Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

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 expressly marked as the special will of God, by the new revelations. Now Tertullian maintains, that what was allowed only as a conditional permission in reference to a certain stand-point of human weakness, cannot be the unconditional 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 distinction 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 Tertullian, was only what was allowed temporarily, with reference to a certain standard of human weakness, 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 unity of the moral ideal in this multiplicity. Here lies the great difference between Tertullian and the apostle Paul, who in a certain preference for single life, as dedicated without interruption 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 apostle in distinguishing the objective and norals with so much discretion and mental also recollect the hindrances in his own s we have already remarked, to a correct anding of the apostle.

wisdom

the su1 freed

an

h

in which Tertullian explains those expressions Paul in their mutual relation, is important for

the purpose of understanding his idea of inspiration in connexion with the whole of his montanist views. He distinguishes between what the apostle delivered as his merely human advice, and what he delivered with divine authority as the command of the Lord, in virtue of his illumination by the Spirit. He compares that passage in which Paul says that he thinks that he also has the Spirit, with what Paul delivered as the express word of the Lord, and finds the same 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," he says, "had the Holy Spirit in a peculiar sense, since they had him perfectly in the works of prophecy, and in the working of miracles, and in the gift of tongues, and not partially like the rest." We shall examine in the sequel what Tertullian understood 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 acknowledge 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. Proceeding from that false point of view, he maintains that what Paul had delivered in his apostolic capacity as consilium, thereby acquired the authority of a præceptum. Here again the truth involved is the opposition against the distinction between consilia and præcepta.1

1 Distinguishing between, "hominis prudentis consilium," and "Spiritus Sancti consilium."

2" Factum est jam non consilium divini Spiritus, sed pro ejus majestate præceptum

[ocr errors]

The prohibition of second marriages is reckoned by Ter tullian 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 development of Christianity, through a new legal code, and through a new order of prophets who were placed 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 ts principles. No increase in the numbers of mankind was required. Tertullian, especially as a Montanist, considered 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 ar contracted. So a man plants a wood, and suffers it t grow, that at a proper time he may cut it down. Th wood is the old state of things, which by the new Gospel pruned and lopped; the axe is now laid at the root of t tree. So also that rule, 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' h waxed old since the time of youth is come." He recognis therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, the contrast of the n Christian stand-point to the juridical-theocratic stand-poi which in the Old Testament was adapted to the ruden of the people, who require to be trained and educated.

'Tertullian quotes the words of Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 29, ó καιpòs o ταλμένος ἐστὶν τὸ λοιπὸν, according to the existing North African ver and understands them to mean, " Only a short time remains for duration of the world," and contrasts them with the words in Ge respecting the multiplying of the human race. "Tempus jam in Lecto esse, restare, ut et qui uxores habent tanquam non habentes ag

As, therefore,

describes the new stand-point as that of youth. a childhood and youth of development are here assumed, the stand-point of ripened manhood is joined to them, to which the progressive revelations of the Paraclete must lead.

To this distinction between the Old and New Testament stand-points, in contrast to the increasing mingling of one with the other, may be traced the manner in which Tertullian enforces the idea of the universal priesthood. Indeed, we cannot believe that this view was first rendered prominent by Montanism, and that Tertullian was led to adopt it by his Montanism. We have already seen how this view corresponded to the original Christian spirit, but was constantly threatened to be overpowered by a new priestly tendency that was then springing up. Tertullian himself sometimes, when his polemic interest in conflict with the laity led him to it, came forward as its opponent; but certainly Montanism, as far as it placed the free movements of the spirit in opposition to hierarchical and traditional tendencies, contributed to invigorate the consciousness of the Christian priesthood, and this effect we can recognise even in Tertullian.

The advocates of second marriages appealed to the passages in Tit. i. 6, and 1 Tim. iii. 2, and argued, that since it is only required of bishops and deacons, that a person should only enter once into the marriage state, it follows that this limitation cannot be required of other Christians. Tertullian combats this by the application of the universal idea of the priesthood to all Christians generally, and says-"We are fools if we believe that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for the laity. Are not we laics also priests? It is written, 'He has made us kings and priests to God and his Father.' Only the authority of the church has made a difference between clergy and laity, and the dignity is consecrated by the session of the clerical order. Where there is no session of the ecclesiastical order, thou offerest (offers, partakest of the Supper) and baptizest (tinguis); thou art priest for thyself alone. But where there are three there is a church, even though they are laics, for 'every one lives by his own faith, nor is there respect of persons with God,' since, according to what the apostle says, 'not the hearers of the law shall 1 "Jam senuit ex quo juvenuit," one of those antitheses in which Tertullian delights.

[blocks in formation]

66

be justified by God, but the doers. "We here find the same views which are exhibited in his book on baptism before he embraced Montanism, that all Christians being partakers of the same original priesthood, are able and authorized, not only to publish the word, but to administer the sacraments— that only the necessity of an ecclesiastical organization in the fellowship of similar brethren, laid the foundation for the distinction of clergy and laity, to whom, except in cases of necessity, individuals must submit themselves. Here again we must observe that spiritual apprehension of the idea of the church, in conflict with other elements of Tertullian's mind, as the basis of that common reference to Christ which is closely connected with the idea of the universal priesthood. From this universal right to the priesthood, Tertullian infers the universal capability in reference to those religious and moral requirements which are incumbent on all. “ If, then, thou hast a priestly right when needful, thou must also have a priestly mode of life. As one who has married twice, dost thou baptize? or administer the Supper? How much more criminal it is when a layman who has been married a second time, acts as a priest, when a priest himself, thus marrying, loses the right to act as priest! But thou sayest-allowance must be made for necessity. No necessity can be allowed for which can be avoided. Do not involve thyself in a second marriage, and thou wilt not be under the necessity of administering what is not lawful for a man who has married a second time. God wills that we should be all so constituted that we may everywhere be fitted for attending to his sacraments—one God, one faith, and one discipline. How, then, can priests be chosen from the laity, unless the laity observe what is required of the priestly order?" From this language we

must infer that the clergy, unless there had been special preparatory institutions for them, were wont to be taken from the body of the laity.

Tertullian, in his attack on second marriages, proceeds on two opposite principles, a contradiction that we have already remarked in him. On the one hand, he sets out from the deeper spiritual idea of marriage, which Christianity has imparted, as a spiritual communion; he regards as its essence higher spiritual unity by which the sexual difference is

: Cap. vil

« ForrigeFortsett »