preserved from tho injm-ious influence of the other, but of operating beneficially on that otlier jKn'ty. '' For a person who has been called by some divine manifostutiou of ooG AD UXOREM. gi-ace to the possession of a heavenly po^Ye^, infuses fear into a heathen, so that he does not strive against her, does not wish to know too much of her, and is less disposed to be over curious. He perceives great things, has seen proofs ; knows that she has become better." What TertuUian means to say is this, the manner in which a wife has been connected by special divine influences to Christianity, the heavenly power with which she appeal's armed, all this will operate to fill her husband with awe in her presence. What TertuUian says against foi-ming a mixed marriage, proves how deeply he understood the Christian stand-point of maniage, how very much he was impressed with the conviction that without mental com- munion no true marriage could exist ; and the central point of this mental communion was in his view the religious ele- ment, communion with Christ as common to both, and the communion of the higher life founded upon that. From this point of view also, the approval of the church, the religious element, appeared as necessary to the ratification of a mamage. We refer to his words already quoted. And hence he con- siders a mixed marriage, which must be destitute of this con- secration, as unchristian, dissevered from connexion with the church, or, as he terms it, nuptias de ecdesia toller e. This is evident also from the way in which he describes the injurious effects of a mixed marriage, of which we have already noticed several, in speaking of his conception of Christian maniage in general. He warns the Christian female of the dangers she will subject her religious life to, by concluding a man'iage with a heathen ; to what inteiTuptions and troubles and per- jilexities she will be exposed. " When the wife wishes to observe a day of special devotion, the husband appoints it for tlie baths ; if a fast is to be kept, the husband makes a feast on the same day. If she wishes to leave home for a reli- gious object, never does household business fall more upon licr hands. And who would allow his wife, for the sake of visiting the Ijrcthren, to go about from street to street tho round of strange cottages, even the poorest ? Who would willingly bear her being parted from his side, for nightly meetings, if needs ])c ? Who would, without anxiety, endure her being away all night, at the solemnities of Easter '? Who without his own suspicions would let her go to that feast of the Lord which they defame ? AVho would sufier her to AD UXOREM. ;}." creep into a prison to kiss the chains of a martyr ? yea, and to meet any one of the brethren with the kiss ? to offer water for the saints' feet ? to wait npon them witli their food and drink 1 to long for them, to have them in her thonglits 1 U a stranger brother come, what lodging could he expect in an alien's house ? If a present is to be made to any, the bam and the fruit-stores are closed." He adds several other things which belonged to the daily Christian life, and wc are thus informed of many important points relative to the history of Christian customs. He says, " Canst thou keep it secret wdien thou markest thy bed or thy body with tlio sign of the cross, when thou blowest away anything unclean with thy breath," (where we notice a Jewish clement in the distinction of clean and unclean, the fear of external defile- ment, as in tasting of meat offered to idols,) " when thou ri.sest in the night to pray? Wilt thou not appear to be practising a kind of magic ? Will not thy husband know wJiat thou tastest in secret before all food, and if he knows it to be bread, will he not believe it to be that which is reported ? And will any man bear with these things, not knowing the reason, without a groan, without a suspicion that it is not bread, but poison ? " This evidently refers to the practice of which wo have spoken before — that of taking home a portion of the consecrated bread, keeping it by itself and taking it while fasting. If the heathen husband noticed that the wife ascribed a sanctifying and protective power to this bread, he might be more easily induced to suspect the use of charms. He then appeals to the fact, which very probably came under his own observation, that heathen husbands would sometimes allow their wives liberty on these points, in order to ridicule them, or to use it as a means of accusing them, or to exercise con- stant control over them through dread of being accused. He must have been acquainted with many examples, as he inti- mates, of persons who were thus kept in constant mcntiil torture, or who were induced to apostatize. How arc wc to account for it, that Tertullian should make no mention here 'of infant baptism ? Had he regarded this as an institution belonging to Christianity in general, would he not have stated that the heathen men- would not allow their Christian wives to have it administered to their childi'cn ? All mvstcrious formalities were foreign to the Clnistian 35 S r)E CULTU FEMINARUM. spirit as it proceeded originally from apostolic Christianity. As it appears from the words of Paul (1 Cor. xiv.), the social meetings of the Christians were so conducted that they operated beneficially on the heathen, who attended them for the purpose of being further instructed in Christianity. At a later period other views prevailed — it was supposed that there were certain mysteries of Christianity, especially in what stood in connexion with the Holy Supper, which must be withdrawn from the gaze and cognisance of unbelievers. Hence proceeded the distinction of missa catechumenorum and missa JiJelium. From this point of view, it was an offence to Tcrtullian, that by means of mixed marriages sacred things would be divulged to the heathen, and thus profaned. He here made an erroneous application of our Lord's words — "Cast not your pearls before swine." Instead of being pleased that the knowledge of Christianity gained by the heathens in their daily intercourse rendered them more forbearing towards it, Tertullian is always suspicious, lest sacred things, by being thus laid open to the heathen, should be profaned.^ Tertullian laments that wealthy Cin-istiaus particularly were seduced, by their love of earthly things, to many heathen women, by whom their earthly interests would be promoted.^ He avails himself of this to express his aversion to the opulence of Christians, a sentiment which was in harmony with the whole of his character, and which found its warrant in several of our Lord's sayings too literally inter- preted. We may here mention two writings of Tertullian, Be Cidtu Feminarum (On the Dress of Women), in which there is at least no sign of Montanism, although no certain sign of the opposite. They contain an exhortation to Christian females, that in their outward appearance they should distinguish themselves as Ciu-istians before heathens of their own sex, and exhibit a spiritual seriousness and Christian demeanour, by keeping at a distance from the infection of splendour and use- less extravagance, which at that period were so prevalent in * "Hoc est igitur delictum, quod gentiles nostra noverunt, quod sub conscienUa iatorum sunius, quod beneticium coram est, si quid opera- mur. Non potest se dicere ncscire, qui Sustinet, aut si cclatur, quia non suptinct, timetur." ' Lib. ii. cap. 8. DE GULTU FEMINARUM. .^.lO great cities. These two books are iiulepcudent of one an- other, and were composed at different times. TertnUiaii wjw averse from art as well as from ornament. Ho is the representative of those ethical views which we find advocated at a later period by the Puritans and Quakers. To him everything that went beyond simple nature appeared as an invention of the evil one, as a fidsification of the original divine model. "For those things are not the best by nature," h(B says, "which do not proceed from God, the Autlior of nature, but are evidently from the devil, that falsifier of nature." He distinguishes, as in his book De Spectaculis, the natural use of things from the unnatural, to which work he also here refers. On this subject, as we have already seen, these observations were applied to the general question, liow far the Christian ought to place himself on common ground with the world. Many persons thought, that as Christianity is an affair of the inner man, the only important concern was internal Christian virtue, of which God is the witness. The Christian on his conversion must remain unaltered in all outward relations. The Christian female, therefore, was not required to renounce the prevalent manners in reference to ornament and show, in order that Christianity may not appear to interfere with the social relations and mannci-s of the w^orld, and thereby occasion be given to blaspheme the Christian name. In all this there was a portion of tiiith. The difficulty was to fix the exact boundary, beyond which it would be improper to pass on cither side. It was necessary, not only to treat the question on general principles, but to take into account the various circumstances. But Tertullian opposed an erroneously applied general principle by another principle, which, though in itself correct, was too geneml without entering into the different cases, when he says, in order to do no injury to the Christian f\iitli—" Therefore, let us not put away the ancient vices ; let us also retain the same manners if the external appearance be the same ; and then truly the heathen will not blaspheme. A gi'cat l^las- phemy, indeed, if it be said— Since she has become a Christian, she goes about more needily ! Will she not be afi-aid to aiii)car poorer, since she has become richer ; and to appear meaner, since she has become more adorned 1 Unst Christians walk according to the good pleasure of the heathen, or of God ? 360 r>E CULTU FEMINARUM. Only let ns wish that we may not be justly the cause of blasphemy. But how much more blasphemous it is, if ye, who are called the priestesses of modesty, go about decorated and painted after the manner of the immodest ?" Tertullian, in so many respects the forerunner of Augustin, appears such in the judgment he passes on the virtues of the heathen ; and although this is done with a rude exaggeration, which does not discriminate the connexion of all the various steps of moral development, the relationship that subsists between all parts of morality ; yet there lies at its basis the truth of a deeper perception of the unity of the ethical and the religious, of the entireness of the ethical form of life as it proceeds from Christianity. Tertullian notices this in refer- ence to chastity ; that though something of this kind was found among the heathen, yet the whole was not of a piece, like the chastity of ChristiaDs, which presented itself in the whole form of life, embracing equally the inward and the outward. He says, "For though we may believe that among the Gentiles there is a certain kind of chastity, yet it is evidently imperfect and disordered, and though it may in some measure retain its hold on the mind, yet it is dissipated in the extravagance of dress Let them see, that since they do not hold fast all goodness, they easily mingle with evil the good which they do hold."^ Against that appeal to the inward apart from the outward, he says, " Perhaps it will be said. It is not necessary for me to be approved by men ; I require not human testimony. God is the searcher of hearts. We all know that ; but yet we recollect what the apostle has said — ' Let your honesty (jorohum vestrum) be known unto all men.' (Phil. iv. 5.)^ And why ? unless that wickedness may gain no access to you, and that ye may be an example and a testimony to the wicked. Or why is it said — ' Let yom- works shine 1 ' Or why does the Lord call us Hhe light of the world r Why does he compare us to 'a city set upon a hill,' if we ai'e not to shine among those that are in darkness, and to be conspicuous among the sunken % This it is which makes us the light of the world, namety, our good- ness. But goodness, at all events true and complete goodness, loves not darkness, but rejoices to be seen, and exults even in being pointed at. It is not enough that Christian chastity 1 Lib. ii. cap. 1. a Lib. ii. cap. 13. DE CULTU FEMINARUM. 3G1 sliould simply he, it must be seen. For so gi-cat oiifjlit to be its fulness, that it should flow over from the mind into the manners, and rise up from the conscience into tlic coun- tenance, and look upon public life as on its own household furniture, and so be serviceable to preserve the faith for ^er." He thinks that all such effeminacy should be shunned, by which the power of the fliith may be enervated. He aims to show how little such outward decoration becomes the lot of Christians who are exposed to the fetters and tortures of persecution. He gives us an insight into the life of Christian females when he endeavours to prove from the only occasions wliich they had to appear in public, that they had no reason what- ever for indulging in ornamental dress. ' " What cause have 3^ou to go into public decorated, seeing that you are removed from those things that would require it 1 For you neither go about to the temples, nor inquire after the public shows, nor do you know the heathen feast-days. All the pomps are designed only to gratify the wish to see and to be seen, or to indulge extravagance, to feed the appetite for glory. But you have no causes for appearing in public except such as are grave ; either to visit a sick brother, or to present a sacrifice," (partaking of the Communion,)" "or to hear the word of God. These are serious and sacred occasions, which require no extm- ordinaiy and flowing dress, but a becoming onc.^ And if the duty of friendship and of kind offices to the heathen calls you, why not appear with your own proper weapons, so much the rather when you have to do with strangers to the fliith ? Let there be a distinction between the handmaids of the devil and those of God, that you may be an example to them, and tliat they may be edified by you, that God may be magnified in your body (as the apostle says) ; but he is magnified by chas- tity, and by a dress that accords with chastity." The manner in which Tertullian expresses himself in the first of these books,* on the canon and inspiration of the 1 Lib. ii. cap. 11. 2 " Sacrificium offertur." Sec above. 3 This passage, accordin,;? to the received reading, has been corrupted bj' a transposition of the clauses and the change of sed into ct. It stands, "cui opus non sit habitn extraordinario et composito ct soluto.' Evi- dently it should be, " ct soluto, scd composito." * Lib. i. cap. 3. 362 DE EXHORTATIONE CASTITATIS. Scriptures, is worthy of notice. He had appealed to the apocryphal Book of Enoch, in which the acts of adorning the person, of astrology, and the like, are attributed to communi- cations from fallen spirits. But the Book of Enoch was regarded by others as a forgery, not belonging to the collection of the Holy Scriptures. TertuUian, on the other hand, main- tains, according to an en'oneous explanation of the passage in 2 Tim. iii. 16, that every writing which tends to edification is inspired by God, and particularly that writing which testi- fies of Christ. " But since Enoch in the same writing has predicted respecting the Lord, what belongs to ourselves is not by any means to be rejected by •us." The sentiment that lies at the basis of what TertuUian here says, is, that Christ is the central point of Holy Writ, and of all inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But this shows what an indistinct idea he had of the marks of Divine inspiration, and consequently of what belonged to the Holy Scriptures. The critical incompetence and logical caprice of TertuUian are shown in his taking for granted what was first of all to be proved, that the Book of Enoch was as ancient as it professed to be. SECTION it MONTANIST -WRITINGS. We make our transition to this division with a treatise iii wliich TertuUian not merely declares a second marriage, as in his first book Ad Uxorem, to be unadvisable, but altogether as a Montanist plainly and absolutely condemns it— his treatise De Exhortatione Castitatis. And yet in other respects Montanism is only slightly indicated in this book, and there is no express appe.tl to the new I'cvelations, one passage alone excepted, which has been noticed by Rigaltius. TertuUian has here used designedly a tone of moderation, because he wrote to an individual in the very bosom of the catholic church, whom he wished to convince from his own stand-point. For everything here brought forward he was certainly pre- DE EXaoRTATlONE CABTITATIS. ^(JS pared by those views on single life which we have alrcaciv noticed in his first book Ad Uxorem, — both what lie supposed was to be found in many passages of Paul's Epistles, and tlie consequences deduced from them by his own peculiar lofic. lie writes to a person whom he wished to exhort not to marry again after the deatli of his first wife. This book is, on the whole, distinguished by a gentleness and quietness unusual to Tertullian in controversy; there is a sobriety of development, without those outbursts which he was wont to indulge in. This peculiarity may be explained by the character of the work being hortatory rather than controversial. Ter- tullian is animated by the desire not to crush an opponent, but to win a friend to the acknowledgment of principles which appeared to himself as the only correct ones. Tiiis is perceptible in the gentle unpretending manner in which the treatise begins. He guards himself against the reproach of laying down the law to his friend on a point which he ought to determine hj his own belief and conscience. He supposes, that through tlie weakness of the flesh, he might be carried away to act differently from what the Gospel and the Spirit would require of him, and therefore that it might be an advantage if in such a conflict his own foith were aided by the counsel of a friend. But it is also not less evident that Tertullian sets out from that point of view of which we have already spoken, namely, that a single life belongs to the per- fection of holiness ; though other reasons ai^e added. Man, created after the image of God, ought to be con- tinually advancing in likeness to God, in being holy as God is holy. But as a part of this holiness, Tertullian from his ascetic point of view reckons the suppression of sexual desire. He makes three distinct stages. First, refraining from marriage from the first, as something founded in nature; secondl}^, by the mutual consent of married persons to practise abstinence from the time of their baptism ; or resolving fi'om that time not to enter on the married state; thii'dly, not to marry again after the first marriage has been dissolved hy the death of one of the parties. Here in his opinion another con- sideration was added to the motives for sanctification, tlie recognition of the Divine will which was manifested by the death of one of the parties, and resignation to this will which he distinguished by the name of modestia. Tliis was, in fact, 3G4 BE EXHORTATIONE CASTITATIS. an argument which Tertulhan employed before he joined the Montanists, which shows how the quietism inherent in Mon- tanism had ah'eady alUed itself to Tertullian's peculiar dispo- sition. Yet we may easily perceive that against a person who was disposed to find in such an event the expression of the Divine will, many reasons might be found for disput- ing it, and that other signs might counter -indicate what was the Divine will. It also appears that by the person to whom the treatise was addressed, or by others, a sub- jective indication of the Divine will would be opposed to the objective. One person might say, — It is God wdio has produced in mo the need and desire to form a new mamage. In truth, as the appeal to that objective expression of the Divine wall, so the appeal to the subjective would be deceptive, unless other signs w^ere added. Every desire that rises in a man's bosom might be interj)reted as the voice of God ; there needs first of all a criterion in order to distinguish the Divine indication from the bodily impulse. This did not escape Tertullian's notice, and he has said many admirable things on the neces- sity of self-examination in virtue of the possession of reason and freedom, which in another direction might be applied to the enthusiastic tendencies of Montanism. "It is not the mark of a good and solid faith thus to refer all things to the will of God. And thus every one flatters himself that nothing- is done without God's command; and we do not understand that anything depends upon ourselves. Lastly, every trans- gi-ession may be excused, if we maintain that nothing is done by us without the will of God. By such a dogma the whole scheme of religion is overturned, if he j)i'oduces by his will what ho does not approve, or if there is nothing which God does not approve After wx have learned both from his precepts what he wills and what he wills not, there still remains to us free-will to choose one or the other, as it is written, ' Behold, I have placed before thee good and evil' . . . therefore our will is to will evil, when w^e are contrary to the will of God, who wills good. Do you moreover ask. Whence docs tliis will come by which we will anything contrary to the will of God? I answer, and not unadvisedly, from ourselves. Man must coiTcspond with tlie progenitor of his race As lie, from whom the development of the race and sin pro- DE EXnORTATlONE CASTITATIS. ;i(>.> ceecled, sinned freely, so also sin is a free act in all liis descendants."^ It is remarkable that Tcrtullian, the forerunner of Aiif^ustin in the doctrine of human depravity and of grace, should so distinctly represent free-will as the lever of all moral develop- ment, and that he regards it as so important to slum and keep oif everything which might serve in any degree to fiu-nish an apology for sin as an act of un-freedom, or to deduce its origin from anything save the free-will. Against the appeal made to the temptation of Satan, from whom evil thoughts and resolutions proceed, ho maintains, "It is only the work of the devil to tempt what is in thee if thou wiliest. But when thou hast wdlled, it follows that he has subdued thee, not by having worked the willing in thee, but havinn- gained possession of thy will." - But it was very difficult for Tcrtullian, to refute the argu- ments adduced by his opponents, from Paul's express permis- sion to conclude a second marriage. Though there has been a disposition to find in all that he has said on this topic nothing but sophistical perversion, yet we must maintain that many profound truths, though falsely applied, form the basis of his reasonings. TertuUian thought that everything depended, not only on recognising the universally known, revealed will of God, but also that which was more secretly indicated. Wo find therefore, first of all, that distribution maintained by him with a reference to ethics, which afterwards was applied in a totally different way to dogmatic subjects, the distinction betw^een a hidden and a revealed will. But by the hidden will of God he by no means understands a will not expressed by divine revelation, but that which cannot be known by a mere superficial observation of the mind, but which is t(j bo understood by deeper entrance into the connexion of the divine word, and which can only be learned by close reflec- tion and a careful comparison of single expressions. If we wish to understand the relation in which Tcrtullian 1 a poiTo si qu£cris, undo venit ista voluntas, qua quid volumus advcrsus Dei voluutatem, dicam ; ex nobis ipsis ; ncc temcre ; semini cnim tuo respondeas neccsse est, siquidera illc princcps ct generis et delicti Adam voluit quod deliquit." Cap. ii. 2 " Ita diaboli opus unum est, tentarc quod in tc est, an veils. At iibi voluisti, sequitur ut te sibi subigat, nou operatus in tc voluntatcm, Kcd nactus possessionem voluntatis." Cap. ii. 3GG DE EXHORTATIONE CASTITATIS. placed the new revelations of the Paraclete to that hidden ■will of God, we shall find that according to his view, what every one could discover in Holy Writ by deeper reflection, was brought to the consciousness, and ex2:)ressly marked as the special will of God, by the new revelations. Now Tertul- lian maintains, that what was allowed only as a conditional permission in reference to a certain stand-point of human weakness, cannot be the luiconditional will of God, — the will of God in itself, the highest in itself, which belongs to the true Christian ideal. In this assertion lies the truth that there cannot be a twofold Christian morality, a higher and a lower, but only one stand-point of Christian perfection, which all Christians are to aim at. According to that, the distinc- tion which was then continually gaining ground in the church, between the law or command for all Christians, and that which only belonged to the counsels of Christian perfection, would vanish ; there would be no difference between what was commanded and what was permitted, so that the higher stand-point of Christian perfection must also take account of what was permitted for Christian principle. The permissible, according to TertuUian, was only what was allowed tempo- rarily, with reference to a certain standard of human weak- ness, which yet could not correspond to the Christian ideal. We must acknowledge that Tertullian in this respect had truth on his side, though he erred in his explanation of Christian perfection, and erred also, in taking no account of the multiplicity of the peculiar relations of life, and the nnity of the moral ideal in this mi.dtiplicity. Here lies the great difference between Tertullian and the apostle Paul, who in a certain preference for single life, as dedicated without inter- niption to the process of spreading the kingdom of God, agreed with Tertullian. In this last respect he found a point of connexion with the apostle Paul for his opinion ; but in another respect he was incapable of correctly appreciating the wisdom of the apostle in distinguishing the objective and the subjective in morals with so much discretion and mental freedom. But we also recollect the hindrances in his own and later times, as wo have already remarked, to a correct historical understanding of the apostle. The manner in which Tertullian explains those expressions of the apostle Paul in their mutual relation, is important for DE EXHORTATIONE CASTITAT[3. 367 the purpose of nndorstanding his idea of inspiration in con- nexion witli the whole of his montanist views. Ho dis- tinguishes between what the apostle delivered as his merely human advice, and what he delivered with divine autlun-ity as the command of the Lord, in virtue of his illumination by the Spirit. He compares that passage in which Paul sjiys that he thinks that he also has the Spirit, Avith what Paul delivered as the express word of the Lord, and finds the &imo in both, the peculiarly divine, in contrast to the merely human delivered as human opinion.^ He distinguishes the general agency of the Holy Spirit in all Christians from his peculiar specific influence on the apostles. To the latter he ascribes the fulness of spiritual gifts, while he acknowledges only individual gifts in other Christians. " The apostles," ho says, " had the Holy Spirit in a peculiar sense, since they had him perfectly in the works of propiiecy, and in the working of miracles, and in the gift of tongues, and not partially like tho rest." We shall examine in the sequel what Tertullian under- stood by the gift of tongues. At present we only remark, that as a Montanist he attached great importance to the supernaturally wonderful and the ecstatic. Accordingly, he has distinguished in the writings of the apostles between the merely human and the immediately divine, uttered with a higher authority. If, in his idea of inspiration, he is so far correct, that he applies the influence of the Holy Spirit not to everything equally, but distinguishes different gradations ; yet he falls into an error connected with his montanistic supernaturalism, in making so strong a contrast between the divine and the human in the apostles, and does not acknow- ledge the harmonious cooperation of the divine and the human. So also, he erroneously limits to certain expressions, while excluding the rest, what the apostle says of his own consciousness of being animated of the Holy Spirit. Pro- ceeding from that false point of view, he maintains that wliat Paul had delivered in his apostolic capacity as consilium, tliereby acquired the authority of a prceceptum. Here again the truth involved is the opposition against the distinction between consilia and prcecejjta.^ 1 Disiinguishing between, " hominis prudentis consilium," and "S^tiritus Sancti consilium." ^ "Factum est jam noil consilium divini Spiritu3. Kcd pro cius Diaje>;tate preecepiuia. ' 3GS 1)E EXHORTATIONS CASTITATIS. The prohibition of second marriages is reckoned by Ter- tiillian among the peculiarities belonging to the New Testa- ment stand-point, in distinction from the Old. It belonged to the merits of Montanism to have given greater prominence to this distinction in opposition to the common mingling of the two stand-points, although Montanism, on the other hand, had gone back to the Old Testament stand-point, through that which should have been a progressive develop- ment of Christianity, through a new legal code, and through a new order of j^rophets who were jDlaced at the head of church government. Here, also, in this book, montanistic ideas form the groundwork, though not so clearly expressed and developed. On the Old Testament stand-point, the process of spreading the kingdom of God was the leading- object in the increase of the human race. On the New Testament stand-point the extensive development of God's kingdom was rendered more prominent by increasing holiness. The existing generation of mankind were required to receive the kingdom of God, and to be thoroughly imbued with its principles. No increase in the numbers of mankind was required, Tertullian, especially as a Montanist, con- sidered the end of the world as near at hand." "Now, at the end of the times God has confined what he before relaxed ; he has recalled what he formerly allowed ; there was reason for propagation at the first, and for pruning at the last ; beginnings are always unfettered, the endings are contracted. So a man plants a wood, and suffers it to grow, that at a proper time he may cut it down. The wood is the old state of things, which by the new Gospel is pruned and lopped ; the axe is now laid at the root of the tree. So also that rule, ' Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' has waxed old since the time of youth is come." He recognises, therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, the contrast of the new Christian stand-point to the juridical-theocratic stand-point, which in tlio Old Testament was adapted to the rudeness of the people, who require to be trained and educated. He ' Tertullian quotes the words of Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 29, 6 Kaiphs crvvea- ra\fiivos i'o opposite tendencies. The one, according to Tertullian, disovvu marriage entirely, as they dis- own the Creator from Avhom it proceeds; the others exalt man'iage above all propriety, and desire a multiplication of raaiTiage.* Certaiidy Tertullian opposes throughout the Gnostic stand-point, w^hich is connected wdth the hatred of nature and with dualism. He acknowledges mamage as a relation implanted in human nature by the Creator, of which the highest siguiticance has been attained through Christianity. But however far he withdraws in theory from the Gnostic stand-point, yet in dissevering as he does the sensuous and the spiritual in marriage, and in exalting, as a consequence, the single above the married life, he is di'iven to results which, in practice, border on Gnosticism. He agrees with ' Cap. iii. "Scd an onerosa monoptnia, viderit adhuc impudens infir- jnita« carnis an autcm nova, dc hoc interim constct." ' Cap. i. " HacrcLici nuptias auicrimt, p.-^ychici ingerunt ; illi nee Bomcl, i»ti non scmel uubunt." DE irONOCAMIA. 381 the Gnostic ethics in regarding the divine life too much in mere opposition to what relates to the senses in man, and not as a transforming, elevating principle. He maintains that even if the Paraclete had not gi*anted so much indulgence to the flesh as to allow marriage, but had prescribed the single life, this would not have been introducing anything new.* He here appeals to the example of Christ. " If now Tertullian did not, like a Clement of Alexandria, find in the specific relation of Christ to mankind and to the church the reason why he could not enter into the marriage relation, he would be induced to place celibacy on the highest stand-point in the example of Christ, agreeing in this point with Tatian. And he found a confirmation of this view in those misunderstood w^ords of Christ respecting the blessedness of a single life, in which from a very early period it has been believed that a consilium evangelicuni relating to it was to be found. The controvei-sy on the obligation of monogamy was carried on partly on exegetical grounds, partly on gi'ounds taken from the idea of mamage. As to the first, the opponents of Mon- tanism appealed to the law relating to the Levirate man'iage,^ as a proof that a second marriage generally could not be for- bidden ; but Tertullian urges in reply, the difference between the Old and Xew Testament stand-points. When his oppo- nents reproached the Montanists with a fresh intermingling of the Law and the Gospel, and combated them with the necessary distinction of the Old and New Testament stand- points, Tertullian charged them with self-contradiction and inconsequential reasoning, since, when it would answer their purpose, they would appeal to Christ's abrogation of the law, and at another time, as in the point now before us, they would avail themselves of an appeal to the Old Testament. ■• This accusation was, indeed, not altogether unfounded; it ^ Cap. ill. " Illud enim amplius dicimu?, etiamsi totam et solidam virginitatem sive coiitinentiam Paracletus hodie determinasset, ut ne unis quidem nuptiis fervorem carnia despumare premitteret, sic quoque nihil novi inducere videretur." 2 Cap. V. " Quando novissimus Adam, id est Christug, innuptus in totum quod etiain primus Adam ante exsilium." 3 Cap. vii. * Cap. vii. "Et quoniam quidam intcrdum nihil sibidicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quae voluut legis arripiunt." 382 DE MOXOGAMIA. proceeded from confused ideas respecting the nature of the law and the relation of the Law and the Gospel to one another. But Tertullian was also on this subject involved in similar confusion. He maintains that in the law a distinction is to be made between what has been abrogated by Christ and what is to remain in force, or rather is to be carried to greater completeness ; in reference to which Christ says, that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil. Under the first head he undei-stands the yoke which even the fathers w^ere not able to bear.' He understands this only of the ritual of the law, and considers all the rest as belonging to the ethical element. In consequence of making this distinction, he was more liable to include in the fulfilling of the Law something which belonged to tlie legal stand-point, and not to place in due prominence wliat was peculiar to the Gospel ; this would not have been the case, if he had applied the contrast between the Law^ and the Gospel to the whole form of the law, to the different relation of the ethical to the religious. As to any argument that might be drawn from the Levirate law, it could not, in his opinion, be made use of on the Christian stand-point, because the spreading of the kingdom of God no longer depended on the propagation of the race. He remarks in reference to the progressive development in the requirement of continence, wdiat we have already quoted from his first work on this subject. But his deep conception of what is peculiar to Christianity comes to view when he says that this prescription could admit of no application on the Christian stand-point, because all Christians are in the relation of brethren to one another. As Tertullian ])rocceds on the erroneous assumption (from a misunderstanding of Lev. xxi. 14) that a second marriage wim foi-bidden to priests in the Old Testament, he applies this adroitly to the univei-sal priesthood of all Christians :— " But Jesus, the great higli-priest of tlie Father, clothing us with hiujself (because ' they who are baptized in Christ, have put on Christ'), ' has made us priests to God his Father,' accord- • Cap.vil. ''IManc ct nos sic flicimus dcccssisse legem, ut onera qui.lcm ejus, qum secundum scnientiam apostolorum nee patres suali- nere valuerunt conecR.<.crint qua? vero ad justitiam spectant. non tantum rcMcrvaUi permaneant verum et ampliata, ut scilicet reduudare possit juatiiia nostra super Bcribarum ct phaiisaiorum justitiam." DE MONOGAMlA. 3 S3 ing to Johu." And hero lie makes, though incoiTcctly, an tipph cation full of Christian sentiment, of the passage in Matt. viii. 22, — " For the Lord calls back the young man hastening to his father's burial, in order to show that he calls ns to be priests, "vvhom the law forbids to be present at the burial of their parents Therefore are we bound to observe this interdict ? By no means. For om- only Father lives, and our mother the church, nor are we ourselves dead who live unto God, nor do we bury our dead, because they, too, live in Christ."^ He also makes use of this idea of the universal priesthood against his opponents when they argued, that, according to the passages already quoted from Paul's epistles, monogamy was only required of those who were to be chosen to clerical offices, and hence it followed, no such prescription was laid upon others. He says — " Whence are the bishops and clergy ? Are they not from all t But if all were not bound to monogamy, whence could monogamists be taken for the clergy 1 Must there be a separate order of monogamists, out of which to make a selection for the clergy?" 2 jS'ow it is evident, that although on one side the idea of an universal priesthood might be favoured by Montanism, yet the prominence obtained by this idea is by no means to bo considered as an effect of the montanist spirit, but rather as a reaction of the original Christian spirit in opposition to the hierarchical tendency. We learn this from TertuUian himself, since he objects to his opponents, who were, no doubt, laymen of the catholic church, that when duties were in question, they affected to know nothing of this imiversal priesthood, but when they wished to make good their rights against the clerg}', they could vaunt about the universal priesthood. He says — "W^hen we exalt and inflate ourselves against the clergy, then we are all one, then we are all priests, because 'he iiath made us priests to God and the Father.' But when we are called upon to practise an equality of sacerdotal dis- cipline, we doif the priestly infula, and drop into a lower rank l"^ Here also he endeavours to rebut the appeal made 1 Cap. vii. 2 Cap. xii. 3 Cup. xii. "SgcI cum extollcmur et inflamur adversus cleruni. tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotea, quia sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. Cum ad pcrfcquationem disciplina) saccrdotalis provocamur deponimus infulas et impaves sumus." 384- DE MONOGAMIA. to Taul's words in 1 Cor. vii. as in his first treatise on the same subject; he maintains that where Paul shows indulgence towards those who are weak in the fleshy he marks this as spoken, not according to the Lord's authority, but after human judgment. But where he says that he wishes all might be as he was in reference to the single life, he adds — that he believes that he had the Holy Spirit ; and Tertullian considers this as equivalent to the passage where Paul appeals to the word of the Lord. He concludes from this, that Paul, by virtue of the authority of the Holy Spirit, revoked what, according to mere human judgment, he had yielded to carnal weakness.! Moreover, Tertullian contrived to weaken the force of the passages from Paul's epistles which were brought against him, by an arbitrary exposition, and maintained, that wliere Paul speaks of a second marriage, he assumes that the first had been contracted with a heathen before conversion, and had been dissolved by death. ^ But he imagined that a marriage contracted with a heathen did not correspond to the idea of Christian marriage, for the whole life of Christians is reckoned by faith.^ Tertullian gives peculiar prominence in man'iage, as connected with his ow^n manner of viewing the subject which we have developed from his former work, to the religious element of its sanctification ; as he defines Christian marriage to be such an union as exists when God joins two into one flesh, or when he seals the union where he finds it already formed, that is, in the case of heathens who have embraced Christianity. Tertullian, as we have remarked, always proceeds upon this idea of marriage as an indissoluble union, founded in a communion of divine life. Even before liis transition to Montanism, he held it as coiTesponding to Christian principle, that the party who separated • from the other for the only legitimate cause allowed by the law of Christ, could form no new marriage. He now thinks — " If the separated party who, on account of wrath, hatred, or enmity, and their causes, injury or insult, or any complaint wliatever, lias separated herself in soul and body, from her hiLsband, remains bound to an enemy (not to call him a ' Cap. Hi. 2 Cap ^i. ^ " (^lia ante fidcm soluto ab iixorc non numerabitur post Mem Bccunda uxor, qurc post lidcm prima est; a fide eniin ctiam ipsa vita nostra ccnsctur." DE MOXOGAMIA. 385 husband), how much more does she remain bound who, neither by her own fault nor her husband's, but by an event according- to the will of God, is not separated from matri- mony, but only left, and after death belongs to him to whom when dead she still owes union." • Thus Tertullian concludes that tlie connexion of the wife with such a j^erson must con- tinue for ever in spirit, that no other union can take its place, but that it becomes transformed into a higher communion. For confirmation, he makes use of the manner in which a Christian woman was wont to celebrate the memoiy of her deceased husband,'and says — " She prays for his soul, and solicits, meanwhile, refreshment for him, and a participation in the first resurrection,^ and makes offerings on the annual return of the day of his death. For unless she did this, she would repudiate him as for as lay in her power." This he places in connexion with the Christian conception of eternal life, and of a personality to be glorified in an endless life. Ho is imbued with the Christian view of the future, that no personal relation of the higher life will be destroyed, but that all will arise in a glorified form, and endure throughout eternity. Tertullian's genuine Christian spirit is evinced in a remarkable manner when he says, " Or are we to be nothing after death, according to Epicurus, and not according to Chi'ist 1 But if we believe in the resmTcction of the dead, wo shall also remain bound to those with whom we shall rise again, and shall give an account of one another. But if, ' in that world they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,' shall we on that account not be bound to deceased partners, since there will be no restoration of marriage 1 So much the more shall we be bound, because we are destined for a better state, we are to rise to a spiritual partnership, in which we shall recognise ourselves and those who belong to us. How, finall}^ shall we sing the praises of God for ever, if the sense and memory of this obligation does not remain to us 1 if not merely in substance, but in conscious- ness, we are transformed 1 ^ We, therefore, who shall be with » Cap. X. 2 This mode of expression belongs to the eschatology of Tertullian and the ]\[ontanists. The representation of Hades, in which the de- parted saint.s are admitted to a foretaste of future blessedness, and then the resurrection to happiness during the millennial reign. ^ I have translated these words according to an emendation of tho text whieli seemed necessary. The text as it stands is, " si substantia VOL. II. C C 386 DE MONOGAMIA. Clod, shall be with one another, since we shall be all one with (iod." He then remarks, what was suggested to him by a comparison of the different parables of Christ respecting the unity of believers and the various degrees of reward in eter- nal life, that then one communion of eternal divine life would unite all togetlier, though various degi^ees would exist in it. " Although the reward will be various, although there are many mansions » belonging to the same father, they have laboured for the one denarius of the same wages, that is, eternal life, in which God will not separate those whom he has joined more than he has forbidden them to separate from one another in this lower life. But since this is so, how shall she be free for another husband who belongs to her ow^n for the future ? . . . . She will have one husband in the spirit and another in the flesh. This will be adultery; the con- sciousness of one woman will be divided between tw^o men. If one is separated from her in the flesh, but remains in heart, there where even the thought without carnal connexion com- pletes the adultery by means of desire, and the mamage by the will, — so far he is still her husband, possessing that by Avhich he became such, that is, the soul, in which, if any other shall dwell, it will be crime. But he is not excluded, if he dcpai'ts from the lower intercourse of the flesh. The husband is more honoured, the purer he becomes." ^ His opponents believed that they had found an important su[)port for their opinion in Rom. vii. 2.^ " For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth, but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Tertullian meets them with non conscientia reformabimurl" But Tertullian could not intend to wiy this ; he wished certainly to represent, that man M'ould take "with him into a higher state the consciousness of what he was in this life ; that althoui^h the man himself is transformed and eleyated, yet the identity of consciousness continues. But certainly here has been a falsification of the original reading hy the transposition of the negation, and such falsifiaition.-^ of the text by the transposition of the words are sometimes to be met with botli in Tertullian and Origen. The original reading will have been, " si non substantia, sed conscientia reformabitur." [In Scnilcr's edition the passage reads thus, " Ceterum quomodo gratias Deo in a't^rnum cancmus si non manebit in nobis sensus, et memoria liehiti hujus ] Substantia non conscientia reformabitnr."— Tr.] » Tertullian, like the ancients generally, understands the words ixoual woWal, in John xiv. 2, as expressing a difference of quality. '* C.'ap. X. 3 c.^p xiii. DE MONOGAMIA. 3S7 tlic acute objection, that Paul here speaks only from the stand-point of the Mosaic law, but in tlie same ptussa^^e says that the law is no longer binding on Christians.* He°thinks that this permission given by Paul might be in all cases a condescension to human weakness. He adduces the example of the circumcision of Timothy, of Paul's vow at Jerusalem, how he condescended to the weakness of men, becoming all things to all men, only that this could not be apj^lied to this instance without injury to the apostle's veracity. We here notice a mixture of formal and material accommodation which generally was very injurious to the doctrine of veracity. Tertullian also applies to the idea of marriage, what ap- pears to him of the greatest importance in the relation of Christ and Christianity to all the forms of human life — namely, that through him as the Redeemer in every respect, and especially in regard to matrimony, God's original plan in the creation, which had been disturbed and checked in its development by sin, w^ould be realized ; — that as from him, the divine \6yoQ, the idea that w^as originally expressed in the crea- tion proceeded, so this, after its realization had been checked by sin, and condescension under the law to the hardness of man's heart had become necessary, is restored altogether to its original state by him the Incarnate Logos. To this he refers the Pauline expression dvciKSipaXanotTaardai rd navra ev Xpiaro), that through him the beginning and end are ever}"- where brought together ; beginning and end become one in him. But what Christ himself made preparation for, founded, and aimed at, was, according to Tei-tullian's doctrine, first brouglit to its full realization by the new revelations of the Paraclete. Thus the Christian idea of all condescension to human weakness, which hitherto had not existed, obtained its full and perfect development. Hence the Paraclete, in his new revelations, is the restorer of the original divine plan in all the extent of the idea. Thus Tertullian says of his in- fluences in relation to matrimony, that he is restitutor rather than institutor. In Christ's bringing back all things to their original state, Tertullian reckons his freeing religion from the ceremonial ^ It is a remarkable instance of arbitrary interpretation of Scripture, neglecting tbe connection, when hg understands the words inKom. vii. 4, o-ftj/ia ToD Xpia-rov, of the corpus Christi quod est ecclesia. 3S8 I>E MONOGAMIA. law. He says: "Aud so much are all things recalled in Cln-ist to what they were in the beginning, that faith is brought back from circumcision to the original uncircum- cision : and freedom in the use of meats, with the exception of eating of blood, as it was in the beginning, and in dura- bility of marriage, as it was from the beginning, and a prohi- bition of divorce, which was not from the beginning." Thus, in TcrtuUian's words, it is implied that the same principle of restoration of the original, the same principle of setting free the religious and moral elements from the limits within which they had hitherto been confined, was to be applied to the taking away tlie law of the Sabbath, the restoration of equal value to all days alike, and likewise to the realization of matrimony. TertuUian himself was not aware of all the con- sequenocs which would flow from the sentiments he avowed in their consequential development, as is evident when we compare many of his confined views with this principle. And here a limitation at once appears, which he arbitraiily made, when, in the abrogation of the distinction of meats, according to that apostolic decree, he believed an exception must be made as to eating of blood. Speaking of the relation of Montanism to Christianity as hitherto developed, he says : " The new law has taken away repudiation ; it had something to take awa}^ The new pro- ])hccy has taken away the second marriage, which was not less a repudiation of the former. But the hardness of the heart more easily gave wTiy to Christ than the weakness of the flesh. This requires more for its vindication from Paul than the other from Moses, if it really can employ hira for its vindication, since it seizes him when indulgent, but rejects liini when he prescribes, since it eludes his leading thoughts and his constant will." ' This passage indicates the manner in which Tertnllian explains the language of Paul's wi'itings. Ho tliiiiks tliat that weakness will only last till the revelation of the Paraclete, to whom those things were deferred by the Lord wliich could not then be borne ; but this intolerableness no longer serves any one for an excuse, since he is come by whom strength is given to beai- it.^ It appears from this ' Cap. xiv. » "Teinpus ejus, donee raracletus operarctur, fait in quern dilatasunt a Domino, quiu tunc sustineri nou potcrant, qux jam nemini competit portaru non posse, quia per qucm datur portare posse, non deest." DE MOXOGAMIA. 389 that Tertullian supposed a more elevated operation of the Holy Spirit in reference to practice as well as to knowled^-e. He not only assiuned a progressive illumination of the Holy Spirit, by which new and higher spiritual requirements were revealed, but also a more elevated communication of divine power through the same, by which the weakness of the flesh would be overcome, and the will made capable of accomplish- ing what before it could not accomplish owing to that weak- ness. In Tertullian's opinion, the same influence of the Holy Spirit was needed to know and to perform what in conse- quence of the weakness of the flesh men had hitherto been unable either to know or to perform. But this greater in- flnence of the Holy Spirit still remained, according to Ter- tullian, dependent on, or conditioned by, the operation of the free will. He appealed on this point to the words of Christ, who added to his commendation of celibacy, " He that is able to receive it, let him receive it : " that is, let him depart who cannot do it. That young man went away who could not receive the command to divide his possessions among the poor, and was left by the Lord to his own will. Nor will severity be imputed to Christ on account of the want of free will in any one. He appeals to that passage so often quoted from Deut. xxx. 15, "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil : " and adds, " Choose what is good ; if thou canst not because thou wilt not (for that thou canst if thou wilt he shows by proposing both to thy will), thou must depart from Him whose will thou doest not." Here we must again remark that the same individual who so staunchly advocated the principle of grace, at the same time expressed himself in strong terms against its unconditional operation, and firmly maintained the freedom of the will. We must also notice, that where Tertullian adduces Mary the mother of Jesus as an example of a single marriage, he assumes that she, who must have been a virgin in order to serve as an instrument for the birth of Christ, after he was born, bore children only to one husband. He was therefore an advocate of the later heretical opinion, that the so-called brethren of Jesus were the later-born sons of 'Mary. But it is remarkable that the ascetic spirit which afterwards re- garded this opinion with aversion, could not induce Tertullian, although he felt s\ich a tendency strongly, to find anything doubtful in it ; or there must have been other grounds which 390 DE PUDICITIA. led to such a conclusion, and influenced him so strongly, that doubt on the opposite side could have no effect upon him. As we have seen, Tertullian, in the treatises written before he became a Montanist, had come forward as an advocate of milder maxims respecting repentance, according to which, no one who had broken the baptismal vow by any sins whatever would be excluded from absolution, provided he gave signs of sincere repentance. But as the harsher element of his Christian character which led him to Montanism acquired increasing influence over him, he combated the views he had formerly advocated, and wrote in consequence his book De Fudicitia, which we now wish to examine. He himself speaks in this book of such an alteration in his views. He informs us that he was moved to appear as an advocate of the opposite side of the question, since many of his earlier expressions had been quoted against him. As he says, " This treatise will be directed against the Psychici, against the associates of my former way of thinking, w^ho on that account will reproach me so much the more w^ith levity." Probably lie refers particularly to the manner in which he expressed himself in the treatise De Poenitentia. He now sought to vin- dicate himself against the charge which was brought against him on that account. He appeals to the necessity of the advancing development of knowledge, and says, " That a per- son should separate himself from a society is not in itself an evidence of crime, as if it were not easier to err with num- bers, when truth is loved by a minority." The principles to which Tertullian was attached at an earlier period were there- fore those of the majority of the church. What Montanism taught respecting the various stages of progressive develop- nient in reference to the church generally, was applied by Tei-tullian to the various stages in the development of indi- viduals. " I am not ashamed," he says, " that I am freed from error; I am rejoiced that T am freed from it, because I am con- scious of being better and more modest. Let no one be ashamed •of progress. Even in Christ knowledge has its ages, through which even an apostle piissed." He then appeals to what Paul sayH, in 1 Cor. xiii. 11, of his progress in knowledge from child- hood to manhood ; not indeed in reference to the various steps of Christian knowledge, but of knowledge in the most general Bcnsc, for the ])uri)(>se of c<)in])aring the subordinate stages of knowledge in temporal life with the higher stages in eternal Ufe. DE PUDICITIA. 391 The controversy wliicli is here handled relates to two points: first, the general question whether the churcli i)os- sesses power to impart absolution for all sins committed after baptism, or only in reference to the class of smaller oifences; secondly, the special question, whether sins of unchjistity {stupriim and adulterium), apostasy to idolatry, and nuirder, belong to the category of peccata mortalia, to which no church absolution can reach. In reference to these two points, Tertullian maintained on the first, not by any means, as a Montanist, that in such sins sincere repentance was utterly impossible, or that, on the supposition of their com- mittal, no hope of forgiveness was left for them. He by no means washed to withdraw from parties who were guilty of them the sympathy of Christian love, but rather demanded that it should be shown to them, and that they should be exhorted to repentance : only he maintained that after such persons had once forfeited the forgiveness of sins, gained for them through Christ, and imparted at baptism, the divine counsel respecting them could be knov/n to no one without a new supernatural revelation, and the church would not be at all justified in pronouncing their absolution, and admitthig them again to communion. The power to bind and loose cannot refer to this class of sins, the so-called peccata mortalia, according to the apostle John's designation.' If now any person were to make the objection — " It is indeed in vain to exhort to repentance if it remain without fruit — if forgiveness of sins cannot be imparted," — Tertullian would reply : " Their repentance might be so much the more efficacious, if it were accompanied not with that false confidence in absolution, that false security and assurance, but with tnie humility, if they were not led astray to attribute too much to man, but exhorted to place their only confidence in God, to seek help from Him alone. Vain," he says, ''will such a repentance appear from the stand-point of those who want human abso- lution for their repentance " (that is, in vain from tlie stand- point of the Psychici, who do not distinguish between the absolution of the church and the divine forgiveness of sins, ^ To the opinion, that such sinners should bo exhorted to repentance, although absolution could not be granted to them, Tertullian's expres- sion relates, respecting the shedding of tears apart from roeonoiliation to the church. " Jcjunas pads lacrymas profusuris, nee aniplius ab ccclc'sia quara publicationcm dedecoris relaturis." Cap. i. 392 DE PUDICITIA. and who therefore suppose, that in denying the one the other is denied also) ; " but as to our stand-point, we who beheve that God alone forgives sins, and that in every case — the sin unto death alone excepted — such an act of repentance cannot be performed in vain. For since repentance is referred to God alone, and prostrates itself before him, this will be more effi- cacious in obtaining pardon, because the penitent seeks it alone from God, because he does not believe that human absolution is sufficient for his offences, and because he would rather blush with shame before the church than have com- munion with it; for he stands before its doors, and admo- nishes others by the example of his shame, and calls for the tears of the brethren, and returns after gaining more than communion, namely, the sympathy of the brethren. And if he does not here reap peace, yet he sows it before the Lord. He does not lose fruit, but prepares for it." ^ The second point relates to the special question, what sins belong to the peccata mortal ia, and particularly whether sins of imchastity are to be reckoned among them. Even those persons, who reckoned joining in idolatry, apostasy to hea- thenism, and mm^ler, among the peccata mortcdia, still be- lieved that the same severe judgment could not be passed on this class. But in consequence of the ascetic tendency of Tertullian and Montanism, he attached a peculiar criminality to these sins.^ All violations of chastity especially, he placed in one class as ^:>ecca^a mortalia.^ Every indulgence of the sexual passion, marriage excepted, appeared to him alike. Those alone who had indulged in unnatural lusts were dis- tinguished from other persons who transgressed the laws of chastity, and according to Montanist principles were not admitted v/ithin the walls of the church among the class of poenitentes, but were obliged to stand outside the doors, and were at a later period designated x^'-^^^ontvoiJ' ^ Cap. iii. - Cap. V. ''Idololatram qnidcni et homicidam semel damnas moechum vcro do medio cxcipis, idololatisB successorem, homicidse anteccssorem, utriusciue coUcgam { Pcrsonse acceptatio est, miscrabiliores poenitentiaa rcliquisti." ^ Cap. iv. " Ceterum si adult erium et si stupruni dixcro, unum erit con- taminatre camis clogium. Ncc cnim interest nuptam alienara an viduam cpiiH incursct, dum non suam foeminam, sicut nee locis refert, in cubi- culirt an in turribus jmdicitia trucidctur." * Cap. iv. "liclicpias autem libidinum furias impias et in corpora et DE PUDICITIA. 393 Tcrtullian casts it as a reproach on his opponents, tliat since they permitted marriage to be so often repeated as a preservative against incontinence, they ought to luive been so much stricter in judgment upon it. As from the Montanist point of view it appeared that a true marriage could be only once contracted, and was an absolutely indissoluble union, — even the digami would be numbered among these violators of chastity.^ But from the predominance of the religious element in the consideration of matrimony, as we have already seen in the former book, the first marriage was assumed to be one contracted between two believers. The religious element was here so influential, that a union formed without the concurrence of the church was regarded as illicit. He says, " With us also, secret connexions, that is, those which are not first made known in the church, are in danger of being judged like adultery and fornication." ^ The second question is the principal topic discussed in this book. It was peculiarly important for Tcrtullian to main- tain the strictness of the judgment passed on sins of unchas- tity. A declaration of the Roman bishop, who had expressed himself unfixvourable to the Montanist strictness, and had openly accorded absolution to those who had been guilty of such offences, on the condition of their repentance, appears to have been the immediate occasion of this controversy. Pro- bably the Roman bishop had already assumed a tone of superiority, which sprang up early in the Romish church, grounded on the assumption that there was the source of pure tradition. We may di'aw this inference from the sar- castic, irritating tone in which Tertnllian expresses himself respecting the declaration of the Roman bishop : at the beginning of his treatise he says, " I hear that an edict, and that a peremptory one, has been set forth. The Pontifex Maximus, foi-sooth, the Bishop of bishops, says, * I forgive the sins of moechia and fornicatio to those who have professed repentance.' " * It is doubtful indeed whether Tcrtullian in sexus ultra jura naturae, non modo limine, vcrum omni ccclesiaj tacto submovcmus, quia non sunt delicta, sed monstra." ' Cap, i, " Et ideo durissime nos infamantcs Paracletum disciplince enormitate digamos foris sistimus, eundem limitcm liminis mtechis quoque ct fomicatoribus figimus, jejunas pacis," &c. 2 Cap. iv. 3 Cap. i. Tcrtullian alludes to this in cap. xiii. " Bonus pastor ct benedictus papa concionaris." 304 r>E PUDICITIA. quotes tlie words as they were uttered by the Roman bishop — whether he did not designedly give them in this foi-m from his own stand-point, in order more strongly to mark the presumption of the man who claimed the power of forgiving sins. In reterence to the principal point in dispute between the two parties, the extension of the power committed to the church to bind and to loose, there was at the bottom, as we have already remarked, an error common to both — the want of a right understanding of the relation of baptism to regeneration, the notion of a magical remission of sins at bap- tism, tlie assumption that the forgiveness of sins thi-ough Christ in a fiill sense referred only to sins committed before baptism, and that for sins committed after it a special satis- faction was to be rendered, and in virtue of it a new an- nouncement of absolution was required. At this point a difference arose. Tertullian allowed this only in reference to smaller offences. He denied the existence of any such power in the church in reference to the so-called 'peccata mortalia. He charged his opponents with attributing to men a power that belonged only to God, though in truth this was not founded on the viev>-s they entertained respecting the Power of the Keys. The representatives of the church stand-point regarded the bishop and the priests not as men, but as organs of a power committed by Christ to the church. But Tertul- lian set out from a point of view, according to which Christ had not delivered any such power to the chui'ch, certainly not to the bishops, and hence, if they arrogated to themselves such a power, it must have appeared to him as venturing to assume a power which belonged to God alone. The bisliops regarded themselves here as the successors of the apostles, and Peter, in consequence of the power delivered to him to bind and loose, as the representative of the apostolic and episcopal power : Tertullian, on the contrary, maintained that the bishops were the successors of the apostles only in reference to the exercise of their office as teachers, not in reference to the spiritual power delivered to them. Such power was committed to the apostles only for themselves as jjeculiar organs of the divine power, in a sense in w^hich the bishops were not, by virtue of the supernatural gifts entrusted to them, which gave them an insight into the inner man, so DE PUDICITTA. 39/) that they could discern the qiiaUty of the repentance in an infallible manner. If the bishops wished to be successors of the apostles in this respect, they must prove it by similar instances of divine power, the ability to work miracles and to foretell future events. What Christ said to the apostle Peter, related only to himself personally, and just so far as he partook in a special manner of the influences of the Holy Spirit ; but not at the same time, in his person, to those wlio exercised a certain office in the church, but only to those who were sph^itales homines like himself Although it is plain, he says, that the apostles themselves could impart such forgiveness, which power to %'give sins could proceed only from God, not from men, it would follow that they did not do this in virtue of their office as teachers, but of a special power imparted to them. ' " For they raised the dead, which God alone can do ; and restored the diseased, which none but Christ could do ; yea, they also inflicted punishments, which Christ would not do. For it did not become him to be severe who came to suffer .... Show^ me, then, thou successor of the apostles, examples of thy prophetic power, and I will acknowledge the divine power in thee, and claim for thyself the power of remitting offences of that kind ; but if thou hast only obtained the gifts of office, to preside over not a government but a ministiy, who or what art tliou' to forgive sins, thou who showest thyself to be neither prophet nor apostle, and wantest that j)owcr which is needed to forgive sin ? " To meet the appeal made to the words of Christ to Peter, he says, " Who art thou, who ©verturnest and changest the manifest intention of the Lord who addressed these words personally to Peter?" He had said that all w\^s spoken to him personally, not to a plurality as to the chm'ch. But even Peter, he maintains, never exercised such a power of forgiving peccata morlalia ; he only made use of the power to loose in reference to sins committed before baptism, since he first of all incorporated believers by baptism into the kingdom of God ; he made use of his power to bind in reference to the punishment of Ananias. Tertullian moreover applies the 1 Cap. xxi. " Itaq'JC si et ipsos bcatos apostolos talc aliquid inilulsissc constaret, ciijus vcuia a Deo non ab homine, competcrot noa ex disci- plina, scd ex potcstate fecisse." 39 G r>E PUDICITIA. power of binding and loosing in a quite different sense to what Peter first determined, by the iUumination of the Holy Spirit, respecting what was to be abrogated or retained in the Mosaic law ; in all this, there was evidently nothing of that power which bishops must possess as Peter s successors. " What lias this to do with the church, — thy church especially, 0 Psychic 1 For according to the person of Peter that power will belong to the spiritales, to an apostle or a prophet. For the Spirit is in a peculiar and most exalted sense the church, in which Spirit is the trinity of the divine essence, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He assembles the church which the Lord has constituted of three. And thus, accordingly, the whole number of those who are joined to one another in this one faith, are recognised as a church by its author and con- sccrator; and so the church will forgive sins ; but the church of the SjDirit by a spiritual man, not the church as a number of bishops. For this is the prerogative and authority of the master, not of the servant ; of God himself, not of the priest." We see that TertuUian here opposes to the externalized idea of the church as constituted by the succession of bishops that more spiritualized idea of a church constituted by an internal fact, the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the prophets. Hence, such an idea as this of the church could be formed, — where Christ is, and where the Holy Spirit is, there is the church. Where two or three are united to one another in the name of Christ and in the communion of the Holy Spirit, there is the church. We have therefore obtained the idea of a chiu'ch formingi itself from within, by means of a common spiritual fact, and thus the idea of the invisible church. The earlier Catholic element of TertuUian was therefore con- verted into an opposite Protestant one, by the revolution that Montanism effected in his mind. This would have been correct, if TertuUian had understood by that influence of the Holy Spirit, the general influence inseparable from Chris- tianity, as it is understood to exist in all true believers. But such was not the case. He understands by it the extraordi- nary efiiision of the Holy Spirit, as w^hose organs he regarded the new prophets, and who were to be believed only on account of their authority. Here then, one element of exter nality is o])posed to another, one Jewish element to another. Instead of t lie influence of the Holy Spirit conveyed through DE PUDICITIA. 397 the succession of bishops — through the ordinary church organs — we have it conveyed through the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Spirit, and by the appearance of the extraorchnary organs excited by it, namely, the prophets. The mixture of the Jewish and Christian stand-points in the idea of a pro- phetical class is set in opposition to the mixture of tlioso stand-points in the idea of the priesthood. Lastly, although TertuUian ascribes the right of forgiving sins to the ecclesia Spiritics per spiritales homines, yet he expressly adds, that it had made no use of this right on account of the practical injury that might ensue, in order that men might not feel secure in their sins. We here recog- nise the moral motive to counterwork the false confidence in absolution, of which TertuUian well knew the injurious con- sequences. He quotes a Montanist oracle. " But, you say, the chm'ch has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknow- ledge, and affirm so much the more, because I hear the Para- clete saying in the new prophets, ' The church can forgive sins, but I will not do it, lest they should commit other offences.'" He here opposes the genuine prophetic spirit to the false. " But how," he says, " if a pseudo-prophetic spirit had declared this ? But such an one would have shown himself more as a destroyer, who would have recommended himself by his indulgence, and seduced others into sin. Or if he had longed to appropriate this according to the Spirit of Truth ; then the Spirit of Truth can grant pardon to fornicators, but will not do it to the injury of several." Ter- tuUian's zeal was roused to protest against human pretensions in reference to the forgiveness of sins, and against everything which could seduce believers into security in sin, and against the manifold injurious influence which the confessors and martyrs exerted in this direction. Such persons, who to ordinary Christians appeared as super-earthly beings, were frequently called upon for their intercession, by those who had been excluded from the communion of the clmrch on account of their vices. Many of them acted as if they thought that the impartation of reconcilement with the church was absolutely in their power. Through want of knowledge or reflection, or through spiritual pride, they were frequently misled into false steps. But they were already held in such great veneration, that whoever infringed on 308 DE PUDICITIA. their authority, was almost certain of being regarded in an unfavoui-able light. It was, therefore, peculiarly praiseworthy and salutary in Tertullian to come forward against this ex- cessive veneration. But his manner of expressing himself discovers his irritability, — "But," he says to the Psychic, " thou pourest forth this power on thy martyrs. As every one in virtue of the confession puts on chains as yet not oppressive, under the new name of custodia, immediately the adulterei-s resort to them, the fornicators present themselves, already the prayers resound, the tears of every jDolluted per- son stagnate around, and none more easily purchase access to the prisons than the very people who have lost it to the church."' Tertullian, who indeed was easily hurried into passionate opposition on any subject whatever, and who, on account of the influence we have noticed, was prejudiced against these confessors, and had to contend against the adversaries of Montanism among them, but whom we cannot exactly blame for exposing these things, indicates that these gatherings of a multitude of both sexes in the prisons at night, and in an excited state, without any oversight, were attended with inim'ious effects on their morals. He gives "us to under- stand that the excessive veneration which nourished spiritual pride and false security, was dangerous even to the confessors themselves, of which we find many instances. He says, " Men and women were defiled in the darkness, of which advantage was taken for the indulgence of their lusts, and they seek peace from those who are put in peril for their own. Others t«akc refuge in the mines " (the confessors who arc sent to labour in the mines), " and return thence as communicants, where now another martyrdom is necessary for the new sins committed after the first martyrdom" {i.e. the tortures endured for the faith). " For who is there on the earth and in the flesh without sin ? Who is a martyr, an inhabitant of this world, a supi)liant for the denarius, subject to the physician and the money-lender?" (that is, that he has still need of Christ as the i)hysician for the sins that still cleave to him, and that he has to render an account of the interest gained on the tiilcubi entrusted to him.) He imagines a case, that one really suffering as a martyr should find himself in the near prospect of death. " Yet," he says, " who permits a man * Cap. xxii. DE PUDICITIA. 399 to give wliat belongs to God alone, by whom that is con- demned without excuse, which the apostles, who, as I know, were themselves martyi-s, did not beUeve they could pardon]" He further addresses the mtxi'tvi' : " AVho has j^aid another's death by his o^vn, except the Son of God ? For he in the very time of his passion liberated the maleftxctor. For he came for this purpose, that he, himself free from sin and holy in all things, might die for sinners. Hence thou who woiddst imitate him in forgiving sins, if thou hast not sinned thyself, thou mightest sufter for me. But if thou ai-t a sinner, how will the oil in thy lamp suffice for thee and for me ? I have the means by which I can prove Christ. If Christ on this account is in the mai-tyr, that the mai-t}T may pardon adulterei-s and fornicatoi-s, let him tell the secrets of the heart in order to forgive sins ; then he would be Christ. For so the Lord Jesus Christ showed his power.''' Thus Christ on earth, as a proof of his power to forgive sins, appealed to his miracles, when he forgave the sins of the paralvtic. Tertullian intro- duces the opponents of the stricter theory of repentance as saying, -"God is good and merciful; mercy is preferred by him to Siicrifice ; he would rather have the repentance of a sinner than his death ; he is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe. Hence, also, the sons of God ought to be merciful and pacific, forgiving one another, as Christ for- gave us ; not judging, lest we should be judged. ' To his own master he standeth or flilleth. "Who art thou that judgest another's servant '? Forgive, and it shall be forgiven thee.'" " Such,*' he Siiys, " are the prattlings of these persons, with which they offer adulation to God and flatter themselves, which tend more to enervate than to strengthen discipline." On the other hand, he maintains, '• We must also collect the expressions of eveiy Scriptm-e of a contraiT kind. Though God is good, yet he is also just." He appeals to those passages of the Old Testament in which God rejects intercession for certain sinuei's, and to passages which speak of a jealous God. He maintains that those expressions which refer only to the forgiveness of wrongs committed against men would be falsely applied to sins, as sins against God. But Tcr- tulhan on this point has not sufticiently entered into the ideas of his opponents. What they intended appeal's to be this, — No one has a right to determine beforehand the limits ^ Cap. xxii. * Cap. ii. 400 DE PUDICITIA. of the Divine compassion, to reject fi'om church communion, or to pronounce a sentence of condemnation on any class whatever of sinners who show signs of repentance. No one can look into the heart ; every one must leave this to God^ it remains for him to pass the decisive judgment ; and mean- while, all persons w^ho, as far as man can judge, manifest true repentance should be admitted, in dependence on the Divine mercy, to absolution and church communion. Tertullian says further, in vindication of the stricter discipline, in answer to that objection, — "that repentance is not in vain, and the church discipline is not too severe. Both honoui' God; that will more easily attain its object, because it does not flatter itself; and that will render more efficient aid because it does not arrogate too much to itself" The controversy was also waged on exegetical grounds. One party appealed to several parables of Christ in proof that no one who repented w^ould be rejected by Christ. The parable of the shepherd who carried the lost sheep on his shoulders was one veiy familiar to Christians. For as, first of all, in domestic life, the use of representations of religious objects occupied the place of images borrowed from the hea- then mythology, so Christians were accustomed to have the figure of the shepherd carrying back the lost sheep on his shoulders upon their cups, and thus it was more readily sug- gested to contrast with Montanist severity, — the image of the good shepherd who was always ready to seek after the lost sheep, and to .admit them again to the fold. It was repugnant to the ascetic spirit of Tertullian, that they should ornament their cups wdth such an image taken from the Gospels, and he has not failed to express his vexation on account of it.^ TertulHan, on the contrary, maintains, that for correctly undersUuiding this parable, it is of importance to know the occasion of its being delivered, and for what purpose it was uttered by Christ, in order that persons may not arbitrarily interpret it from the stand-point of the present, to suit their own particular views. He says : " According to the order of nature, according to the order of the ear and of language, and what sound tliinking requires, we make the rule, that those things are always answered which are called for." He » Proccdant ipsae picturaj calicum vcstrorum, si vcl in illis perlucebit intcrprctatio pccudis, etc. Cap. vii. DE PUDICITIA. 401 means, that the murmuring of the Pharisees hccansc Christ received pubhcrns and sinners, gave occasion for those words of Christ. Snch a reference would have been quite forcifii to the occasion, if Christ had aUuded on this occasion to the sins of Christians, since these formed no part of the topic of discourse, and as yet it might be said that there were no Christians. It is therefore evident, that in this parable those sinners who first received the Gospel, and of whom Christ rejected none, were intended; and that it could only refer to sins committed before baptism. But, connect as Ter- tullian was in the immediate exegetical reference of this parable, as w'ell as in. the hermencutical canon which he here makes use of, yet he ought not to have forgotten the rule laid down by him elsewhere, that the immediate historical reference of the words does not exclude a general application to all times, and a variety of cases. His opponents might concede all that he maintained, and yet could assert the pro- priety of making such an application. They could say with justice, that this parable was available for all times, and ap- plicable to all cases, for the purpose of showing the disjiosi- tion with which Christ always meets every sinner who wishes to be carried by him, and surrenders himself with a penitent heart. The same remark applies to the use that his opponents made of the parable of the prodigal son, and of others of the same kind: the controversy might in all cases have been easily settled by distinguishing between tlie literal moaning and the ideal spiritual reference — between the exposition and the application. His opponents appealed, moreover, to the passage in 1 Cor. V. G, compared with 2 Cor. ii. 6, and maintained that Paul had granted forgiveness of sins and readmission to churcii communion to the person who had been excommunicated on account of a peccatum mortale, when he gave signs of repent- ance ; and on the supposition of the identity of the two cases, the evidence they adduced was certainly striking. But Ter- tuUian disputed that supposition. He acutely pointed out — a view which has found advocates in recent times — that the case mentioned in the second epistle was probably quite dis- tinct from that in the first epistle. The case mentioned in the second epistle was that of an insolent person who had set himself up against the authority of Paul, of wdiom notice had been already taken in the first epistle. But there is nothing whatever said w^hich refers to the case of the incedmsus. VOL. II. D D 402 DE PUDICITIA. The controversy is then earned on to the First Epistle of John. His opponents appealed to that passage in this epistle in which it is said of those who confess their sins, that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. They understand this of the continued appropriation of the forgiveness of sins throuf-h Christ. Ceilainly, an erroneous and too indefinite a use might be made of this passage, to the injury of prac- tical Christianity. It might be justly maintained that these words in the sense of the apostle could not be referred to those sins which are irreconcilable wdth abiding in the C)n-istian principle of life — those sins to which the present dispute related. Tcrtullian guarded himself with Christian zeal against such an abuse of the passage, and says, "We shall always and in every way commit sin, if the blood of Christ cleanses us always, and from all sin ; or, if not always, not even after believing, and if not from sin, not even from fornicatio.'" But fi'om what point did he set out? He had before said that God is light, and that in him is no darkness, and that we lie if we say we have communion wdth him, and walk in darkness. " But if we walk," he says, '- in the light, we have fellowship with him, and the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord cleanseth us from all sin." Do we sin, therefore, if we walk in the light? and are we cleansed if we sin in the light \ By no means ; for he who sins is not in the light, but in darkness. Hence he shows how we shall be cleansed from sin, walking in the light, in which sin cannot be committed. " Therefore," he says, " we are so cleansed not that v/e may sin, but that we may not sin. For, walking in the light, and not having fellowship with darkness, we shall be cleansed, not laying aside sin, but not committing it. For this is the power of the blood of the Lord, that those whom he has jmritied from sin, and ])laced in the light, he preserves pure, if thoy ])ci-severc to walk in the light." Tertidlian here speaks in the consciousness of the close connexion between the objective and the subjective in re- demption,— the consciousness that the appropriation of re- demption in fuitli, and communion with Christ, cannot exist without progi-cssive sanctification ; and hence he combats those persons who thought that what is said by John respect- ing the forgiveness of sins could apply to the class of sins to which this treatise refers. But when his opponents ap- pealed to those pas.siiges in the epistle of John in which he speaks of a continued confession of sins by Clu-istians, Ter- DB PUDICITIA. 403 tullian replies, tliat John would contradict himself, wlien in one passage he says that whoever is born of God sinneth not, and on the otlier hand requires of believers that they should always confess their sins, unless the difterent kinds of sins are distinguished from one another. By this distinction alone can such a contradiction be avoided. Here he makes the distinction between the i^eccata venialia and the jieccata mor- talia. Of the sins that still cleave to believers he says, that there are some sins into which men daily fall, to which we are all subject.' " For to whom does it not liappen, either to be angry unjustly, and later than the setting of the sun; or to raise the hand against some one, or hastily to speak evil of another, or to swear rashly, or to break a promise, or to lie, either from shame or the pressure of circumstances'? How much are we tempted in business, in the fulfilment of duties, in trade, in daily life, in seeing or in hearing ! So that if there were no pardon for such oifences, no one would obtain salva- tion. For these, therefore, there will be pai'don through Christ the intercessor with the Father." From these sins he distinguishes those which are absolutely destructive of the foundation of the Christian life, — among which he names, murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of the faith, blasphemy, adul- tery, and incontinence. With the above-named catalogue of peccata venialia we can compare another passage where Ter- tullian mentions those errors on account of which a person would be excluded fi'om church communion for a time, with- out being for ever separated from it. " If a man has been present at the shows or gladiatorial games, if he has partaken of food at heathen feasts, or engaged in a trade connected with the sei-vice of idols, or has uttered expressions of denial or blasphemy, — if on such an account he has been put out of the flock, or has perchance separated himself from church communion by anger, pride, or emulation, or, as often liap- pens, by resenting the administration of discipline, such a one ought to be sought for and brought back." Tcrtullian, who, as we have seen, explains the lost sheep according to the exegetical connexion as meaning a person who has not hitherto believed, makes the distinction between the primary' exposition and the application, since lie declares that it may also be referred to the cure of erring Christians. If we compare v.hat Tcrtullian sixys on that distinction of 1 Cap. xix. 404 DE PUDICITIA. sins, with the meaning of the passage in John's epistle, we shall not find it altogether correct as exposition. When John says, that " whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin," (iii. 9,) he certainly had in his mind no such distinction of deoTces; and doubtless, what Tertullian describes as peccata qiiotuliance incursionis, woidd not have corresponded to what John terms (according to the idea) as being born of God. The apparent contradiction in John can only be removed by dis- tiu'Tuishing what is founded in the principle and idea, from the Hfe in its practical manifestation, which falls far short of the idea and the principle. Only when we apply this distinc- tion, and separate what may be mingled as fluctuating and disturbing the Christian life in its actual manifestation, from that which is irreconcilable with the universal animation by the idea, and the general predominance of the principle, can we establish the propriety of a distinction allied to that of Tertullian. Yet we must always say that he has laid down this distinction in far too external and arbitrary a manner, that he has kept particulars too much in view, instead of obsei-ving the general relations of the Christian life. But this was a defect of that age of the church to which he belonged. As to the second point which was discussed in this con- troversy,— the question whether moechia and fornicatio come under the category oi j^^ccata mortalia, — Tertullian had reason for exposing the arbitrariness of the moral judgment, which attributed a heavier guilt to the denial of the faith wrung from persons by tortures, than to the sin of those who yielded to the anuremcnts of sensual desires. When he wishes to point out the heavy guilt attached to sins of unchastity, he speaks in strong terms of the superiority of Christianity in relation to the Old Testament stand-point. " What excuse canst thou have by appealing to ancient times? When indulgence was allowed to adultery, they were not then called * tlie body of Christ,' 'members of Christ,' or 'the temple of God." ' As Tertullian maintained that there was a connected pro- gressive development of the religious consciousness from the Old Testament, tli rough the preacliing of the apostles down to the new revelations of the Paraclete, it was his opinion that those persons who denied the last, were incapable of rightly undei-standing the Holy Spirit in the apostles. He » Cap. vi. DB PUDICITIA. 405 says, " Those who received another Paraclete in the apostles and by the apostles, whom they have not acknowledged in the later prophets, do not possess him even in the ai)ostles."' Although Tertnllian expresses himself so strongly^ on the peculiar nature of the Christian stand-point in relation to that of the Old Testament, — on the contrast between the moral law as developed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, and the special theocratic law of the Mosaic stand- point ; yet w^e find in this treatise an obscurity, which we have already alluded to, in the application of his conception of the law. He thus understands the saying of Christ, that he came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law : " The burdens of the law w^ere until John, but not the remedies, (that is, they were after John ;) the yoke of w^orks was thrown oft", not of moral prescriptions : freedom in Christ serves not to the injury of pm-ity of morals.^ There remains the whole law of piety, of holiness, of humanity, of truthfulness, of chastity, of justice, of mercy, of benevolence, of modesty."* Tertnllian here expresses himself as if the lex operum related only to the ceremonial law, and the abolition of the law only to that ; as if the moral law had not entered into a new relation to believers ; as if, in this respect, the conception of the law had not undergone a revolution. Tertullian's assertion is worthy of notice, that Christ's manner in reference to the forgiveness of sins during his ministry on earth, w\as not applicable to the point under discussion ; for the Christian stand-point did not begin till after Christ had effected everything for the salvation of men, and the eft"iision of the Holy Spirit. " No one was perfect before the method discovered by faith ; no one was a Chris- tian before Christ w\as taken up to heaven ; no one was holy before the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven had established the method of the Christian life."^ Tertnllian believed that it was his duty to come forward as the champion of the Montanist ascetic severity, as he had already shown himself in relation to the subject of matri- mony.*^ He washed to do this in reference to the recent 1 Cap. xii. 2 Cap. vi. 3 " Onera cnim legis usque ad Joannem, non remedia ; operum ju^ra rejecta sunt, uon disciplinarum ; hbertas in Christo non fecit innocentiai injuriam." * Cap. vi. 5 Cap. xi. 6 He alludes to his work De Monofjamia in the followin£? words: " Do modo quideni nubcndi jam edimus monogamiio dcfensionem." 406 I>E JEJUNIIS. institution of fasts. On this account he Avrote his treatise J)e Jejuniis adversus Psychkos. The Montanists wished to lay down as law many things which hitherto had been con- sidered as open, and to introduce several institutions that were quite novel. The new prophets wished to fix, by an express law, the fasts on the dies stafiomim, which hitherto had been quite voluntary, and to extend these fasts longer than to the ninth hour, or three p.m., which hitherto had been usual ; and they fixed on two weeks in the year for the meagre diet which had before been adopted only by the ascetics called the Xerojyhagice. At this period, however, the genuine apostolic spirit of Christian freedom opposed itself to the new arrangements of Montanism, as we learn from the arguments of his adversaries that were combated by Tertidlian. It was the same spirit which afterwards was obliged to give way to the preponderance of the Jewish legal tendency that was allied to Montanism and formed its basis, but which at the Reformation came forth in victorious counteraction. His opponents maintained that the fasts ought to be left to every one's voluntary choice, and not be prescribed by an authoritative regulation ; that they neces- sarily depended on individual necessities and circumstances. The apostles had prescribed no general law relative to fasts ; and the observance of the dies stationum ought to be left free. They appealed to the fact that Paid, in his epistle to tlie Galatians, speaks of the observance of certain days as a relic of Judaism. Isaiah had declared that the Lord required not such fasts, but works of righteousness ; and the Lord himself had at once put an end to all scruples in reference to meats, by the words, " Not that which goeth into the mouth defilcth the man, but that which goeth out of the mouth, this defileth a man," Matt. xv. 11, which he confirmed by his own practice. They recognised in the life of C'lirist the type of Christian liberty, the opposite of all legal asceticism. They appealed to the fact that he ate and drank freely of all things, and by those who occupied an ascetic legal stand-point was called a gluttonous man and a wincbibbcr. They also availed themselves of Paul's words, " But meat conmiendeth us not to God ; for neither if we cat are we the butter, neither if we eat not are we the worse." 1 Cor. viii. 8. We must only, they said, believe with all our heart, and love God and our neighbour. All depends on this, not on fiusting. They regarded the new Tasts as somewhat DE JEJUNIIS. 407 Jewish, and even as partaking of heathenism. They cLisscd the Xerophagicc with the abstinence practised in tlie heathen worship, as in tliat of Isis and Cybele. Tliey justly charged the advocates of these fasts with a descent from the j^uro moral stand-point, and with a leaning to what was Jewish and heathenish. Yet they were not perfectly true to their own principles, and could not altogether keep clear of the influence of the Jewish element and an undue regard to externals in religion, since they still recognised one general flist as founded on divine authority, and necessary for all ; contrary to tlic Pauline principle of the observance of days, they regarded tills as occupying the place of the Old Testament fast-days — namely, the period for commemorating the sufferings of Christ. They appealed on its behalf to the misunderstood passage in Matt. xi. 13, as if Christ spoke of such a fast in reference to his own sufferings.^ In their controversy with Montauism these words were frequently on their lips, " The law and the prophets vrere until John," Luke xvi. 16.^ Thus they re- ferred to the difference between the Old and New Testament stand-points, and accused the Montanists of confounding them in a tw^o-fold manner, in respect of the law and the pro- phets, as far as they wished to introduce what belonged to the legal stand-point which had been taken away by Christ, and as far as they wished to establish an order of prophets after the manner of the Old Testament, on whom the guidance of the cliurch was to depend, and attached special importance to the prophetic gift as requisite for the continued development of the church ; — since with John the whole prophetic order had ceased, and since in Christ all things were fulfilled, a succession of prophets was no longer required. But Tertullian might be right in the charge ho brought against them, that when it suited them the\' acknow- ledged what these words (•' The law and the i)rophets were until John ") ^ signified. No doubt, he meant tliat his oppo- nents here argued inconsequentially, since they reproached the Montanists with confoundino- the Old and New Testament ' Cap. ii. " Corte incvangcHo illos dies jejuniis detcrminatos putant, in qiiibus ablatus est sponsus, ct hos esse jam solus legitimos jcjuni- orimi Christ ianorum, abditis legalibus et propheticis vctustatibus." 2 Cap. ii. 3 Cap. ii. " Ubi voiunt cnim, agnoscunt quid sapiat; lex et propbet83 usque ad Joannem." 408 DE JEJUNIIS. staud-poiiits, and yet, on the other hand, fell into the same error, and, when it suited their purpose, forsook the New Testament, and went over to the Old. They blamed the Montanists for innovations which contradicted the traditions of tlie church. The Montanists were charged with framing arbitrary, heretical ordinances, and compared to those erro- neous teachers whom Paul opposed in his Pastoral Epistles, the teachers of a false abstinence ; or if they appealed to the new revelations from which they had received these new doctrines, it was asserted that these revelations w^ere not those of the Holy Spirit, but of the Evil Spirit falsifying the truth ; these prophets were false prophets — organs of Satan. As to the latter point,' Tertullian replied, that Montanism announced the same God and the same Christ, embraced the universally received fundamental doctrine of God and Christ, and agreed in all things with the rule of orthodoxy.- And in another passage, he says, " Thou sayest, 0 Psychic, that it is the spirit of the Devil ; and how should such an one enjoin services for our God, which are offered to no other being than our God '? Either maintain that Satan makes common cause with oui- God, or that Satan is to be regarded as the Para- clete." The unsatisfactoriness of this vindication may be easily perceived from what we have already remarked. The Montanist ethics might be joined to the generally received Christian doctrines, and yet be at variance with them in their fundamental principles; the Montanist asceticism, for ex- ample, by no means harmonized with the right application of the idea of Christ, and the correctly developed consciousness of Redemption. And the spirit of Satan could, indeed, mingle with, and bcdarken what proceeded from the Spirit of God, iLS is sufficiently indicated by what Tertulhan himself says of Satan's being {A/en Gottes) a mimic of the Almighty. The view of the relation of the new revelations of the Paraclete h) tradition. Holy Scripture, and Jlatio, as Tertullian expresses it in this book, is remarkable. When tradition cannot appeal t<.) the authority of Scripture, it stands in greater need of " Ratio'' for its confirmation, that the ground of such an institution, as it is handed down by ecclesiastical tradition, » Cap. ii. "Novitatcm jgitur objcotant, (le cujus illicito priesciebant, ant liiurcsim judicandam, si Inmiana pra^sumptio est aut pseudopro- plictiam pronuntiandam, si spiritalis indictio est dum quaqua ex parte anatlicma audiamuy, qui alitor adnuuliamus " =» Cap. i. DE JEJUNIIS. 409 may be demonstrated to that rational principle which re- quires a satisfactory account of everything, until the Jiuthority of the new revelations of the Paraclete is added, and tho established practice is either confirmed or improved by the divine authority. The " Ratio'" is, therefore, only some- thing intermediate in the guidance of the church, until what has been hithei-to fluctuating is established by the authority of divine revelation. Tertullian ascribes to the new revela- tions of the Paraclete an authority equal to that of the decla- rations of Holy Writ.^ It is evident from what he says, that the appearance of the new prophets was psychologically founded in the state of feeling among Christians occasioned by the events of the times. It was the period of the perse- cutions under the emperor ^larcus Aurelius, of various wide- spread calamities, such as earthquakes and pestilences, which were regarded as omens of the final tribulation and conflict of the church which would precede the second advent of Christ. It was requisite that the church should be prepared by the new admonitions and warnings of the Paraclete to meet that decisive event in a suitable manner. It was the duty of Christians by self-denial, renunciation of the world, and conquest over the flesh, to prepare themselves — by a life of self - mortification, corresponding to repentance, to second their pra3'ers to God for deliverance, and thus to seek to turn away his ^^ath in the day of visitation ; as Tertullian says, " Since the Holy Spirit, in whatever lands, and by what- ever men he wills, has announced, so he has ordained, since he saw beforehand the impending trials of the church, or the general calamities of the world, that as Paraclete (that is, as Advocate, in order to reconcile the Judge by prayer) he will employ such events as means for the exercise of sobriety and abstinence." And in another passage he says, that without those extraordinary revelations. Christians, by observing the state of the pei-secuted church, might learn the necessity of such a strict mode of living. " If," he says, " our opponents are really right in asserting that since the days of John the Baptist no new prophetic voice was to be expected, yet we ought to be prophets to om-selves in this respect. I do not say for the purpose of appeasing the wrath of God, nor to win his protection or his favom*, but that we may fortify ourselves ^ Cap. X. " Sed quia eorum, qua3 ex traditionc obscrvantur, tanto magis dignam rationem afferre debemus, quanto carcnt scriptural auctori- tate, donee aliquo coelesti charismate aut confirmentur aut corrigantur." 410 DE JEJUNI IS. ai^aiust the circumstances of the last times, that we may prac- tice every kind of lowUness of mind, if any one has to train himself for jDrison, or to endure hunger and thirst, or to accus- tom himself to deprivations and meagre fare ; that the Christian may enter into prison such as he would wish to come out of it ; that he may undergo no punishment there, but only a discipline ; that he may find there not the tortures of the world, but his own duties ; then he will proceed more con- fidently frora iuiprisonment to victory, having nothing of the flesh, so that the engines of torture will have no materials to work upon." This passage is peculiarly characteristic of the one-sideduess of Tertullian's ethical stand-point, in its con- nexion with his peculiar disposition, which was determined by the circumstances of the age. He sees in Christians only combatonts with incessant persecutions ; the whole of life was only a training for the last conflict, a training for death which met the Chi'istian under these persecutions. It was needful voluntarily to impose that on himself which would ultimately be imposed on him by a power from without. Such views would naturally create a sad and gloomy image of the Christian life. That mode of contemplating the Christian life which is not dependent on temporary circumstances, but founded in the very nature of Christianity, could not make its way as a world-transforming principle along with this one- sidedness. It is also evident that the childlike reb.tion to a reconciled God, founded in the consciousness of redemption, nmst yield to the consciousness of the divine wrath in judg- ment, which men sought to propitiate by self-torture. This sentiment is expressed, or rather caricatured, by Tertullian when he says, " I must not only comply with God's will, but flatter him." That is, in his opinion, do more than he has commanded me by voluntarily imposing such chastisement on myself Here we have the false representation which results from the sepam.tion of the negative and positive elements, the appropriation of tlie world, and the conquest over the world in the service of God ; as if over o.nd above the service of God in the observance of his proecejj^a, there was still a perfection, consisting in the voluntary performance of certain proofs of sch-denial. liut from his own stand-point he sees in his opponents only the predominance of the carnal mind, which made them unreceptive of the divine, unreceptive equally of the new revelations, and of progi'ess in overcoming carnality. It appeared to him perfectly consequential, when they set DE JEJUNIIS. 411 limits on all sides to the agency of the Divine Spirit, both in reference to the new revelations of the prophets, unci to the progressive development of the moral element. '- But again," he says, " ye place bonndary-stakes about God both in re- ference to his grace and to the discipline of life ; both as to spiritual graces, and to religious solemnities, so that the per- formance of duties has ceased, and the reception of his bene- fits, and ye deny that he still imposes services, because the law and the prophets were until John." And in another passage TertuUian wislies to prove, that among the Psychics all is of a piece ; their rejection of fosts perfectly agrees with the whole of their mental tendency — they do not accuse sin (that is, their judgment is so lax respecting sins of unchastity), and, therefore, they do not require fasts to atone for them ; they do not long for the knowledge of revelation, for which they ought to endeavour to prepare themselves by means of the xerophagiss ; and they do not fear peculiar conflicts, which they ought to avert by the stationes. TertuUian was desirous of convincing his opponents, that in attacking the ascetic severity of the Montanists, they declined into still greater laxity of morals. This gave him occasion to expose many of the shades of the Christian life in those times. We admit that we cannot regard the accusations of so vehement a disputant as unquestionable evidence ; yet, as we elsewhere observe one extreme called into action by another — an erro- neous contempt of the world by an erroneous secularization of Christianity — so it might have happened in the present in- stance. It may be imagined that if one party erred in an undiscriminating abandonment of the world, the other would err in a too accommodating, self-indulgent conformity of Christianity to the world. It is, indeed, probable that, though TertuUian, from his ascetic stand-point, would be in danger of falling into one-sided exaggerations in his account of tlie prac- tical aberrations of the other party, — tliougii he migiit with- hold tlie lights and bring forward the shadows, — yet not cveiytliing which he states with so much distinctness could be a fabrication, but must have at least a basis of trutli. In his Apology he had presented the Agapa; of the Cln-is- tians in a ver}'^ favourable light ; likewise, in his treatise Ad Uxoreni, he liad made honourable mention of these fei\sts; but now, regarding them with an ascetic spirit, he finds them quite unworthy of the name. In a sarcastic tone, he alludes to the revelrv indulged in at these meetings, and the licen- 412 BE JEJUNIIS. tious coiKliict between the sexes that accompanied them.i AVhether there was any foundation for these charges, and to what extent, the data are wanting for us to judge ; but, at all events, from comparing TertuUian's language at an earlier and a later period, it is evident that his judgment, taken in its whole extent, was unjust : yet he could with propriety mark it as a disreputable custom that the clergy were distinguished by a double portion, a custom in behalf of which it w^as usual to adduce 1 Tim. v. 17.^ We observe the same inconsistency in Tertullian at two different periods of his life, in the manner of his speaking in this treatise of the emulation of the Chris- tians in their demonstrations of love towards the confessors in prison. In his pre-montanist writings, in his exhortation addressed to the martyrs, he was ready to acknowledge the Christian love and the concern for the bodily relief of the sufferers that was shown by their brethren ; but in the present treatise, he regards it in quite a different light. The unfair- ness of a rugged ascetic tendency cannot be concealed ; al- though it might be that he found cause for just censure when Christians suffered themselves too readily to be fascinated by those who professed to suffer for the cause of the Gospel ; when by the manner in which they treated them, and made them presents, they led to the practice of much deception ; when they cared for the bodily comfort of the prisoners in such a way as was not suited to prepare them for the last conflict, but might probably injure tlie souls of many. He says, " It is plainly your employment to provide eating-houses for un- certain martyrs in the prisons, that they may not miss their wonted way of living, that life may not be wearisome, that tliey may not take offence in the new school of abstinence which your Pristinus (no Christian martyr) never attempted." This is a passage which suggests many inquiries and remarks. Ter- tullian speaks of " uncertain martyrs" {martyrihus incertis). He tiierefore implies that it was doubtful w^hether they were really Christian martp's, or whether they were not imprisoned on some other account, and only pretended that they were suflering for the cause of the Gospel in order to take advan- tage of the love and benevolence of Christians. What we are ' Cap. xvii. " Apud tc agape in cacabis fervet ; fides in culinis calet spcri in ferculis jacet. Sed m;ijoiis est agape, quia per hunc adolescen- tes tui cum sororibus dormiuut; appendices scilicet guljB lascivia atquc hi.xuria est." ^ What Tertullian says is confirmed by the Apostolic Constitutions, lib. ii. cap. ». DE JEJUNIIS. 413 told ill the Peregriims Proteus of Liiciaii serves to cuiifinn this view ; for though this history is a fiction, yet it must bo founded on an image drawn from the life. By the manner of designating Pristinus, Tertullian evidently makes a con- trast between the vester and the christianus martyr. Hence it appears, that although by the opposite party he was regarded as a martyr, Tertullian believed that he ought not to be ac- knowledged as a Christian martyr. Not that we are to under- stand by this, that this person merely pretended to be a Christian in order that he might be maintained and cherished by the Christians — for he would hardly have endured from this motive to expose himself to torture; but Tertullian so designated him, because he could not discover the Christian disposition in him, and supposed that he had not faithfully confessed Christianity, but had appeared in a state of intoxi- cation before the tribunal, and enervated by previous excesses, would soon be put to the torture. When Tertullian makes it so heavy an accusation that they had tried to fortify this man against the torture by merum condititm tanquam antidotum, his ill-will is very apparent, and can only serve to throw suspi- cion on the credibility of his whole statement. Such medi- cated wine was usually given to condemned malefactors in order to deaden the feeling of the torture to which they were subjected. Yet, a person, as a genuine Christian, might feel himself compelled, after the example of his Saviour, to refuse such a means of producing insensibility, in order that, coa- fiding in God's strength, he might drink the cup of suftering in full consciousness, and with undisturbed presence of mind.' Tertullian, who certainly was aware that the essence of genuine Christianity consists in all-pervading love, objected to the opposite party that they made the appeal to love only iis a pretence, in order to avoid the privations required of them. He says, " And we know what are the recommenda- tions for carnal conveniences, how easy it is to say, ' I must believe with all my heart, love God and my neighbour as myself; for on these two commands hang all the law and the ' Such medicated wine was offered to Bishop Fnictuosus of Tarragon in the Valerian persecution, and he took no offence at it, thougli he believed tliat he did not require this assistance, and would not Im-i.mIc his fasten a "Wednesday for it before the appointed time. "Ciinniiie niulti ex fraterna caritate iis offerrent, ut condite permixti poculuni suniorent, .lit; Xondum est hora solvendi jcjunii. Agcbatur cnim hora dici quarta siquidem in carcere (Fructuosiis and his two deacons) quarta feria stationes sollcnniter celebraveraut." 414 DE JEJUNIIS. prophets, not in ths emptiness of tlm lungs and intestines.'" Certainly, the appeal that everything depends on love is often made by those by whom its importance is least felt, in order to dispense with the means of grace and virtue, which they erroneously believe they can do without, and strive against the imi)Osition of many a duty that is troublesome to them. But we have no reason to follow here the charges brought by Ter- tullian, and we may well recognise in these words the reaction of a free Christian spirit against the ascetic materializing of religion. It is remarkable that Tertullian, who, as we have seen in many instances, was not deficient in correct hermeneutical principles, and a sound exegetical tact, when he was not ham- pered by a particular party bias, could here, where such a bias overruled his judgment, explain the passages of the New Tes- tament which were brought against him in so forced a manner, in order to find what he wished in them. This is shown, for example, in his interpretation of Rom. xiv. 17, 20, which appeared to have been used by his opponents, not without reason, in favour of their views. He quotes the words of Paul in Kom. xiv. 20: '' For meat destroy not the work of God." " What work of God ?" he asks ; and replies : " It is that of which he says, It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." Thus, in defiance of the connexion, he could find exactly in these words a confirmation of the notion that such absti- nence was a work of God. When, further, it w\as objected to him, that the kingdom of God was not meat and drink, nor in all those outward things, according to Rom, xiv. 17, and 1 Cor. viii. 8, he thus replies, " The kingdom of God is indeed not meat and drink, and meat commendeth us not to God, (thou canst not l)elieve that this is said of meagre diet, but rather of rich and choice viands,) for when he adds, ^For neitiier if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse,' so this rather touches thee, who thinkest that thou hast some advantage if thou eatest, and that something is wanting to thee if thou eatest not, and on that account blamest tliese regulations." Tertullian would therefore find in these pa.ssages only this sentiment, that no worth should be attached to eating, as was done by his opponents, and so he would make use of them in recommendation of fasting. But this argu- ment couhl only affect his opponents if they had made the mere non-observance of fists a principal thing in religion. But, according to the sense and spirit of that passage, they only DE JEJUNIIS. .115 combated the tcndcncj^wliich attributed to certain modes of abstinence such importance in relation to the kingd As appears from Tertullian's words, De Virg. Velancl. cap. ii. " Per Gnpciam et quasdam barbarius ejus" (bordering districts into which Christianity had found entrance— allowing the reading to be correct — among tribes not belonging to the Roman Empire) '* plures ecclesise vir- DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS. 419 maintained that the word ywr} in Paul's Epistle denoted the female sex in general ; others, that it meant only married women. Virgins who had resolved not to many were every- where veiled ; but in those countries they laid aside the veil in the Christian assemblies. Tertullian justly spoke against this practice, as flattering the vanity of the virgins by thus distinguishing them in public meetings, and as exposing them to dangerous temptations. " Do the virgins," he asked, "adorn the church, or does the church adorn the virgins, and com- mend them to God ?" Hitherto, a difference of usage in this respect, as in many other outward things, had existed without disturbing Christian union. But now the Montanists, in con- sequence of the utterances of their prophets, required the virgins to be veiled, and on the other hand the Roman church wished the ancient usage handed down from the early Roman bishops to be regarded as an universal law. Tertullian, who already in his book Be Oratione, and after- wards in a Greek work, had handled this subject, composed a polemical discourse upon it in the Latin language. However unimportant in itself the subject might be which was here discussed, it gave Tertullian an opportunity of setting forth in connexion with it many important points of the Montanist system. He was, as we have already seen on several occasions, as - a Montanist, an impugner of a one-sided traditional ten- dency in the church, which mechanically held fost to what had been once established. He did not satisfy himself with the authority of mere establishment ; he would not be over- ruled by the authority of this or the other church which boasted of its ancient traditions; internal grounds weighed more with him than mere establishment. He required the ratio along with the tradition. And now the new revelations of the Paraclete came as a reinforcement, by which what wivs formerly doubtful was decided, and the church was carried on to a higher stage in its development. But here, as was evi- dent from many indications, he had to combat with the an-o- gant claims of the Roman church. He alludes sarcastically to persons who appealed to the authority of their predcccssoi-s, the succession of the Roman bishops. When the Roman church advanced claims for special consideration as an Ecclesta Ajjostolica, he gave its advocates to understand that there were other EcdesicG ApostoliccG, who had even greater right to gines suas abscondunt. Est ct sub hoc coclo institutum istiid alicubi nc quis gentilitati Grecanica? aut barbaricoe cousuctudinem illam adscribat." 420 DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS. speak ; as he says, " I liavc appealed to those churches, which were founded by the apostles themselves, or by apostolic men, and, I think, earlier than certain people;" which no doubt refers to the high antiquity claimed by the Roman church. Speaking against the appeal to tradition, he says that against the truth no other rule can make itself valid : no length of time, no authority of persons, no privilege of certain districts ; and he intimates that there is no such thing as pure tradition ; that, unconsciously, elements of falsehood will mingle with ti-adition, and thus, in course of time, falsehood will be strong enough to make head against truth itself. " Hence," he says, " a custom set on foot by ignorance or simplicity, in course of time acquires the force of habit, and thus maintains itself a<^ainst the truth. But our Lord Jesus Christ calls himself the Truth, not Custom. And if Christ be always, and before all, equally is truth eternal and ancient. Let those persons consider this, to whom that is new which in itself is old. Not novelty, but truth, refutes heresies. Whatever contradicts truth is a heresy, even though it be an ancient custom." Here we find, if we develop the full meaning of this language, the principle that true tradition is that which proceeds from Christ: whatever springs not from that source is polluted; what comes forth as a novelty against an ancient eiTor can justly defend itself by the inward might of truth against any- thing cn'oneous that in length of time has acquired the supre- macy. The idea of heresy is here far too widely extended, if heresy and error are deemed identical ; but jet this idea is brought within narrower limits, if we connect w^ith it the anti- tlicsis including the reference to Christ, and that which, as wo shall afterwards see, Tertullian distinguishes as the essence of the Gospel. Tcrtulhan tliought that the new, as opposed to the old and estabhshcd, was no mark of the heretical; but, according to lii.s view, to designate the heretical as such, this mark must be added, tliat a doctrine made its appearance in opposition to the original fundamental truth warranted by the preaching of tlie apostles in all the churches. Now, in what does Tertullian l)lacc tliis foundation of the genuine apostohc tradition, from wliicli no one may venture to swei-ve 1 He gives such a list of essential doctrines, not a system of definite ideas, but pure facts, the fiicts of the announcement of salvation which have Cln-ist for their central point. " Belief in one God almighty, Creator of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS. 421 Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, who rose again the third day, ascended to heaven, now sits at the riglit hand of the Fatlier, will come to judge the living and the dead, by whom also is the resuiTection of the dead." Tiiis he terms " the sole, immovable, and unalterable rule of faith." ' All progi'essive development of Christianity must proceed on this foundation ; but while this is firmly retained, still there must be a progressive development eftected by the illumination of the Holy Spirit : there must be no standing still. " Only let this law of faith remain," he says, " and other things relating to discipline and Christian conduct will allow the novelty of correction, the grace of God continuing to work even to the end. For what would this be, if, while Satan works con- tinually, and adds daily to the inventions of evil, the grace of God were to cease, or leave off" to advance ? On this account, the Lord has sent the Paraclete, that since human mediocrity cannot receive all things at once, it may, by little and little, be directed and led to perfection, by that substitute of the Lord, the Holy Spirit " And he appeals to Christ's promise of the future influences of the Paraclete, as being threefold, namely, the perfecting of the moral element, the unfolding the meaning of holy writ, and the purer knowledge of truth generally. 2 He acknowledges that the supernatural, as well as the natural, must follow the law of successive deve- lopment. Here he appeals to the unity that pervades the works of God, the one law, as in the development of the na- tural creation, so in the new creation of which revelation is the instrument. " Nothing," he says, " is without its age : all things wait their time. ' There is a time for everything,' says Eccle- siastes. See how the creation itself by degrees advances to fruit. There is first the seed, and from the seed the shrub a^-ises, and from the shrub ascends the tree ; then the branches and leaves acquire strength, and the whole formation of the tree is com- pleted ; then the swelling of the bud, and the flower breaks forth from the bud, and from the flower the fruit opens ; and this last is for some time rude and mis-shapen, but gradually growing according to its proper age, it acquires mellowness. Thus also it is with righteousness (for there is the same God of righteousness and of the creation) : at first it was in the 1 "Regula fidei sola immobilis et irreformabilis." 2 "QufB est ergo Paracleti administratio, nisi Iutc, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod scriptura3 revclantur, quod intcllcctus rclbrmatur, quod ad meliora proficitur." 4:22 DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS. rudiments, nature fearing God; then through the law and the prophets it advanced to infancy ; thence through the Gospel it grew up to youth ; and now by the Paraclete it is ai'rived at matui'ity. For he alone is to be named and honoured as a master by Chiist. For he does not speak from himself, but only what things ai'e committed to him by Christ. He is the only forerunner, for he is the only one who comes after Chi-ist." (Without doubt, Tertullian means to say, that the only appeal must he to the preceding revelations of the Para- clete, whose office it is to carry on the development of Chris- tian truth: that the only appeal is to the authority of this divine antecessor, and not to the authority of men as forerun- ners, such i^ the Roman bishops.) " They who have received him, prefer truth to custom. They who hear him who still prophesies, and not merely in ancient times, veil the virgins." In this last passage is contained an opposite view to those who maintained that with John the Baptist the series of prophets was closed. From what has been said it appeal's that Tertullian had a right conception of perfectibility as a progressive development of Christianity. This progression was regarded by him as depending on the unchangeable peculiar nature of Christianity. Progressive development was not a development passing be- yond the bounds of Christianity, but moving within them. His view was only eiToneous in this respect, that what should have been regarded as something proceeding from the peculiar natm-e of Chiistianity was made to depend on the authority of an order of prophets who assumed the supreme guidance of the church. This was afterwards committed by the catholic church to the collective body of bishops, and thus the Monta- nist conception passed over to the catholic, which was specially developed by Vincentius Lerinensis. It is also deserving of notice, how the individual who has often been regarded as the representative of the most uncompromising supernaturalism, and who, by single overwrought expressions, justified the opinion, endeavoured, as we have seen, to bring the superna- tural into unison with the natural, the kingdom of grace into hannony with the kingdom of nature. Thus he appeals to the harmony subsisting between holy ^^Tit, nature, and Christian discipline. "Scripture," he says, "founds the law, nature testifies to it, and discipline requires it." As he found in an original consciousness of God the uncon- scious foreboding of Christianity, and a point of connexion for it. DE TALLIO. 423 SO he thought in general, that wliat was deduced from the nature of man as the offspring of God, — wliat had transpired in its development previous to Christianity, — must point to Chris- tianity, and stand in unison with it. " By virtue of the silent consciousness of nature, the divinity of the soul itself, without men being conscious of it, has brought this into the use of language, as also many other things which, according to Scrip- ture, are to be done and said, as we shall be able to show else- where." Tertullian, who, as we have seen, when he vindicates customs or manners wdiich in his opinion have a sound inter- nal right, the ratio for themselves, — agi'ee with the spirit of Montanism, — or were confirmed by an express oracle of the new prophets, makes the authority of tradition independent of holy writ, here rather opposes the authority of Scripture to tradition, to which an appeal was made. " Interpret thy Scriptures, which custom knows not, for had it known them, it would never have existed." Chronological data lead us to place in the series of works which Tertullian composed when a Montanist, his treatise I)e Pallio, although it contains no internal marks of Montanist views, which is not surprising, since the subject of it is in no way connected with Montanist controversies : it is a vindica- tion of the philosopher s mantle (rpi/3a)i', pallium), which was ridiculed by the people of Carthage as a foreign Greek flishion, accompanied by a satirical discoui-se against the extravagance, luxury, and corrupt morals of that degenerate capital. This mantle was the distinctive dress of heathen philosophers and ascetics. By means of this dress, when they appeared in public,^ they attracted much attention, collected around them troops of those who were eager after knowledge or novelty, and were able, if it were not their aim to indulge in mere showy declamation, to disseminate on such occasions salutary lessons. Those persons among the heathen who were distin- guished by this dress, continued to wear it after they became Christians ; and Christians who were ascetics assumed it in order to attract the attention of the multitude, and to take advantage of it, that they might be able to present Chris- tianity as the new philosophy derived from the barbarians of the East to the groups that gathered around them. AVe may compare this with the conduct of the Jesuits in the East * Thus Justin Martyr tells us that when a person saw him in the phi!os )plier's mantle, he saluted him with the words, ^J^^ sought to converse with him on higher subjects. Dial.c. Tryph. imt. 424 DE PALLIO. Indies, who represented themselves to be Saniahs from the West; which, if nothing else were added inconsistent with the truth, miglit in itself be a blameless external accommodation. Tertiillian represents the pallium as justifying itself in pre- ference to the toga, the dress of people of business, against the chai'o-e of a life not generally useful, and saying, " I am wont at every corner of the street, or before every altar, to teach remedies for depraved manners, w^hich may confer soundness on public affairs, both for cities and empires, more than thou canst eft'ect." In reference also to the use w^hich, as we have remarked, Christians were accustomed to make of the pallium, Tertullian closes his treatise with these words: "Thus the Pallium speaks. But I confer upon it fellowship with a divine institute and doctrine. Eejoice and exult, 0 Pallium ! a better philosophy has now honoured thee, since thou hast begun to be worn by Christians." It might be supposed that Tertullian composed this treatise shortly after his conversion to Christianit}'^, and that he had put on the ascetic dress as a Christian. But against this sup- position there is a chronological mark which obliges us to place the composition of this treatise in the time T\^ien Cara- calla and his brother Geta had already received the dignity of Augusti from their father Septimius Severus, when the empire was in a peaceful state, before the breaking out of the war with the Britons, about a.d. 208. And it is certain that Tertullian had been converted to Christianity at least ten years before. The supposition also that he assumed the ascetic di-ess on his passing over to ^lontanism, has the chronology against it, since he appears as a Montanist in writings of an earlier date. The opinion of Salmasius that the clergy at that time wore a pccuHar dress, and that this was the pallium, is destitute of •any proof; and it is in nowise probable that TertuUian at his entmuce into the clerical order, began to wear the ^;a^/i«??i. It is most probable that he adopted the ascetic mode of living at some later period of life, induced by external or internal causes, perhaps by the death of his wife, since he was resolved never to maiTy again.' ' It must be recollected that the words (pix6 Cap. viii. ^ Cap. xxii. ^ Ibid. 430 PRyESCRIPTIO ADVERSUS HiERETICOS. for<>-et all this when engaged in conflict with their common enemies. But for the later post-montanist origin of this work, what occurs in it in reference to Hermogenes has been adduced ; for Tertullian, as a Montanist, violently attacked him, and, as we see, many things which he says against him are connected with his own Montanism. In the regula fidei, which Ter- tullian quotes, one of the recensions of the essentially apostolic doctrine which form the basis of the so-called Apostles' Creed, in the doctrine of the creation of the universe from nothing, a reference has been supposed to Hermogenes as the impug-ner of this doctrine. But we are of opinion that such a reference camiot with any certainty be proved to have been intended ; for as in the whole contest opposition to the Gnostics is treated of, and this opposition is a leading topic throughout the work, everything said by Tertullian in it is fully accounted for. But certainly in two passages there is an express refer- ence to Hermogenes, yet we cannot consider the fact that Tertulhan appears in this treatise as an opponent of Hermo- genes, as a proof that it was not written till after Tertullian had embraced Montanism; for as we must have already noticed in many instances, that tendencies and ideas which Tertullian had adopted before that event were taken along with him into Montanism ; so before he passed from his Christian stand-point to Montanism, he might have been an opponent of one who assailed the creative power of God by a doctrine borrowed from the schools of Grecian philo- sophy, which appeared to him to injure the simplicity of the Gospel ; and the opponent of one who, from the stand-point of a cold objectivity hateful to Tertullian's glowing Christian feeling, was not afraid as a painter to boiTOw objects for his art from the heathen mythology. We know too little respect- ing the chronology of the life of Hermogenes and the exact date of Tertullian's passing over to Montanism, to adduce anything against such a supposition. This treatise of Tertullian's was occasioned by the imme- diate necessities of the much-agitated church, as it was develo])ing itself in conflict with heretics. It was matter of experiunce that men and women who had belonged for a con- siderable time to the church, had acquired great reputation in it, aud hitherto had appeared examples of fimmcss in the fuitli, were broiight under the influence of the sects that were spreading around them ; and in consequence, many of the PR^SCRIPTIO AD VERSUS H.ERETICOS. 431 weaker believei-s were surprised and disturbed. The thought might w^ell arise in such persons' minds, — " Must not these sects have right on their side, in virtue of which they obtain access to so many, and to persons of such character ?" As TertulHan says, " There are people who are struck witli astonishment at certain persons who have been caught by heresy, and ai'e built up to ruin."' Heretics gain an entrance for themselves, first and chiefly, by appealing to holy writ ; from this at first they deduce their doctrine, and wish thence to cai'ry on the warfai'e they have commenced against the church. The less the multitude are acquainted with the his- torical records of religion, the less are they exercised in the right interpretation of them ; and the greater their deficiency in the right principles of interpretation, so much more easily are they the prey of heretics. On this account Tertullian was anxious to furnish believers, if possible, with a preserva- tive against heresies that would be independent of the inter- pretation of scripture. And since experience had proved that nothing was gained by an exegetical dispute in which men proceed on different assumptions and principles, and tlie weak, who saw that heretics could always adduce reasons for their opinions, were thereby led astray, Tertullian thought that he must seek out another method of refuting heretics, and of establishing believers. He says, " Our adversaries urge the Scriptures upon us, and by this their boldness they unsettle some ; and in the actual conflict they weaiy out the strong, they captm-e the weak, they dismiss the undecided with scruples." " What," he exclaims, " wilt thou gain, who art most practised in the Scriptures, when if thou defendest any- thing it is denied by thy adversaiy, and if thou deniest anything it is defended? Thou wilt lose nothing but thy voice in the debate, and gain nothing but worthless praise on account of the blasphemy of thy ojjponent.^ But he, if there be any such person, for whom thou enterest into discussion of the Scriptures, that thou mayest confirm him when wavering, 1 The words of Paul in 1 Cor. viii. 10, seem to have suggested to Tertullian this singular phraseology ; and he also appears to use the word cedificare in an ironical sense. '^ Dr. Neander in his translation follows the reading in Scmlcr's edition, "Nihil consequeris, nisi vilcm dc blaspheraatione laudem ;" but other editors read the latter cause, "nisi hilem dc blasphcniatione,** omitting "laudcm," which is adopted in Mr. Dodgson's translation, Oxford, 1842, " thou wilt gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy." Vide Tertull. Opera, ed Semler, vol. ii. p. 17.— Tu. 432 PRiESCRIPTIO AD VERSUS H^RETICOS. will lie incline to truth, or rather to heresies ? By this very thin<^ he is moved, that he sees thou hast made no progress, since on both sides the affirming and denying are on a par ; by this equal altercation he goes away more doubtful than ever, not knowing what is to be regarded as heresy." Before we follow Tertullian any further in his polemics, the question meets us, whether he wi-ites from his own per- sonal experience ; whether he was moved to compose this troatise by an immediate necessity arising from the state of the chm'ch's development at that period, and had in view a parti- culai" sect, or class of sects, with which the Western church was especially called to combat — whether a definite image was presented to his mental vision, or whether he had in his mind all the heresies he was acquainted with, and had com- bined the various marks which suited the different sects with- out distinction, because he wished rather to animadvert on what was common to all these heresies in their opposition to the church, rather than to take account of then* distinctive peculiarities. One thing is undeniable, that though Ter- tuUian alludes in passing to other heresies, yet the image of the Gnostics, whom the church had then especially to combat, to whom Tertullian's practical spirit formed the most striking contrast, and against whom, or their teachers, several of his writings were specially directed, stood present to his mind. But then it is doubtful whether he had in view all the classes of Gnostics, or chiefly a certain section of them, by whom the Western church was peculiarly annoyed. When Tertullian deduces all heresies from the Grecian philosophy, we must consider that he was acquainted with speculation only in the form of Grecian philosophy, and that when he found any peculiar speculative views he beheved that these could be deduced from no other source than one of the schools of Grecian philosophy. The truth that lies at the basis of his remarks is the formation of the Gnostic system from a mingling of foreign speculative and Christian elements. Likewise what Tertullian says respecting particular speculative questions, with which the heretics as well as the philosophers interested themselves, suits the Gnostics entirety, but not the leading tendency of Gnosticism, that of Marcion. Yet TertuUian, who saw in Gnosticism only the common clement of oppo- sition against the simple Christian truth and the doc- trine of the church, had certainly neither the abihty nor the disposition to investigate and understand the peculiar PRJESCRIPTIO AD VERSUS H.ERETICOS. 433 points in which Marcion differed from the other Gnostics. Everywhere he saw only the derivation from the one source of philosophical schools. It is evident how mucli he erred in making use of this assumption, and how little he was capahlo of understanding the peculiarities of Marcion's mind, when he deduced Marcion's doctrine of the one, good, holy, merciful God, who only redeems and blesses, but never punishes ; the God of love, — a doctrine which certainly was formed only from a one-sided exaggeration of the peculiar Christian view of the Divine attributes, — it is evident how he erred, I say, when he deduced this from the school of the Stoics, and traced back the idea to the Stoic dirddua. AVhcn TertuUiau says of the heretics, that they were continually appealing to Christ's words, •' Seek, and ye shall find," and calling for con- tinued investigation ; this applies more correctly to the specu- lative Gnostics, than to the more practical Marcionitcs ; or we must so understand it, that they said this only in opposi- tion to unconditional dependence on church tradition ; — that they referred only to continued inquiry after what was the original, unadulterated docirnie of Christ which they wished to purify from the adulterations of the Jewish element in the traditions of the church. When Tcrtullian says in the pas- sages we have quoted respecting the heretics, that they gained a ready entrance for themselves by appealing to holy writ, he only asserts what will apply to all the Gnostics. Although it was not true earnestness with which they so zealously ap- pealed to the Bible, yet it is certain that they frequently em- ployed quotations from the Bible in order to gain an entrance for their doctrines. Especially they made use of the parables which could be most easily employed with exegetical arbitra- riness in the absence of sound principles of interpretation, for the purpose of insinuating strange docti-incs. Tcrtullian, as well as Irenaeus, informs us that the heretics adopted such means. But it was the school of Marcion in which the New Testament biblical element prevailed in opposition to that of tradition, and which was actuated by real earnestness to i)rove their doctrines from the New Testament records, as far as they received them, and which jDrocccdod uprightly on the principle, to acknowledge nothing as Christian doctrine which could not be derived from that source. The ]\Iarcionites were also most capable of gaining access by this method ; it was very difficult to can-y on an exegetical dispute with them, because in many points they had the truth on their side, and VOL. II. F F 434 PRiESCRIPTIO ADVERSUS H^RETICOS. could reproach their opponents with mingling a Jewish element with primitive Christianity, and with not under- standing and examining the whole depth of primitive Chris- tianity. The Marcionites also had spread more extensively than any other sect, in the Western church, and could call forth a man of Tertullian's eminence to the conflict. When he disputes with adversaries who charge part of the apostles with ignorance of true Christianity, and appeals to the fact that Peter himself was accused by Paul of a Judaizing cor- ruption of Christianity,^ we find here a trace of Marcion. But one passage in which Tertullian describes the conduct of the he- retics, is peculiarly important for deciding the question, what party he chiefly had in view in his polemics. He says,^ " I will not omit a description of heretical conduct, how worthless, how earthly, how human it is ; without dignity, without autho- rity, without discipline ; coiTCsponding to their faith. First of all, it is uncertain who is catechumen, who is a believer among them ; they all alike approach^ — they pray alike ;" (that is, they all take part in the same prayers , there are no special prayers for the catechumens and for the baptized ; at the prayers preparatory to the Supper the catechumens were not dis- missed ;) " also the heathen, if they come in, they will cast that which is holy to the dogs, and pearls before swine ;" (this no doubt refers to the celebration of the holy supper, at which heretics and heathens were allowed to be present ; Ter- tullian does not allow the reality of the holy supper among heretics, nor that the body of the Lord is with them). " The neglect of discipline they regard as simplicity ; and the atten- ^ Cap. xxiii. "Proponunt ergo, ad sugillandam ignorantiam aliquam Apostolorum, quod Petrus et qui cum eo erant, reprehensi sint a Paulo." 2 Cap. xli. 3 " Pariter adeunt." It is doubtful whether we are here to supply ecclesiam or eucliaruiiam, sacram co&uam : — whether the meaning is, they come in the ^^ame manner to church at the public assemblies, there is no particular place appointed for the baptized and the catechumens, all remain assembled together; the catechumens are not dismissed at the celebration of tlie communion, when the prayers begin ; — or, whether the meaning is, they are equally admitted to the celebration of the supper. But this cannot be understood as if the catechumens actually partook of the holy supper along with the 1 aptized. Such a custom, to admit unbaptized persons to partake of the holy supper, certainly could never have existed. Taken in this sense, the explanation must be untrue. Jiut it may be understood to mean, that all persons were per- mitted to be present at the celebration of the supper, as in all that follows the reference is to the supper; and thus the meaning will amount to the explanation first given. TRiESCRIPTIO AD VERSUS H.IIRETICOS. 436 tion we pay to it they call cajolery ; » they make peace with all indiscriminately," (that is, they hold church communion with all, without distinction,) " it signifies nothing to them what differences of doctrine are found among them, provided they unite in impugning the one truth. All promise know- ledge. The catechumens are perfect before they are taught : even the female heretics, how forward ! who venture to teach, to dispute, to practise exorcisms, to promise cures, perhaps even to baptize ! Their ordinations are rash, careless, incon- stant. At one time they appoint neophytes ; at another time, men bound to the world," (that is, who are connected with certain state offices ; for already a law of the church existed, that no one bound muneribus publicis should venture to enter the clerical calling, since it was presumed that the undertaking of such worldly business was quite inconsistent with that vocation ;) " sometimes our apostates, that they may bind them to themselves by the glory (of station), since they cannot by truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, since simply to be there is a merit. There- fore one man is bishop to-da}'-, another to-morrow ; to-day he is a deacon, who to-morrow will be a reader ; to-day he is a presbyter, who to-morrow will be a layman ; for even on lay- men they confer priestly offices." It is evident that Tertullian in this passage had principally some one definite party in his thoughts whose general features he has delineated ; at least, what he says will not apply to all the Gnostics. Many of them aimed at establishing in opposi- tion to the Catholic hierarchy that was then forming, a hier- archy of another kind, a more intellectual hierarchy. Among them, the line of demarcation was very strongly mai'ked between the consecrated and the unconsecrated, and the dif- ferent ranks. Certainly, a striving after simplicity could not be asserted of the majority of them; there was too much pomp and show. The first part of Tertullian's description would suit exactly only that party whose image, as we have seen, must have been vividly present to him while composing this treatise. It was Marcion's school, which, as it was oj^poscd to the intermixture of Jewish and Christian elements in the Catholic cluirch, was not less so to the hierarchy that was springing up, to the injury of the universal Christian priest- hood. This it was that wished to restore everywhere the ^ " Simplicitatcm volunt esse prostrationcm discipline, cujus pence nos curam Icnocinium vocunt." 436 PR^ESCRIPTIO AD\TERSUS H^RETICOS. original apostolic simplicity, and accused the church of having disturbed it. But if, on the one hand, Marcion's school was justified in its opposition to the rising hierarchical element that threatened to overpower the original universal priest- hood of Christians, yet on the other hand it was likely to carry its opposition too far, when it insisted that everything was to be literally retained as it was understood to be laid down in the Pauline Epistles, in which, notwithstanding, various stages of development may be distinguished ; and hence this school set itself against all historical development, even what might proceed from a sound Christian element. We recognise here specifically the opposition among the Marcionites to the newly-formed separation of the various parts of divine worship, that in which all the unbaptized might take a part and that which only the baptized would have a right to attend, — ^the dis- tinction between what was afterwards called the missa catechu- menorum and the missa fidelium. As we may perceive by the language of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 23, originally every one without distinction might frequent the meetings of the church, and remain as long as he pleased; there was no distinction of classes, according to wliich some might remain while others would be obliged to withdraw. Facilities were given, that those who were not Christians might derive in- struction from what took place in Christian worship. It was desired, as appears from the language of Paul, that thus those who were without the pale of the church might be induced to enter it. But afterwards it gave offence for the unbaptized to join in all the devotions of the faithful, and particularly to be present at the celebration of the holy supper. It became cus- tomary to dismiss all the unbaptized, not excepting the cate- chumens— all persons, in short, who were not authorized to be communicants — before offering the prayers that were introduc- tory to the celebration of the supper. Marciou, who was always zealous for the preservation of apostohc simplicity, who looked on the new an-angements with a suspicious eye, and quickly detected anything hierarchical, set himself against this separation of the two pai-ts of divine service. In his opinion, tlie holy supper could not be desecrated by the pre- sence of the catecliumens ; and he was desirous that for the future they should take a part in all the devotions. We know from Jerome's quotation in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. vi. 6, that ]\Iarcion thus explained that verse,— -that catechumens should share in all r?- Socinianismus, d-c. darnestellt von Otto Fock. Kiel. 1847, p. 4S0.-TR. AD VERSUS HERMOGEXEM. 449 described faith in one God, who created rdl things, as indc- j)endent of revelation, and arising from the contemplation of the universe ; nor is it necessary to take refuge in tlio forced explanations of the Socinians in order to dispute this. Paul certainly assumes here, that God as Creator reveals himself in his works, but at the same time assumes as necessary a coitc- sponding receptivity in the human mind to admit this revela- tion, by virtue of which the outward revelation becomes an inward one ; and he teaches us that when the internal prin- ciple of religion was oppressed by worldly-mindedness, even that outward revelation could no longer hnd a point of con- nexion in man. AVe have seen in the modern development, that as natural reason rebelled against the theism of revela- tion, in order to explain everything from itself, although at first it allowed that doctrine of a creating God to remain as something founded in the religion of reason, yet the same principle in the modern history of tlie human mind has driven it beyond these limits, even to deny this, in order to resign itself entirely to a pantheism that denies everything supermundane, only to find itself repeated everywhere, and to regard everything as only its own work. Hence, as that doc- trine of the creation enters into the consciousness first of all with Christianity, this difficulty must oppose itself to the acknowledgment of Christianity where there is not an uncon- ditional submission to the new principle of the universe. There was no need of speculative thinking as it was developed in the old world to find here a stone of stumbling ; it wa.s difficult for educated minds to follow the bold soaring of faith, in order to rise above the whole system of nature to an act of absolute freedom as the ground and cause of all exist- ence. Thus TertuUian says that many weaker believers would rather agree with the philosoplicrs that God had created all things out of a basis of existing matter. Hence it cannot be surprising if a thoughtful man like Hermogenes, who had passed over from heathenism to Christianity, al- though embracing the doctrines of Christianity, yet, in conse- quence of his speculative tendencies, revolted at the Christian doctrine of the creation, and endeavoured to mingle Hylo- zoism, to which his whole intellectual development had been habituated, with Christianity. It was possible for such a per- son sincerely to exercise faitli in Jesus as a Redeemer, and to receive the other doctrines of Christianity, while he wa^ stumbled at that one point, and, proceeding on his precou- VOL. II. G a 4oO AD VERSUS HERMOGENEM. ceivcd opinions, endeavoured to prove that even in Holy Writ the doctrine of the creation from nothing (which must besides have been misunderstood if a negative assertion was converted into a positive one) was not expressly laid down. But, indeed, the whole peculiar system of Christianity separated from that one fundamental truth could not remain in its purity, or be consistently recognised in its true significance. TertuUian was penetrated with this conviction when he entered the lists against Hermogenes. Hermogenes was probably, as might be infen-ed fi-om his name, of Greek descent, and had settled as a foreigner in Carthage. If the former particular be correct, it is easily accounted for that the lessons of Greek philosophy ,exerted so great an influence over his habits of thought. He was an ai-tist, and in the numerous comparisons which he employed to make his doctrine intelligible it is not difficult to recognise the painter. Tcrtullian, as we have already perceived by many indications, was no fi'iend of art, although we are not justified in asserting that he held painting to be in itself an art not becoming the Christian profession. The contrar}'- is evident from his book, De Idololatria, as we have seen, and we cannot say that as a Montanist he had become more strict in this respect. And although Montanism could not be favourable to art, yet no proof can be found that it must have denounced the art of painting as unchristian. But Hermo- genes might have extended the practice of his art, which for liim was characteristic in relation to his times, beyond the bounds which TertuUian regarded as necessary for the Chris- tian stand-point. He appears already to have risen above the subjective opposition of the Christian conscioiisness of his times to heathenism, and advanced to an objective mode of contemplating mythology, so that he felt himself at liberty to cmi-)loy his art in the representation of mythological sulrjects. And thus perhaps we may recognise in the artist and the thinker the stand-point of a man in whom the fervour of Christian feeling was not predominant. In both respects Tcrtullian must have been the opponent of Hermogenes ; and he regarded him also as culpable on another account — that after the death of his first wife he had mamed again several times. Perhaps he had already engaged in controversy with Tcrtullian on that point, since he endeavoured to prove from holy writ the lawfulness of a second marriage, in opposition to ADVERSUS nERMOGEXEM. 451 the prohibition of Montanism.^ Pcrliaps Hcrmogcncs be- longed to those opponents with whom TertnUian liad to con- tend as a Yindicator of the Montanist principle of Monogamy ; it may have been that he stood at the head of this Antimon- tanist party. Hermogenes came forward as an opponent of the Gnostic emanation-doctrine, and of the chiu'ch doctrine of the creation of the univei'se out of nothing. He endeavoured to show there could be no such world, that it must be the work of a perfect holy God, and that it required the admission of a pre-existent material conditionating the divine creation, in order that the existence of evil in a world created by a per- fect God might be accounted for. Tlie question now ai'ises, whether Hermogenes was induced, first as a Christian, to re- flect more on the origin of evil, a subject which then called forth so much thinking, and whether he was then fii-st led, since neither the church doctrine, nor that of the Gnostics, appeared to give a satisfactory solution, to adopt the i)latonic doctrine of the Hyle ; or whether he brought this doctrine with him from his eaiiier philosophic stand-point, and only sought to find new proofs for it from the Christian stand-point. When we recollect the affinity of the doctrine of Hermogenes to the neo-platonic system, and obsei-ve how tliis subject alone appears to have occupied his Christian thinking, we shall be more inclined to adopt the latter view. According to several expressions, indeed, it may appear that Hermogenes only adhered to the original platonic Dualism, and thought that there was an independent Hyle which was fii"st organised by an act of God for the fonnation of the universe ; but when we compai-e with one another all the fragments in which his ' Tertullian's obscure expressions from which we learn this, are the following, (I. i.) •' Pingit illicite, nubit assidue, legem Dei in libidinem defendit, in anem contemnit." It is doubtful how we are to explain the pinqere ilUcite. Must we understand by it that TcrtuUian regarded painting as in itself unlawful \ Yet we are not justified in doing that, for the reasons given in the text ; and when Tertullian afterwards says that Hermogenes despised the law of God because it was opposed to his art, yet Tertullian could not mean that the divine law condemned painting generallv. AVe are therefore inclined to believe that what he reirarded as unlawful in the art of painting, as practised by Hermogenes, was, that he selected subjects for his art from the heathen mvtholog)-. On the other hand, Tertullian might believe himself justified iuquoiiuff pas^ao-es from the Old Testament, and thus the words. " legem in artcm contemnit," retain their meaning, and the other words, that he made use of the law for the ^'indication of his art, will refute his having quoted passa^^es of the Old Testament in vindication of his repeated mamageg. 452 ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM. speculative views are presented to us, we shall rather recognise the speculations of the later platonism, and lying at the basis, tlie transition from Dualism to Monism. We must separate the more mythical and the logical conceptions from one another, althouo-h it is questionable how far this was consciously effected by Hermogenes himself. Hermogenes maintained, that if God had been Lord from all eternity, he must have had materials for the exercise of his sovereignty ; and this was no other than matter. He believed that the divine attributes must be regarded as eternally active in a creation. He maintained that this was not at all incon- sistent with the unity of God, the jjioyapxta, since God and matter wei^ totally distinct fi^om one another ; to matter he ascribed only absolute passivity, as he regarded God as the only creative cause of all things. He described matter quite in the platonic style as entirely undefined, and predicateless, the direipoi'. It must be entirely undefined and predicateless in order that all things may be made out of it by the divine determining power. Hence it is neither corporeal nor in- corporeal, though forming the basis of the corporeal world; neither good nor evil. If it were good, it would require the formative power of God ; if it were evil, it would have re- mained entirely unsusceptible of such an operation of God. If matter were not indeterminate between the corporeal and the incorporeal, it would be already corporeal, and it could only be regarded as resting, not in motion ; but now we must ascribe to it a motion though unregulated, undetermined, and chaotic. Hermogenes availed himself of the comparison of water boiling in a vessel and bubbling over on all sides. He affirmed, in support of his opinions, that the doctrine of creation out of nothing was nowhere expressly taught in holy writ, and he believed that his idea of matter was ex- pressed by the irin^^ ^ri^\ of Genesis, and by the y^ doparoQ Kal aKaraatcevafTTOQ of the Alexandrine version. When Her- mogenes, as a proof of his doctrine, adduces that in order to conceive of God as Lord from all eternity, it is necessary to presuppose a material of which he is Lord, we may infer from t!iis that he therefore conceived of no beginning in the ex- orcise of this sovereignty, and this sovereignty consists in the formative influence of God on the material from which the creation proceeds. Hermogenes could not imagine any ab- solute commencement of creation. In fact, from his whole doctrine, it appears that he did not suppose that first of all a ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM. 45f? material existed as chaos from which creation first proccciled ; l)ut that he behoved that these two factors were workinr; together from all eternity, the creating God and the material which lay at the basis of creation, constituting the condition and limits of it. He, no doubt, thought that only by a pro- cess of mental abstraction could the universe, as organised by God, be distinguished from the Hyle that constituted its basis, and an idea be formed of such a Hyle, as far as an idea could be formed of anything so indefinite, a so-called \6yoQ v66o(: in platonic phraseology. Thus the idea presented in revelation of a creative teleological act of God, must have secretly vanislied from Hcrmogenes, and have given place to that of a develop- ment destined by an imminent necessity, as in the new platonic philosophy. Hcrmogenes must have believed that from eternity God oj)erated in a formative manner on matter, and not by a transient activity ; as he says, — " God does not create the universe out of matter by pervading it, but Ijy appearing to it and approaching it : as beauty by its mere appearance operates and wounds the soul of him to whom it appears, and as the magnet attracts the iron on approaching it." Hcrmogenes maintained that the formation of matter by God is an infinite task, and that there is always a re- mainder that resists the formation. Thus, he says, as the whole is known by its parts, is matter known as what forms the basis of the universe : in part what it can become by the divine formative power, and in part what there is in it which resists formation. The ancient chaos, amidst all the beauty and order in the world, still ever lets itself be known as lying at the basis : it appeal's even through the restored order. Thus Hcrmogenes could say, under one point of view, that matter has served God to be a manifestation and mirror of himself by means of the creation he lias educed from it ; and under another point of view, that this world is a mirror of matter; which appeared toTertuUian a contradiction, since he could not distinguish these various points of view. According to the doctrine of Hcrmogenes, that in matter which resists the formative power, can only be overcome by degi'ccs, and is the basis of what is defective and evil ; the necessity of evil lies in this, that the formation of matter is an endless task. He maintained that matter partook of formation, not ivs a whole, but in its parts.' He says that parts of it had all from all ; in every part there w^as the whole ; so that tlie whole 1 Cap. xxxviii. " Unde ncc tola fabricatur scd partes ejus." 454 ADVERSUS HERMOGENEJT. can be known from the parts.' " The motion of matter," he says, "before it was arranged, was that of one part flowing into the other ; a restlessness which could not be settled on account of the too great contradiction in itself. But it con- tinues in order that it may be aiTanged by God." ^ Yet, as in matter all opposites meet, and hence the most contradictory theory can be asserted of it, so Hermogenes ascribes to it on the one hand a restless motion, fiill of conflicting tenden- cies, and, on the other hand, a sluggish motion. But when this matter received formation and was arranged, it ceased from its nature and its original quality ; yet, according to w^iat has been said, the basis of it still shone through.^ Hermogenes wished that every appearance of the causality of evil should be kept at a distance from God, since he placed the cause of evil out of God. If other persons from the stand-point of the church doctrines washed to account for evil from tlie free-will of the creature : he, on the contrar}^, held that tlie cause of evil would by that means be placed in God by whom that free-will was given. From the stand-point of his speculative reason, he thought that his all-comprehending Monism could not allow the distinction between God's willing and permitting. In accordance with the Cludstian stand- point he rejected that explanation of evil, that it existed necessarily as the antithesis of good, in order that good itself might become matter of consciousness.'' He maintained that this would deprive good of its independence. But on the other hand, he himself did away mth the true significance of the contrariety of good and evil. Since he traced evil back to a necessity of nature, he injured the doctrine of the almightincss of God. The doctrine of redemption met here with an insuperable difficulty, and such a conception was logically in contradiction to the teleological contemplation of history, xi it proceeded from a system which substituted an n-on necessity in the place of a teleological conception. We here recognise in Hermogenes a man moved on the one hand ' Cap. xxxi.Y. "Partes autcm ejus omnia simul ex omnibus liabent, ut ex parlibns totum tliguoscatur." ' Cap xliii. "Slctit autcm in Dei corapositionem, et inappreliensi- bilom habuit luconditum motum pric tarditate inconditi motus." Cap. xhu. " At ubi accepit compositionem Deo et ornata est, ces- savit a natura." * Ilcrmopenes, as the opponent of the assertion,— " Mala necessaria ■ns-sc ad iliuminationem bouorum ex contrariis intelligendorum." Cap. XV, ^ AD VERSUS HERMOGENEM. 4.55 by the religious impressions of Christianity, and on tlic otljcr hand attached to another soil by his speculative habits. "\Vo shall see that although in Tertullian the pure speculative interest, and the speculative element, were not sufficiently powerful to enable him to enter such a mode of thinking as that of Hermogenes, yet from the stand-point of a religious Christian interest, he understood how to combat with him, and to prove the irreconcilableness of his preconceived notions with the doctrines of Christianity, with which he wished to combine them. When Tertullian says, referring to Hermogenes, that the philosophers are the patriarchs of heretics, and reproaclies him with having changed from a Christian to a philosoplier, there is certainly so far truth in the allegation, that the doctrine of Hermogenes resulted from a mingling of j)hilo- sophy and Christianity — of the speculative and the religious interest. He maintains against Hermogenes, that although the doctrine of the creation out of nothing was not exjiressly laid down in holy writ, yet it was an obvious inference, since no antecedent material was mentioned in connexion with the creation of God, which otherwise would have been the case. He endeavours to prove to him, that his doctrine, although he maintained the unity of God, was in-econcilablc with it ; for God was truly acknowledged as God, if he were not acknowledged as the eternal, sole originator, and ground of all existence, with whom nothing else could compete. As soon as anything else was placed as originally near him, it was claiming for that something else what belonged to God alone, and, in fact, destroying the idea of the one God. He maintained against him, that the doctrine of the creation out of nothing was absolutely necessary in order to maintain in its integrity the idea of the divine almightiness, which was denied when God, in order to create, was made to depend on something out of himself.' He maintains, tliat by this sclicme of a creation, conditionated by something out of himself, God would be subjected to a necessity. He says ag-ainst him, that although he appears to admit no other Christ, he yet changes him into another, since he ]-ecognises him in another manner : in fact, he charges him by denying creation out of nothing, with taking away the idea of Gud altogether.- ^ Cap. viii. " Jam non omnipotcns, si noa ct hoc potens ex nihilo omnia profcrrc." 2 "Etiam iu hoc neccssitati sulijieis Dcum,si fuit aliquid in materia, 4.jG ad versus nERMOGEXEM. The doctrine of redemption seemed to him to be so closely connected Avitli that of the creation, that the full recognition of Cln-ist as the Redeemer could not exist, unless the idea of God as the almighty Creator were presupposed in all its fulness. He endeavours to prove against Hermogenes that the idea of incomplete and progressive formation is incon- sistent with the idea of something unoriginated. Only in the created, which has a beginning, can the idea of a con- tinued development from the imperfect to the perfect find its application.' He maintained against him that a contradic- tion was involved in the idea of evil without a beginning, that in the idea of evil it was absolutely necessary to think of a beginning and an end.^ In fact, the view taken by Her- mogenes of an endless task of the formation of matter, if logically carried out, was at variance with a teleological con- templation of the world, and many doctrines of Christianity belonging to it ; with everything, in short, that related to the final issue of redemption and the renovation of the world. In his opinion, the idea of unchangeability was in- separable from the idea of the unoriginated and eternal, and thus he could not conceive how matter could be trans- formed into any thing else. It was also not apparent, how a transformation, a conquest of evil is possible if this is regarded as an original nature.^ He objected to Hermo- genes, that if evil is unoriginated,"* but the Xoyog not un- begottcn, but begotten, it cannot be conceived how evil can have been overcome by him, — how the good can be stronger than the evil.^ He, therefore, perceives correctly that there is an intrinsic contradiction, to regard evil as something mioriginatcd and absolute, and yet to speak of a necessary victory of good over evil ; that, therefore, in this respect also, the doctrine of redemption is irreconcilable with such a scheme. When Hermogenes maintained that as God from all eternity Avas to be conceived of as Lord, and, therefore, a material on which to exercise his sovereignty, and an eternal propter quod cam formarct," cap. xlii. And, "Libcrtas non neccssitas Deo compctit, malo voluerit mala a scmet ipso condidisse, quam non j.otuerit noucondidisse." lie maintained that God would still be the author of evil, although he brought it forth from another material, whether he m willed it, or was obliged so to act from weakness. ' J;aP- xxviii. 2 Cap. xi. » q.^^ ^ii. ^ Cap. xii. Cap. xviii. " Proinde si malum quidem innatum est, natus autem Hcriiio Dei, nonscio, an a bono malum possit adduci, validius ab infirmo, ut innatum a nato." AD VERSUS HERMOGENEM. 4,57 exercise of this sovereignty must be assumed, TertuUiau replied, that God was certainly God from all eternity, but not Lord ; for there was a distinction in the two ideas ; God is the name of a being, but the name Lord is not tlie desigim- tion of being but of power. The being must be regarded as eternal ; but this was not the fact with tlic idea of ]A)rd, which bears a relation to somctiiing without. ' This remark was founded on the distinction of tlie absolute and relative attributes of God. Formally, indeed, the difficulty might thus be removed, but, certainly, it was not so in reality. Tertullian did not by this means show how the almightiness of God could be conceived of otherwise than perpetually active, which was one of the difficulties that Hermogcnes felt in the supposition of an absolute beginning of creation. Tertullian perceived, indeed, how by the doctrine of Her- mogcnes, respecting the manner of God's operation on matter, the Chi'istian idea of creation, and especially the idea of God acting for the realization of an object was lost, although his mind had too little of the formally speculative to enable liim to develop this in clear distinct conceptions. He objected to Hermogcnes, that God had created all things, not by mere appearing, but by acting.- " Greater is his glory, if he laboured. At last, he rested on the seventh day from all his works." He then adds, "but both in his own manner,"' in order to guard against a false anthropoi)athism, with which his language might be charged. While Tertullian maintains against Hermogenes that it is irreconcilable with the idea of one God, to attribute to another something of that which belongs to him alone, he himself supposes the objection. '■ Then, thou wilt say to me, we shall have nothing of that which belongs to God alone," and thus he would be led to a Deism, which places an infinite impassable chasm between God and his creatures, an incommunicability of the divine being ; but here his deep Christian views, which were as nuich opposed to Dualism as to Pantheism and Deism, are per- ceptible in his manner of guarding against such a conclusion, and which maintained the participation of the Divine Being founded in redemption, and the divine communion of life between God and the redeemed. " We have, indeed, and shall have, something that is God's, but what is communicated 1 Cap. iii. ' Cap. xlv. " Operatione Deus univcrsa constituit." 3 " IJtrumque suo more." 458 AD VERSUS HERMOGENEM. to US by him, what we liave not of ourselves. For we shall be gods if we become worthy to be those of whom he has dechu'cd^ ' I said ye are gods,' and God stands in the assembly of the gods, by virtue of his grace, not of our nature."^ To the doctrine of Hermogenes, of a material out of which all things were created, he sets in opposition the indwelling wisdom of God, or the Reason— the Xoyog — as the ideal ground of all existence, the aggregate of all ideas which were realized in the creation of the universe.^ This is connected wdth the doctrine of the Logos, of which we shall speak particularly, when we are led to it by Tertullian's controversial writings. Tertullian characterises Hermogenes, who was living ^ when he wrote this book, in the following terms. " In the 2)icture he has drawai of the original matter of creation, he has given a portrait of himself,* devoid of elegance, a confused medley, a chaos of uncertain, hasty, and violent movements." While in this sketch we acknowledge Ter- tullian's vdt, it may be questioned how far it corresponded with truth. Hermogenes may have been a restless fanciful man ; but of the stupidity, at least, w^hich Tertullian ascribes to him we find no trace, as far as we can learn his mental character from the fragments of his writings that remain. He may have been a man of w^ell-regulated mind, though not superior to Tertullian in mental opulence. Tertullian had still another subject to discuss w^ith Her- mogenes. Hermogenes maintained that God had formed all things without distinction from matter, and made no exception even as to the essence of the soul. It was a view widely spread, and derived from the Jewish theology, which distinguislicd what was founded in the nature of the first man, from what was owing to a special divine communica- tion— to the influence of the divine spirit ; this view w^as the germ of the later distinction between the dona Qiaturalia and Jona gratuita. From this point of view, the soul was i-cgarded as originally mortal, and it was supposed, that l)y the commimication of the divine spirit it was first made * Cap. V. " Imo habcmus ct habebimus, sed ab ipso, non a nobis. Nam ut ])ci crimu.s, si merucrimus illi esse, de quibus precdicavit : Eqro dixi voa dii estis, ct st'ctit Deus in ecclcsia deorum ; sed ex gratia ipsius, non ex nostra proprictate." ^ Cap. xviii. ^ Cap. i. " Ad hodiemum homo in saeculo." * Cap. xlv. "Nisi quod llcnnogenes, eundem statum describendo mate- rise, quo est ipse incondituni, confusum, tuv])uientumaiicipitis et preeci- pitis et fcrvidi motus doeumentum artissufe dum osteudit ipse se piuxit." ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM. 4.") 9 partaker of immortality. Hence it was inferred that througli Christ immortal life was again commimicatcd to man throiu'-h communion witli God. This view, which wc find presented in the crudest form by Tatian, which also forms the basis of the doctrine of the Gnostics respecting the nature of the Psychici, was at all events akin to tlie anthropology of Iler- mogenes ; but as to its exact nature, many questions and doubts occur for want of sufficient data. The doctnne of Hermogenes may be so understood, as to mean that in tlie first man there was no communication of the divine spirit, and, therefore, somewliat different from what is sup])osed in the above representation ; and that Jie regarded sin as the necessary transition for a soul derived from matter, and destitute of all alliance to the Divine Being, and tliat sinlcss- ness was first possible by means of the second creation of man througli Christ : from all which it woidd follow, that human natm-e was so planned, that by virtue of its original constitution sin must be manifested in it, and tlien in opi)osi- tion to the prior supremacy of sin, the new divine life from Christ would be revealed, and the originally mortal soul by this divine communication of life woidd be mised to im- mortality and sinlessness, which was then denoted by the term dcbOapcrla. But then the point of connexion for this higher impartation to their souls, would have been wanting, of which all who were of tlie same lower nature would par- take, and it would be difficult to discover how Hermogenes could cxj^lain the different reception given to the Gospel among men. Logically it would have led to the admission of an unconditional and irresistible grace. For the decision of this question much depends on the explanation of one passage in Tertullian's controversy with Hermogenes. He says, that contrary to the authority of Scripture, he had substituted, in Gen. ii. 7, for Jlatus the words sjjiritus Dei, in order to maintain that the soul was derived fi'om matter rather than from the spirit of God, since it is incredible that the spirit of God could f\dl into sin, and then into condemna- tion. Tcrtullian accuses him of falsifying that passage of Scripture, since here mention is not made of the spirit us Dei, but of something subordinate, the ^ftatus Dei. Thus he ex- plained the Tryot) i^wfjr, and thus he had read it in his Latin translation of the Bible. The question is, what view of Hermogenes is here presupposed 1 Did he deny here in the orio-iuar state of man every kind of couuoxiun with the Diviuo 4 GO ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM. Spirit ? since otherwise, when man in this connexion allowed himself to be seduced into sin, the Divine Spirit must have appeared as if liable to be tempted to sin, which was what Hermogenes objected to the Gnostic doctrine of emancipa- tion. Then would the view of Hermogenes be that which we have explained. But in this case must Hermogenes. who found in Genesis a decisive authority, have so understood the passage, as not signifying the communication of anything divine to man, but only an animal principle of life, by which he became a living being ; and in this case TertuUian could not have accused him of making something higher out of the lo^ver^ — of having put spiritus instead of flatus, but he must rather have blamed him for not having given a sufficiently high sense to the predicate in that passage. Hence the words of TertuUian are decisive against such a construction, and we must rather understand his meaning to be the following : — Hermogenes maintained that in that passage where he ex- plained the TTvoi] i^b)7]c as meaning spiritus Dei, the reference was not to the original nature of man in itself, to that which dwelt in it as peculiarly belonging to it, but to that which was imparted to it as something from without. To the first man, in his original condition, the divine spirit was imparted for the exaltation and support of his nature ; he was thereby made capable of immortality ; but by his guilt this connexion with God was dissolved, and he was deprived of the spiritics Dei ; and now the souls derived from matter, being stripped of everything divine, fall a prey to death. Thus Hermogenes would have agi-eed with the doctrine of Tatian. But still the same difficulty would remain for him, — the injury done to man's capability of receiving redemption. This Tertullian believed must be maintained against him, and the recogni- tion of sometliing undeniably and inalienably divine in the Boul be i»roved against him, and in order to refute the argu- ment of Hermogenes, he made use of the distinction between the spiritus and the flatus Dei. He wished to show that not an absolutely divine nature, but one allied to the divine, was tlie inalienable possession of man. On this account he wrote against Hermogenes liis book De Censu Animas, (on the Con- stitution of tlie Soul.) which has not come down to us, but the contents of which we may infer from what he mentions in his work De Anima. In maintaining against Hermogenes this alHanco or relationship of man to God, Tertullian appealed to the undeniable and iniUienable marks of it. Amono- these DE ANIMA. 401 he reckoned the natural immortality of the son!, freedom of will, reason, the indications of a native consciousness of God, a power of prognostication which he distinguished from the supernatural prophetic gift, and the dominion over nature.^ Moreover, Tertullian quotes, in the twenty-second chapter of this book, what he had written in his work J)e Censu Animce on the soul as allied to God.^ This special object led Tertullian afterwards to a general inquiry respecting the soul, in which he proposed to discuss all the questions relating to the nature, the various powers, and the destiny of the soul, that were agitated between philoso- phers and Christians, heretics and the orthodox — his work De Anima. Here he entered on a field of inquiry for which his mental constitution and education had little fitted him, that of pure philosophic investigation. Consequently, this work contained many things — much that was unsatisfactory. It was very different, when in the course of these discussions ho entered on purely religious topics, or what were in strict con- nexion with them ; here we find real profundity. Opposing the new light of Christian tnith to the inquiries of philwo- phers, respecting the nature of the soul, he says, — " To wh(3m can the truth be known without God ? by whom is Christ sought for without the Holy Spirit '? and on whom is the Holy Spirit bestowed without the sacrament of the ftiith 1 " The manner in w^hich Tertullian justifies the Senses against the objections of the Academics to the deceptions they practised, is remarkable and characteristic. His strong realism is here prominent, and leads him to detect in such views the germ of Docetism. " It is not the senses," he maintains, " that arc guilty of deception, but the causes which allow objects to assume such an appearance to the senses ; and the judgment of the soul is to be blamed, if it lets itself be determined by them. But even the causes do not lie, for they act in cor- ixjspondence to the law of nature. In nature there is no lie, for everything expresses what it must express from its stand-point." What must so happen is no lie. If, therefore, the causes are free from reproach, much more are the senses, to which the causes are antecedent ; hence, especially trutli, credibility, and freedom from error, are ascribed to the senses, 1 Cap. xxii. " Animam Dei flatu natam, immortalem, substantia sim- plicem, liberam arbitvii, ralionalcm, dominatriccm, divinatriccm." 2 "Dedimus illi et libertatcm arbitrii ct dominationcm rcrum ct divinationum interdum, seposita quae per Dei gratiaiu obvcnit ex pro- phetia." 4G2 DE ANIMA. because they announce nothing else but what that law has prescribed to them, which so operates that something else is announced by the senses than what takes place in reality. " What art thou doing, bold Academic 1 " he says ; " thou subvertest the whole condition of life, thou destroyest the whole order of nature, thou makest the very providence of God blind, since thou constitutest the senses as deceitful and lying masters for understanding, inhabiting, managing, and enjoying all his works." And a little further on, he says, '"' We cannot doubt the evidence of those senses, lest we should doubt their credibility as regards Christ, — lest it should be said that he falsely saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven, or wisely heard the voice of the Father testifying of himself," &(.'J He connects with it the controversy against ^larcion, saying, — "For thus Marcion would rather have believed Christ to be a spectre, refusing to acknowledge the truth of his having a real body." This work is very important in reference to Tertullian's anthropology, and to the construction of the anthropology of the Western church in general, to which he gave the first im- pulse. As we have remarked, Tertullian's materialism and realism could not be separated, so that we shall not be much surprised at his attributing to the soul a corporeity of a higher kind. The literal interpretation of the parables of Christ, the application of all the separate traits in them, especially in the parable of the Rich ]\Ian and Lazarus, strengthened him in this view. He imagined that the soul possessed various limbs, like the human body. To that he refciTcd the idea of an inner man. And with that was con- nected, though it stood in no necessary connexion, the notion of an internal sense of the soul, of internal organs of sense, by means of which he accounted for seeing and heaiing in ecstatic states, as in di*eams ; with such an internal sense, he supposed, that Paul saw Christ's form, and heard his voice.^ But certainly this notion was not necessarily connected with the assertion of a material constitution of the soul. Origen, who was veiy far from such a view as the latter, accounted for ll».^ Scriptural visions from an internal sense. In the form of this view of the soul's materiality, appeared also Tertullian's very influential doctrine, that became offensive by this con- nexion (in whicli it was represented by him, though nowise conuccCsA with this speculation, — namely, the doctrine that the 0 Cap. xvii. 2 Cap. ix. V DE ANIMA. 4G3 soul of the first man was the source of all other souls wliicli were developed in the continuation of the race, and tliat tiio soul of the first man was propagated alonf^ with the body, the so-called propa(/atio animarum per traducem,^ Traducian- ism. Thus he imagined that Adam's soul was at first uniform : it had not yet developed that multiplicity of properties which might be educed from tlie individualising of all those germs of humanity that were existing in Adam." Not without reason he could recognise a deeper connexion in the develop- ment of the human race, a deeper unity (which he explained by means of that Traducianism) in the expression of family peculiarities, in the propagation of qualities and propensities.^ Thus Tertullian opposed his Traducianism to an atomistic, nominalist theory of the development of mankind. In this manner he also explained the propagation of a sinful tendency from the first man. Thus he made it appai'cnt how in the first man the nature of all his posterity was vitiated, since the development of the whole race depended on (or was con- ditionated by) the conduct of its progenitor. Hence the idea of uitiicni originis. As a consequence of the first sin Tertullian regarded the worldly -mindedness which has been transmitted from the first man to his descendants. " How is it to be wondered at that man should return to his original material, and be condemned for his correction to build upon the earth, and in the work itself he should bow towards the earth, since he has communicated the spirit received from thence to his whole posterity ?" The corruption of nature has become, as he says, a second nature, having its own god and father, namely, the author himself of the corruption. * Thus he maintained the connexion of an evil spirit with eveiy man from his birth, which was corroborated by the ceremonies of the heathen ; ^ a view which afterwards led to the use of exorcism at bap- tism in the North African church. Here the coarse and con- fined conception of the ages preceding Christianity as held by Tertullian, in contrast Avith the more liberal and enlarged view of the Alexandrians in relation to the divine education of the race, is strikingly exemplified in the fact that TertulUau ^ Cap. xix. " Anima vclut sxirculus quidam ex matricc Adam." 2 " Apparet, quanta fuit, qua; unam anima; naturam vario collocavit," cap. XX. ; and, " Uniformis natura animfc ab initio in Adam," cap. xxi. 3 Cap. XXV. " Undc, oro te, similitudinc animjiD qiioqne parcntibus do ingcniis respondcmus, secundum Clcantbis testimonium, si noa ct ex animre peraine cducimurr 4 Cap. xli. 5 Cap. xxxi.x. 4G-i DE ANIMA. could so little understand the importance of Socrates in the liistory of mankind, that he adduced the Daemon of Socrates as a confirmation of his opinion that eveiy man was attended by an evil spirit from his birth. But deeply as he was pene- trated with a sense of the con'uption of human nature, equally deep was the consciousness, as we have already learnt from many of his expressions, of the undeniable and inalien- able relation of the soul of man to God. Thus, when speak- m(* of that original corruption, he adds, " Yet, there is in the soul that original good, divine and genuine, and which is properly natural to it. For what comes from God, is not ex- tinguished, but rather obscured ; it cannot be extinguished, because it is of God. Therefore, as light when hindered by some obstacle remains, but does not show itself if the density is so great as to obstinict it, so also what is good in the soul is oppressed by the evil, according to its peculiar nature, and is inactive the light being hidden, or shines through when it finds liberty. So there are some very bad and some very good, and nevertheless all have one sort of soul. Thus also in the worst there is something good, and in the best something of the worst. God alone is without sin, and Christ is the only man without sin, because Christ is also God."^ He then appeals to the marks given in revelation of that which is originally divine in the soul, — •' Thus," he says, " the divinity of the soul breaks out into presages owing to its pristine goodness, and the consciousness of God is expressed by such attestations as ' God is good,' ' God sees,' ' I commend thee to God.' " From the connexion of these two factors, evil, and what was originally allied to God, he explains the responsibility of man, and establishes the consciousness of guilt. On this account there is no soul without guilt, because none are without the seeds of goodness. Hence he accounts for the original consciousness of truth in its partial illumination before the Christian era, which he calls the sensus jnihlicus naturce. This consciousness of truth was to be found especially among tlie better class of the philosophers ; but he accuses philosophy of liaving disturbed and mutilated this sensus 2mblicus by its arbitrary sophistry.- Yet he designates Seneca on account of 1 Cap. xli. ^ Cap. ii. " Scd et naturaplcraqiie suggeruntur quasi de publico sensu quo animum Deua dutarc dignatua est. Hunc nacta philosophia ad j;loriani proprito artis i-ullavit prco studio eloquii quidvis struerc atqae dcstrucre cruditi." DE AN I MA. 4(;;5 liis agreement with Christian truth as scepe noster ! ' Ho adopted, what as we shall afterwards see was not unimportant forhisChristology, not the common Dichotomy, but maintained that the vital principle of the body, the ^l^v^rj, was the same in all living beings, only endowed with higlicr or lower powci-s. In what was generally termed vovq he recognised only the highest power of the same soul, which also forms the vital principle of the body. He says, " By the animus, or mem, which the Greeks call vovq, we understand nothing else than the inborn, ingrafted, and native suggestion of the soul, with which it acts and judges, which having always with itself, it moves in itself, it appears to be moved by it as if by another substance."^ He sanctions the distinction between a v//ux'/ Xoyu-r) and aXoyog, but maintains that what is denoted by the latter epithet, is not an original faculty. He regards all that is contradictory to the reason in man, all irrational passions and desires, as the effects of the original corruption. " The natural," he says, " must be regarded as the rational, which was originally implanted in the soul — namely, by the rational Creator. For how should that be otherwise than rational w^hich God created by his command ? — to say nothing of what he communicated in a peculiar sense by his breath. But the irrational must be reg-arded as something subsequent, which happened through the suggestion of the serpent, that which proceeded from transgression, and which has since gi-own in and with the soul, as something natural, because it happened immediately at the beginning of nature." Yet he declares himself opposed to the platonic intellectualism, since he is not willing to consider the Ovfuicdv and the iirtdvfxr}-i.K6v as in themselves opposite to the Xoya-or, but recognises a rational anger, and a rational direction of the appetitive fliculty. The unity of the divine and human was also brought forward by him, and as a proof he made use of the original type t»f humanity in Christ, in whom he thought might be recognised a holy anger against ungodliness, and a holy ajjpetitive faculty ; as he says,^ " Behold, this whole trinity is to be found in tlie Lord; — the rational faculty which teaches and argues, — b}' wl i i eh he makes level the paths of salvation ; tlie indignant faculty by which he inveighed against the Scribes and Pharisees ; and the appetitive faculty by which he desired to eat the Piussover with his disciples." And as he would very justly regulate the Christian doctrine of morals by the contemplation t)f ^ Cap. XX. ^ Cap. xii * Cap. xvi. VOL. II. H H 466 DE ANIMA. the moral archetype in Christ, he says, — '- Therefore in our- selves we must not consider the indignant and the appetitive faculties as always belonging to the irrational, since Ave are certain that they were rationally exercised by the Lord." We recognise here his religious realism as opposed to the excessive dread of Anthropopathism, and to the evaporation of the idea of God, when he would find in God something corresponding to anger in man in his wrrath against evil, and to human benevolence in his longing for the salvation of men. As an example of that wrath, as it might be found in Christians, he quotes the words of Paul in Gal. v. 12, and displays an ethical and exegetical freedom from prejudice, in not shrinking from the natural exposition of these words, and finding nothing repulsive in it. We see, therefore, that TertuUian recognised equally the re- ceptivity of redemption and the need of redemption. In con- nexion with these truths, he also viewed the doctrine of rege- neration. After speaking of the two factors in human nature, the originally divine and the disordered imdivine, he says,^ " AVhen by faith the soul comes to regeneration, transformed through the second birth by water and the power from above, it beholds all its light, after the covering of its pristine cor- ruption has been taken away. It is received by the Holy Spirit into his communion, as in the first birth by the evil spirit. The body, which is given as a dowiy to the soul when it has espoused the Spirit, is no longer the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit." With his Traducianism was connected the notion of a sanctifying influence arising from Christian parent- age, and thus he imderstands that passage in 1 Cor. via. 14. He understands this of a twofold sanctifi cation, that of descent, and that of education. This again is of importance in relation to liis view of infant baptism. Had he admitted such a rite, tills would have been the place for mentioning it as a third, additional factor. But he expressly distinguishes this prepa- ratory sanctification from that which is accomplished at a later period through baptism— namely, regeneration. He understands the a])ostle to mean by d'ym in that passage, designatos sanctitati ac j^er hoc etiam saluti, and adds, " For (.therwise the apostle would liave remembered the Avord of the Lord, that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is ])orn again of water and Spirit, i.e. he will not otherwise be holy." " Hence," he says, " every soul will belong to Adam ^ Cap. xxxi. DE ANIMA. 4C7 until it has entered into communion with Christ." Now it may be said, this passage is an evidence that Tcrtulhan re- garded infant baptism as necessary. But had that been the case, he would have expressed himself very differently. And it is to be observed that he considers birth and education equally as the preparatory sanctijicatio, and then allows bap- tism to follow. Likewise the passage we before quoted from the same book shows that he considered faith to be a necessary element in baptism and regeneration. To the Gnostic doctrine of the original differences in men, Tertullian opposed the doctrine of free-will (which he derived from what was undeniably allied to the divine in man), and the power of grace operating upon it. When the Gnostics quoted in support of their doctrine those words of Christ, that " a coiTupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, nor can a good tree bring forth evil fruit," and that " men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles ;" Tertullian replies, " According to this notion, God could not raise up children to Abraham from these stones, nor could the generation of vijjci's bring forth fruits meet for repentance ; and the apostle must have been mistaken in Eph. v. 8, and ii. 3, — but the holy Scriptures are never self-contradictory. For the coiTupt tree will bring forth no good fruit unless it is grafted, and the good tree will bring forth bad fruit imless it is cultivated. And the stones will become children of Abraham, if they arc fashioned to Abraham's faith; and the generation of vipci's will bring forth fruits meet for repentance, if they have dis- charged the poison of evil. Such will be the power of grace, wdiich is stronger than nature, since the power of free-will in us is subjected to it ; and as that is natural and changeable, so nature turns whither it turns." This passage may cer- tainly be so understood as if an irresistil)le power were ascribed to grace in the transformation of the free-will, and we might find in it the spirit of Montanism, which was disposed to maintain the unconditional sovereignty of the divine, and ascribe to the human soul only a passivity in relation to it. We should then be obliged to regard Tertullian as the fii-st representative of the doctrine of a gratia rrresistibilis. But this clashes with the ex])rcss manner in which lie elsewhere asserts the self-determining power of free-will. And even here he appeals to the ftict, that in his controversy with Hcr- mogenes and Marcion he had maintained the avretovtriov. In order to adjust this discrepancy, must wc say that Tertullian 468 I>E ANIMA. had already, like Augustiii, pleased himself with the idea of free-will, and believed that he could so express himself, since the form of free-will always remains mihiirt, and man is not conscious of any stringent necessity? But yet we are not justified to attribute this artificial conception to Tertullian, since none of his expressions give a point of connexion for it, and we must rather explain this obscure passage according to his general doctrine. When, therefore, he expresses himself so strongly on the power of gTace, we must presume that he did not mean to ascribe to grace any unconditional compelling power over the free-will. And Montanism itself presupposes that, upon the whole, the operations of the Divine Spirit are conditionated by the direction of the free-will ; since it attri- buted a passivity to the human mind only in the case of pro- phetic inspirations, and certain extraordinary charisms.^ This latter conception of such an operation of the Divine Spirit with the passivity of the human soul, we also recognise in Tertullian's manner of expressing himself respecting the vacillation of mind shown by John the Baptist. Tertullian seeks for explanations respecting the nature of the soul not merely in reason and holy writ, but also in the new revelations and visions : from these latter he obtains vouchers for the material constitution of the soul. That visions should be frequently beheld by the female sex, may be easily accounted for ; and the demand for such phenomena would be in proportion to the value attached by the enthu- siastic tendency which sought for the explanation of such things in new revelations and sights. There might be, indeed, magnetic states in which persons sought for something divine. It is very explicable, that among them who during religious services, and in consequence of the impressions they then received, fell into such states, the visions would have that for their object with which their minds had been occupied in a waking state, and to which the discourse, or portion of scrip- ture read, had referred. Tertullian says, " There is at the present day among us a sister who has received the charism of revelations, and who in the church, on the services of the Sunday, is put in an ecstasy by the Spirit. She converses with angels, sometimes even with the Lord; she sees and hears liuly things ; she knows the hearts of some, and admin- isters remedies to those that long for them. When the scrip- ' Sec Neanflcr'8 General History of the Churcli, vol. ii.pp. 346—352. St. Lib. ccl-Tiu ^^ DE ANIMA. 4«J9 turcs are read, or the psalms are siuig, or exliortations are given, — then materials arc furnished for her visions." Wlien the service was concluded, and the congregatit^n was dismissed, then the clergy were accustomed to ask her more exactly respecting her visions, from one of which they believed that they could learn the peculiar nature of the soul ; and to this Tertullian appeals. According to Tcrtullian's opinion, the acknowledgment of the new revelations finds its reward in this, that the persons Avho do thus acknowledge them, and place no limit to the continued operations of the Holy Spirit, are made partakers of these new miraculous gifts. "We must always bear in mind, that ]\Iontanism forms the boundary- line in the stage of the development of the church where the supernatural and the eccentric predominated, when the power of the divine life appeared as altogether new, and seized hold of the rude mass. Thus Tertullian asserts that the greater part of men were taught by the visions of God ; a statement which agrees with many declarations of Origen. We offer the following as an explanation. Christianity entered into close conflict with the ancient principles of heathenism ; men who were as yet strangers to Christianity, saw themselves surrounded by its operations, from which they received mani- fold and unconscious divine impressions. Adhering to their former stand- point, they strove against these impressions ; but they were overcome by a higher poAver. Impressions were made upon them in visions and dreams, with superior power, which they were not conscious of, or rejected by op- posing efforts ; and when the connexion of the development of their life remained hidden, when they overlooked the various intermediate links, and only were conscious of the last result, everything must have worn to them the aspect of the supernatm-al. Among Tcrtullian's deep reflections must be reckoned the idea of the emblematical in the works of God. As the king- dom of grace was typified in the kingdom of natiu'c, so is nature parabolised in reference to the kingdom of God. Thus he sees in the transition from sleep to waking an emblem of the transition from death to the resurrection. He says, " For God willed to effect nothing in his arrangements without an emblem, according to tlie Platonic exami)le, especially to vtresent to us daily the image of the beginning and end of man, stretching forth the hand to flaith, whicli is more 470 ^^ AXJMA. easily supported by images and parables, as in words so in things.'" Tertnllian, as we have remarked, had written before this work one on Paradise, which we have already given an account of. He now treats in this book on the soul, of something which he had touched upon in that work. As in the book on the soul ho had dwelt on its future destiny, so he also stated the doctrine of the intermediate state of the dead in hades. The opponents of the doctrine 'that there was likewise such an intermediate state for believers were, as we may conclude from Tertullian's words, not merely the Gnostics, l3ut also others, probably the same persons who opposed Chiliasm ; for a rela- tionship of ideas existed between an intermediate state, or hades, for some before they reached heaven, and an interme- diate state in the development of the kiugdom of God generally, the millennial reign of Christ on earth, which w^ould form the transition-point to the new heavenly order of things. Now, the doctrine of hades, not less than the doctrine of Chiliasm, belonged to the points for which the Montanists zealously contended. Their opponents maintained that by the descent of Christ into hades, believers were freed from the necessity of entering such an intermediate state, and were taken to heaven immediately on their decease. Tertnllian, on the con- trary, maintained that Christ, according to the law of human development, was obliged to enter into hades, and that in so doing he placed in communion with himself the prophets and patriarchs of the old covenant. But, as long as the earth remains in its present form, heaven is still closed against be- lievers. And he regards hades as the common intermediate state, where there is a presentiment of happiness and of punish- ment, and whence every person, according to the measure of his purification from all sin, will be raised, earlier or later, to a jjarticipation in the millennial reign. Every sin, even the lea.st, must be atoned for by a delay of the resurrection ; and from this tenet afterwards arose the idea of a purifying punish- ment, an lf/7iis purr/atorius:- With it was also connected the already developed juridical conception of repentance, to which was added the doctrine of washing away sins by baptism. ^ Cap. xliii. "VoUiit cnim Dcus, ct alias nihil sine exeniplarilms in sua dispositionc niolitus paraili-niate Datonico plenius bumani vel maxiinc iiiitii ac finis liiicas (iiu.tidio agcre vobiscum, mauum porrigens tidoi facilius adjuvandrc per imagines et parabolas sicut sermonum, ita ct rerum." ' Cap. XXXV. " Modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis expenso." DE ANIMA. 471 Tertullian only made an exception in favour of those who had been perfectly purified by the baptism of blood, that is, mar- tp'dom. These alone were to be exempt from hades, where they had nothing to atone for, but were raised, not at once to heaven, but only to that state of exalted happiness in paradise which Tertullian has described in liis last work. lie adduces, in confirmation of it, a vision of the Montanist female martyr Perpetua,' Thus Montanism was aided in the glorification and recommendation of martyrdom ; and Tertullian appeals in this connexion to a characteristic oracular sentence, strongly marked by the ethical spirit of Montanism, that contempt of what was purely human, namcl}', " Perceive the difference between a heathen and a believer in death : if thou diest f(.»r God as the Paraclete admonishes, not in gentle fevers and on beds, but in martyrdom ; if thou takest thy cross and followcst the Lord, as he himself commands ; tliy blood is the key of paradise." In Tertullian's exyjlanation of the parable, Luke xii. 58, in which by the adversary he undei'stands the heathen, what ho sa3^s is important in aiding our conception of the relation in which Christians stood to the heathen. " For the heathen man is our adversary, who walks in the same way of common life. But we must go out of the world, if it were not allow- able to associate with them. He commands, therefore, that thou shouldst show benevolence towards him. ' Love your enemies,' he says, ' and pray for them that despitefully use you,' .lest, provoked by some injury in the intercourse of busi- ness, he should drag thee to his judge." It is to be remarked, how distinctly Tertullian places the seat of sin in the soul, and impugns the erroneous view of the scriptural idea of the flesh. So also his ascetic tendency did not misapprehend the Chris- tian mode of viewing human nature, in opposition to the oriental contempt of the body. By means of the connexion of the doctrine of the resurrection with his whole style of thinking, he well distinguished what WiLs obstructive in the present relation of the body to the soul, and the higher destiny of the body as the organ of the soul in a transformed state. He says, " If this body, according to the Platonic doctrine, is the prison of the soul, l)ut, according to the apostolic doctrine, a temple of God in communion with Christ; yet in the mean- while it obstructs the soul by its enclosure, and darkens it, and pollutes it by the concretion of the flesh; hence, the light 1 Cap. Iv. 472 DE CAENE CHRISTI. in it is more obscure, as if passing through horn. Beyond a doubt, when b}' the stroke of death it is forced out from the concretion of the flesh, and by this very straining is purified, certainly, from the stretching of the body it bursts forth unimpeded into its own pure and unmixed hght, immediately recognises itself in the freedom of its nature, by its very liberty becomes sensible of its divine origin, as awaking from sleep it turns from images to truths." Hence he deduces the higher intuitions and forebodings of the soul in the article of death. After Tertullian in his book De A^iima had attacked the Gnostic anthropology on several sides, he entered on the dis- cussion of one of the principal points at issue between the Gnostics and the catholic clnu-ch. This related to the recog- nition of the purely human in Christ. By the Gnostics, who laid the gi'eatest stress on the divine in Christ, this was either altogether denied or very much injured; in part, by an abso- lute Docetism ; or, if they did not venture so far, by explaining the sensible human appearance of Christ as only an optical deception ; still assuming that the body and bodily appearance of Christ had only an apparent likeness to the bodies and bodily appearance of other men ; that Christ appeared in a body of a finer form, differing from gross earthly matter, — a ffw/ift y^^v^iKov, as the Valentinians called it. To maintain the purely human in Christ, particularly against this last view, Tertullian composed his work De Came Ghruti. His Chris- tian realism formed the sharpest contrast to Gnosticism. He was far from conceding, like the Alexandrians, any point what- ever to the Gnostics ; he rather felt himself impelled to carry his antagonism to the highest pitch. Tertullian, in reference to Marcion's aversion from the piu-ely human in Christ, says that he was ashamed of the care taken of an infant in its swaddling clothes. " This reverence of nature, 0 Marcion, thou dcspisest. Thou hatest man as he is born, even as thou wcrt bom thyself: and how canst thou love any one "i But thou mayst see to it, whether thou art displeased with thyself or wa.st bom in any other w^ay, Christ at least loved man in his uncleanness. For his sake he descended from heaven ; for his sake he jjroclaimcd the Gospel ; for his sake he lowered himself with all humility even to death, the death of the cross : certainly lie loved him whom he redeemed at so great a price."' We hero see how deeply Tertulhan, by the idea of ' Dc Came Christi, cap. iv. DE CARNE CimiSTT. 473 the sanctification by Christ of all tliat was naturally Imniaii, — how deeply on this side he had iml)il)cd the spirit of the Gospel; although, owing to other influences which we have noticed, he was hindered from carrying this into the doctrine of morals, which ought by means of it to have received its peculiar Christian form. To the notion of an ethcrialised body of Christ he opposes the impression which Christ made by his appearance among men, so that we detect in the Gospels not a single trace of wonder respecting it, but rather astonishment that he wdio appeared like men in general, in so unassuming a form, could yet speak and act as he did, thus forming such a contrast between his works and the manner of his appearance. Tertullian appeals to such expressions as those in Matt. xiii. 54. While caiTying to the utmost extent his opposition to the denial of the purely human, as held by the Gnostics, and urging the idea of the form of the servant in Christ, he was quite disposed to abjure the idea of the beau- tiful which was so prominent in the a^sthetical religion of heathenism, and to present the holy and divine in conti-ast to the beautiful ; he maintained, as we have already remarked in his other writings, that Christ was rather ill-favoured in liis appearance. Several assertions of the Jews respecting our Lord appeared to him to confirm this view. Tertullian recognises the necessity of paradoxes in teaching Christianity. He appeals to w^hat the apostle Paul says re- specting the foolishness of the divine wisdom (to jjujpdv tov Qeov, 1 Cor. i. 25). This foolishness, he says, cannot be the doctrine of one God; it cannot be the moral precepts of Christianity, inasmuch as they are approved by the reason of the heathen ; it is the doctrine of the self-renunciation of the Divine Being, the appearing in the form of a servant. " Cer- tainly," he says against Marcion, as far as he did not ac- knowledge the true humanity, the birth, and sufferings of Christ, "certainly this was something foolish, if we judge (lud according to our mind. But look round, Marcion; hast tliou not read, ' God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wisel' What are these foolish things? Arc they the conversion of man to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error, the teaching of justice, chastity, patience, compassion, and innocence ? All these are not foolish. Seek, therefore, concerning what lie has said this; and if thou thinkest thou hast found it, then it will be not foolish to be- lieve m a born God, born indeed of a virgin, appearing in the 474 DE CARNE CHRISTI. flesli, ^Yllo "was tossed about by that humiliation of nature. Some one may say that these things are not foolish^ and that there are other things which God has chosen as an opposition to the wisdom of the world." In what Tertullian here ex- presses, much truth is contained in opposition to that ten- dency which would rob Christianity of its peculiar essence, that always appears as foolishness to the wisdom of the world ; which would confine it within a certain circle of so-called deductions of reason, and reduce it to a kind of deism or of elevated morality. But yet we must make one or two remarks by way of correction. First, although Christian morals, on one side, could challenge the approbation of the general ethical stand-point occupied b}^ the best j)hilosophers of antiquity, yet still Christian morality had its " foolishness," its paradoxes which were founded on the paradoxes of the Christian foith; and although at first only the doctrine of the incarnate God and the crucified Saviour appeared as foolish- ness in Christianity, yet the same tendency of natural reason which opposed this as foolishness, advanced further in its con- sequential development, and even the doctrine of the one personal God, in the sense recognised by revelation, was marked as foolishness. Moreover, it is Tertullian's manner to i)rcsent the truth so abruptly as to reject all those inter- mediate steps which might bring it near to the human under- standing ; although in Tertullian's writings, as we have already seen in many instances, the germ of such intermediate steps between the supernaturally divine and the natural is to be found. In the present case, he renders only one aspect pro- niinent— that of the apparent foolishness under vrhich the divine presents itself to the unenlightened wisdom of reason; while the other aspect is kept in the backgTound, in which this foolishness verifies itself as the highest wisdom. But witliout such a combination, this language might be abused, in or(ler to attribute what is really foolish and monstrous to the Gospel; as it appears when Tertullian says, comparing I^rarcion with tlie heathen, "And yet it would be easier, according to worldly wisdom, to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan, tlian for Marcion to believe that Christ became trtdy a man." And here it may be proper to notice those woriLs for wliicli Tertullian lias often been reproached, but whicli sound worse tlian they mean if taken in their con- nexion : « Credibile est, quia iueptum est; certum est, quia im- possibile." It may be easily perceivod. that the faith, the DE CARNE CIIRISTI. 475 certainty of Tertullian, has a cpito difFerent ground from tlio ineptum and impossihile, and he was perfectly conscious of this ground. In order to form a riglit judgment of so original a writer, we must compare with such expressions (on wliicli his ardent mind seized as a bold antithesis in maintaining^ a really profound truth) those other expressions in wliich he so emphatically urges the importance of the rationale. Among these harsh extravagancies must be reckoned that wliich Tcr^ tullian uses in this controversy in reference to the Divine Being, that he can change himself into all things, and yet remain the same. In proof of this assei'tion he adduces the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove ; where again he has been misled by the direct literal interi^retation. But he justly acknowledges that the true Christ cannot bo understood without the union of opposites, the combination of the divine and the human. ^ In a very characteristic manner Tertullian exclaims, addressing Marcion, '• Why dost thou by a lie divide Christ ? He was the whole Truth." ^ It is deserving of notice that Tertullian, in order to prove that Christ was really born of the Virgin, ai)peals to John i. 13 ; but he adopts the reading oq lyeyiuOri, since he refers the passage to Christ. This is no doubt an ancient reading, which was prompted by a dogmatic interest, as we find it likewise in Justin and Irena)us ; and the quotation of these words, in which a sense so foreign to the original connexion is introduced, certainly goes to prove, that Justin Martyr was acquainted with the Gospel of John. Tertullian, also, to whom the correct reading was known, held it to be impos- sible that this passage could refer to believei-s. He thought that this could only be in a gnostic sense, according to their doctrine of pneumatic natures, and he accounted for that original reading as a gnostic flilsification of the text. Yet, in the preceding chapter, he explains it of regeneration, and assumes, therefore, the correctness of the common reading ; only he maintains that if these words refer to all believers, they must so much the more be applied in a higher sense to Christ. In illustration of TertuUian's peculiarities, we will hero quote his parallel between heretics and heathens, as far as to both there was the stone of stumbling, and they made the same objections against it. " Is there any other ditlereuco 1 Cap. V. 2 "Quid diniidias mendacio Chiistuml totus Veritas fuit." 47G DE CARNE CHRISTI. between tlicin tlian this, that the heathen believe through Tinbchef, l)ut the heretics through behoving do not beheve'?" That is, the open unbehef of the heathen, vrhich on their stand-point was necessaiy, since the Gospel must appear to them as foolishness, is faith, inasmuch as by their very unbe- lief they testify practically of the truth of the Gospel which foretold their unbelief ; but the faith of the heretics is only apparent, it is concealed unbelief; they agree in unbelief with the heathen.' Tertullian held it to be quite necessaiy, in order to a right acknowledgment of Christ as the original pattern and Re- deemer of human nature, that these characteristics should be regarded as existing in him in their full extent. " Because," he says, " if Christ had been also celestial according to the flesh, those who were not celestial according to the flesh could not be compared to him. If, therefore, as Christ is, so are they who are made celestial, and they carry the earthly sub- stance of the flesh, it is demonstrated, that Christ himself was celestial in earthly flesh, as they are who are compared to him." And in reference to the passage in Rom. viii. 3, where he gives evacnavit, as equivalent in meaning to Ka-eKpive, he says — " It would not have corresponded to Christ's design to destroy sin in the flesh, if he had not been in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor would it have been to his glory. For what great thing would it have been, if in a better flesh belonging to another, that is, not a sinful nature, he had removed the stain of sin ?" Therefore he thinks that for the honour of Christ, as far as the original type of morality was to be realized through him, the identity of the body of Christ was requisite with that which had hitherto been subject to sin. But ''A3rtullian, in his opposition against Docetism, in order to do full justice to the doctrine of Christ as the Redeemer of men and the original type of humanity, thought it necessary not merely, as luid hitherto been done, to maintain the iden- tity of the human body of Christ, but extended this to the human soul in liim. And this is the specific novelty which 1 Cap. XV. To render the explanation of tliese very singular phrases fiomewlmt easier, it might be supposed that a negative had been dropped, j\nd that we ought to read, " Ktlinici non eredendonon credunt, at hsere- tici eredendo mm credunt." Yet 1 do not venture to maintain that this irt the correct reading, although it is evident that the words as they stand in the text could only perchance be intelligible to a person who pleased Limhclf, like Tertullian, with conceits and paradoxes. DE CAllXE ClIUISTI. 477 \vas propounded by Tertullian on this subject ; for it was only by degrees that everything belonging to the doctrine of the God-man in all its parts became distinctly api)reliended : at first, only an appearance of the divine Xnyor, or of (iod the Father himself in a human body, was conceived to have taken place. In Tcrtullian's predecessor, Irenieus, we see, indeed, the recognition of a soul in Christ corresponding to the human soul at times presenting itself, but certainly in a very obscure and often unconscious manner. Tertullian first de- veloped this point with perfectly clear consciousness, wrouglit it into systematic connexion with his whole docti'ine, and made it a distinct article of faith. His more exact reflection on the peculiar natiu'e of the human soul to which his work De Anwia relates, and his peculiar conception of it, led liini to develop this subject more fully. When others spoke of an ariima or ^}yvx>) hi Christ, they had no occasion to think of the peculiar nature of the human soul in Christ, but might understand it of the principle of animal life, of the anima connected with the body. This coidd not be tlie case with Tertullian ; for, as we have seen, he admitted only a Dicho- tomy in man, and when he spoke of Christ's soul, he could only mean the specifically human, the rational soul. To develop his doctrine on this subject more fully, an induce- ment was presented by a peculiar point in controversy in con- tradiction to the Valeutinian doctrine, — namely, the notion that Christ did not appear with the common human identical body, but that from the -^v^i] itself an apparent form recog- nisable by the common human senses was formed ; therefore, that the \\^vyi] itself was transformed into a body of a higher kind. Such a view Tertullian midvcs the object of his attack in the work De Came Christi, and this occasioned his assert- ing the necessary identity of the human soul in Christ. " It is" — he says, in opposition to that view — "a false distinction, as if we were separated from the soul, since all that we arc, is the soul. Lastly, without the soul we are nothing, not deserving the name of a man, but of a corpse ;" whicli was connected with Tcrtullian's view of one soul in opposition to that Dichotomy. "If Christ," he says, "came only to free our soul, then must it be also our soul which he bore in him- self— that is, our form, which also may be the liidden form of our soul. When the Valentinians asserted, that Christ ap- peared in that form only in order to lead men to a conscious- ness of their soul as an entity separate from the body, to be 478 DE RESURRECTIONE CARXIS. raised to an imperishable life, he replied, " On this account the Son of God came down, and entered into a soul,' not in order that the soul may know itself in Christ, but that it may know Christ in itself." Against the assertion that the soul, which was concealed from itself, must be first led to a knowledge of itself, Tertullian brings forward those testi- monies of a higher self-consciousness and consciousness of God, to whicli he was so partial, and says, " So for is the soul from not knowing itself, that it knows its Creator, its Judge, and its state. Before it has learnt anything concerning God, it names God ; before receiving information concerning his judgment, it learns to commit itself to God ; even hearing nothing more frequently than that there is no hope after death, it wishes good or evil to every deceased person." He then refers to his treatise On the Witness of the Soul, in wdiich he has developed this train of thought more fully. As Anthropology is closely connected with Christology, Ter- tullian was led by the controversy respectiiig the true consti- tution of Christ's body to another point in which he was at issue with the Gnostics, the question respecting the Resurrec- tion of the Body. By the same mental tendencies and the same principles by which the Gnostics were led to dispute Christ's possessing a real body, they were prompted to direct their polemics against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. It was the same tendency to undervalue the body, the view common to all who believed in a Hyle, which, as the cause and seat of all evil, was destined to destruction. The doctrine of a bodily resurrection might be more easily attacked since the more crude and literal conception of it, as it was currently received, laid it open on many sides, and presented occa- sions for starting difficulties of various kinds. Hence, it was the policy of the Gnostics, if in society they met with an un- armed Clu'istian, to begin their attacks on the doctrine of the clun-ch at this point, wliere it was most vulnerable. They well knew, said Tertullian, how difficult it would be to gain an entrance for faith in any other god than the God of the uni- vei-se, who was known to all by nature through the testimony of liis works ; so they took care to begin rather with questions relating to the resurrection, since it was more difficult to be- ^ The words arc aniniam suhiit, whercbv Tertullian without doubt wished to mark ilic union of the Son of God with the soul, or his self- renunciation, wlicn he entered into this form of existence, although of the manner in which this took place no clear account has been given. DB RESURRECTIONE CAllNIS. 470 lievo in a rcsiUTCction of the body than to behove in a (iod. " There are," Tertulhan says, " many UHL'