(_a_) Tertullian, _De Oratione_, 23, 25, 28. (MSL, 1:1298.)
Ch. 23. As to kneeling, also, prayer is subject to diversity of observance on account of a few who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath. Since this dissension is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will give His grace that the dissentients may either yield or else follow their own opinion without offence to the others. We, however, as we have received, only on the Sunday of the resurrection ought to guard not only against this kneeling, but every posture and office of anxiety; deferring even our businesses, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly, too, the period of Pentecost, is a time which we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. But who would hesitate every day to prostrate himself before G.o.d, at least in the first prayer with which we enter on the daylight? At fasts, moreover, and stations, no prayer should be made without kneeling and the remaining customary marks of humility. For then we are not only praying, but making supplication, and making satisfaction to our Lord G.o.d.
Ch. 25. Touching the time, however, the extrinsic observance of certain hours will not be unprofitable; those common hours, I mean, which mark the intervals of the daythe third, the sixth, the ninthwhich we may find in Scripture to have been more solemn than the rest.
Ch. 28. This is the spiritual victim which has abolished the pristine sacrifices. We are the true adorers and true priests, who, praying in the spirit, in the spirit sacrifice prayer, proper and acceptable to G.o.d, which, a.s.suredly, He has required, which He has looked forward to for Himself. This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chast.i.ty, garlanded with love [agape], we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto G.o.ds altar, to obtain all things from G.o.d for us.
(_b_) Tertullian, _De Jejun._, 3. (MSL, 2:100.)
The following is a characteristic statement of the meritorious and propitiatory character of fasting. See below, _h_, Cyprian.
Since He himself both commands fasting and calls a soul wholly shatteredproperly, of course, by straits of dieta sacrifice (Psalm 51:18), who will any longer doubt that of all macerations as to food the rationale has been this: that by a renewed interdiction of food and observance of the precept the primordial sin might now be expiated, so that man may make G.o.d satisfaction through the same causative material by which he offended, that is, by interdiction of food; and so, by way of emulation, hunger might rekindle, just as satiety had extinguished, salvation, contemning for the sake of one thing unlawful many things that are lawful?
(_c_) Tertullian, _De Baptismo_, 17. (MSL, 1:1326.)
It remains to put you in mind, also, of the due observance of giving and receiving baptism. The chief priest (_summus sacerdos_), who is the bishop, has the right of giving it; in the second place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishops authority, on account of the honor of the Church. When this has been preserved, peace is preserved.
Besides these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. If there are no bishops, priests, or deacons, other disciples are called. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden away by any. In like manner, also, baptism, which is equally G.o.ds property, can be administered by all; but how much more is the rule of reverence and modesty inc.u.mbent on laymen, since these things belong to their superiors, lest they a.s.sume to themselves the specific functions of the episcopate!
Emulation of the episcopal office is the mother of schism.
(_d_) Tertullian, _De Pnitentia_, 2. (MSL, 1:1340.)
How small is the gain if you do good to a grateful man, or the loss if to an ungrateful man! A good deed has G.o.d as its debtor, just as an evil deed has Him also; for the judge is a rewarder of every cause. Now, since G.o.d as judge presides over the exacting and maintaining of justice, which is most dear to Him, and since it is for the sake of justice that He appoints the whole sum of His discipline, ought one to doubt that, as in all our acts universally, so, also, in the case of repentance, justice must be rendered to G.o.d?
(_e_) Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, 6. (MSL, 2:157.)
If he had put forth faith to suffer martyrdoms, not for the contests sake, but for its own benefit, ought it not to have had some store of hope, for which it might restrain its own desire and suspend its wish, that it might strive to mount up, seeing that they, also, who strive to discharge earthly functions are eager for promotion? Or how will there be many mansions in the Fathers house, if not for a diversity of deserts?
How, also, will one star differ from another star in glory, unless in virtue of a disparity of their rays?
(_f_) Tertullian, _Ad Uxorem_, I, 3; II, 8-10. (MSL, 1:1390, 1415.) _Cf._ Kirch, n. 181.
I, 3. There is no place at all where we read that marriages are prohibited; of course as a good thing. What, however, is better than this good, we learn from the Apostle in that he permits marriage, indeed, but prefers abstinence; the former on account of the insidiousness of temptations, the latter on account of the straits of the times (I Cor.
7:26). Now by examining the reason for each statement it is easily seen that the permission to marry is conceded us as a necessity; but whatever necessity grants, she herself deprecates. In fact, inasmuch as it is written, It is better to marry than to burn (I Cor. 7:9), what sort of good is this which is only commended by comparison with evil, so that the reason why marrying is better is merely that burning is worse?
Nay; but how much better is it neither to marry nor to burn?
II, 8. Whence are we to find adequate words to tell fully of the happiness of that marriage which the Church cements and the oblation(59) confirms, and the benediction seals; which the angels announce, and the Father holds for ratified? For even on earth children do not rightly and lawfully wed without their fathers consent. What kind of yoke is that of two believers of one hope, one discipline, and the same service? The two are brethren, the two are fellow-servants; no difference of spirit or flesh; nay, truly, two in one flesh; where there is one flesh the spirit is one.
(_g_) Tertullian, _De Monogamia_, 9, 10. (MSL, 2:991 _f._)
This work was written after Tertullian became a Montanist, and with other Montanists repudiated second marriage, to which reference is made in both pa.s.sages. But the teaching of the Church regarding remarriage after divorce was as Tertullian here speaks.
The reference to offering at the end of ch. 10 does not refer to the eucharist, but to prayers. See above, _Ad Uxorem_, ch. II, 8.
Ch. 9. So far is it true that divorce was not from the beginning [_cf._ Matt. 19:8] that among the Romans it is not till after the six hundredth year after the foundation of the city that this kind of hardness of heart is recorded to have been committed. But they not only repudiate, but commit promiscuous adultery; to us, even if we do divorce, it will not be lawful to marry.
Ch. 10. I ask the woman herself, Tell me, sister, have you sent your husband before in peace? What will she answer? In discord? In that case she is bound the more to him with whom she has a cause to plead at the bar of G.o.d. She is bound to another, she who has not departed from him. But if she say, In peace, then she must necessarily persevere in that peace with him whom she will be no longer able to divorce; not that she would marry, even if she had been able to divorce him. Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship in the first resurrection; and she offers on the anniversary of his falling asleep.
(_h_) Cyprian, _De Opere et Eleemosynis_, 1, 2, 5. (MSL, 4:625.)
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (249-258), was the most important theologian and ecclesiastic between Tertullian and Augustine. He developed the theology of the former especially in its ecclesiastical lines, and his idea of the Church was accepted by the latter as a matter beyond dispute. His most important contributions to the development of the Church were his hierarchical conceptions, which became generally accepted as the basis of the episcopal organization of the Church (see below, 46, 50, 51). His writings, which are of great importance in the history of the Church, consist only of epistles and brief tracts.
His influence did much to determine the lines of development of the Western Church, and especially the church of North Africa.
With the following _cf. supra_, 16.
Ch. 1. Many and great, beloved brethren, are the divine benefits wherewith the large and abundant mercy of G.o.d the Father and of Christ both has labored and is always laboring for our salvation: because the Father sent the Son to preserve us and give us life, that He might restore us; and the Son was willing to be sent and to become the son of man, that He might make us the sons of G.o.d. He humbled Himself that He might raise up the people who before were prostrate; He was wounded that He might heal our wounds; He served that He might draw to liberty those who were in bondage; He underwent death, that He might set forth immortality to mortals. These are many and great boons of compa.s.sion. But, moreover, what a providence, and how great the clemency, that by a plan of salvation it is provided for us that more abundant care should be taken for preserving man who has been redeemed! For when the Lord, coming to us, had cured those wounds which Adam had borne, and had healed the old poisons of the serpent, He gave a law to the sound man, and bade him sin no more lest a worse thing should befall the sinner. We had been limited and shut up in a narrow s.p.a.ce by the commandment of innocence. Nor should the infirmity and weakness of human frailty have anything it might do, unless the divine mercy, coming again in aid, should open some way of securing salvation by pointing out works of justice and mercy, so that by almsgiving we may wash away whatever foulness we subsequently contract.
Ch. 2. The Holy Spirit speaks in the sacred Scriptures saying, By almsgiving and faith sins are purged [Prov. 16:6]. Not, of course, those sins which had been previously contracted, for these are purged by the blood and sanctification of Christ. Moreover, He says again, As water extinguishes fire, so almsgiving quencheth sin [Eccles. 3:30]. Here, also, is shown and proved that as by the laver of the saving water the fire of Gehenna is extinguished, so, also, by almsgiving and works of righteousness the flame of sin is subdued. And because in baptism remission of sins is granted once and for all, constant and ceaseless labor, following the likeness of baptism, once again bestows the mercy of G.o.d. The Lord also teaches this in the Gospel. The Merciful One teaches and warns that works of mercy be performed; because He seeks to save those who at great cost He has redeemed, it is proper that those who after the grace of baptism have become foul can once more be cleansed.
Ch. 5. The remedies for propitiating G.o.d are given in the words of G.o.d himself. The divine instructions have taught sinners what they ought to do; that by works of righteousness G.o.d is satisfied, and with the merits of mercy sins are cleansed. He [the angel Raphael, _cf._ Tobit. 12:8, 9]
shows that our prayers and fastings are of little avail unless they are aided by almsgiving; that entreaties alone are of little force to obtain what they seek, unless they be made sufficient by the addition of deeds and good works. The angel reveals and manifests and certifies that our pet.i.tions become efficacious by almsgiving, that life is redeemed from dangers by almsgiving, that souls are delivered from death by almsgiving.
40. The Monarchian Controversies
Monarchianism is a general term used to include all the unsuccessful attempts of teachers within the Church to explain the divine element in Christ without doing violence to the doctrine of the unity of G.o.d, and yet without employing the Logos christology. These attempts were made chiefly between the latter part of the second century and the end of the third.
They fall into cla.s.ses accordingly as they regard the divine element in Christ as personal or impersonal. One cla.s.s makes the divine element to be an impersonal power (Greek, dynamis) sent from G.o.d into the man Jesus; hence the term Dynamistic Monarchians. The other cla.s.s makes the divine element a person, without, however, making any personal distinction between Father and Son, only a difference in the mode in which the one divine person manifests Himself; hence the term Modalistic Monarchians.
By some the Dynamistic Monarchians have been called Adoptionists, because they generally taught that the man Jesus ultimately became the Son of G.o.d, not being such by nature but by adoption. The name Adoptionist has been so long applied to a heresy of the eighth century, chiefly in Spain, that it leads to confusion to use the term in connection with Monarchianism.
Furthermore, to speak of them as Dynamistic Monarchians groups them with other Monarchians, which is desirable. The most important school of Modalistic Monarchians was that of Sabellius, in which the Modalistic principle was developed so as to include the three persons of the Trinity.
The sources may be found collected and annotated in Hilgenfeld, _Ketsergeschichte_.
(A) Dynamistic Monarchianism
(_a_) Hippolytus, _Refut._, VII, 35, 36. (MSG, 16:3342.)
Ch. 35. A certain Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, introduced a novel heresy, saying some things concerning the origin of the universe partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far as he admits that all things were created by G.o.d. Forcibly appropriating, however, his idea of Christ from the Gnostics and from Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that He appeared somewhat as follows: that Jesus was a man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after He had lived in a way common to all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, He afterward at His baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended upon Him. Therefore miraculous powers did not operate within Him prior to the manifestation of that Spirit which descended and proclaimed Him as the Christ. But some [_i.e._, among the followers of Theodotus] are disposed to think that this man never was G.o.d, even at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others maintain that He was made G.o.d after the resurrection from the dead.
Ch. 36. While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain one named Theodotus, by trade a money-changer [to be distinguished from the other Theodotus, who is commonly spoken of as Theodotus, the leather-worker], attempted to establish the doctrine that a certain Melchizedek is the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness of this one. And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, a.s.sert that Jesus is a mere man, and that in conformity with the same account, Christ descended upon Him.