TERTULLIAN
524
TERTULLIAN
emphatically expressed. Finally, and this is conclu-
Bive, it could not be insisted on that no second jienance
was ever allowed, if all penance wiis lifelong.
For the full understanding of TertuUian's doctrine we must know his division of sins into three classes. There are first the terrible crimes of idolatry, blas- phemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud (Adv. Marc, IV, ix; in "De pud." he substi- tutes apostasy for false witness and adds unnatural vice). As a Montanist he calls these irremissible. Between these and mere venial sins there are modico or media (De pud., i), less grave but yet serious sins, which he enumerates in "De pud.", xix: "Sins of daily committal, to which we are all subject; to whom in- deed does it not occur to be angry without cause and after the sun has set, or to give a blow, or easily to curse, or to swear rashly, or break a contract, or lie through shame or necessity? How much we are tempted in business, in duties, in trade, in food, in sight, in hearing! So that, if there were no forgive- ness for such things, none could be saved. Therefore there will be forgiveness for these sins by the prayer of Christ to the Father" (De pud., xix).
Another list (De pud., vii) represents the sins which may constitute a lost sheep, as distinguished from one that is dead: "The faithful is lost if he attend the chariot races, or gladiatorial combats, or the unclean theatre, or athletic shows, or playing, or feasts on some secular solemnity, or if he has exercised an art which in any way serves idolatry, or has lapsed without con- sideration into some denial or blasphemy". For these sins there is forgiveness, though the sinner has strayed from the flock. How is forgiveness obtained? We learn this only incidentally from the words: "That kind of penitence which is subsequent to faith, which can either obtain forgiveness from the bishop for lesser sins, or from God only for those which are irremissi- ble" (ib., xviii). Thus Tertullian admits the power of the bishop for all but "irremissible" sins. The ab- solution which he still acknowledges for frequent sins was obviously not limited to a single occasion, but must have been frequently repeated. It is not even referred to in "De pjen.", which deals only with bap- tism and public penance for the gravest sins. Again, in "De pud.", Tertullian repudiates his own earlier teaching that the keys were left by Christ through Peter to His Church (Scorpiace, x); he now declares (De pud., xxi) that the gift was to Peter personally, and cannot be claimed by the Church of the Psychici. The spiritual have the right to forgive, but the Para- clete said: "The Church has the power to forgive sins, but I will not do so, lest they sin afresh."
The system of the Church of Carthage in Tertul- lian's time was therefore manifestly this: those who committed grievous sins confessed them to the bishop, and he absolved them after due penance enjoined and performed, unless the case was in his judgment so grave that public penance was obligatory. This pub- lic penance was only allowed once; it was for pro- tracted periods, even sometimes until the hour of death, but at the end of it forgiveness and restoration were promised. The term was frequently shortened at the prayer of martyrs.
Of the Tost works of Tertulhan the most important was the defence of the Montanist manner of pro])he- sying, "De ecstasi", in six Ixioks, with a seventh book against Apollonius. To tlio peculiarities of Tertul- lian's views which have already been explained must be added some further remarks. He did not care for philospliy: the pliilosophers are the "])atriarchs of the heretics". His notion that all tilings, pure spirits and even God, must be bodies, is ac(^oimted for by his ig- norance of philosophical terminology. Yet of the human soul he actually says that it was seen in a vis- ion as tender, light, and of the colour of air! All our souls were contained in Adam, and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them, — an
ingenious if gross form of traducianism. His Trini-
tarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation
of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Miirtyr.
Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity,
tres Persona, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God;
they are of one substance, one state, and one pov.'er.
So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the
side of this appears the Greek view which was one day
to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be
sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Per-
sons. He says that from all eternity there was reason
(ratio) in God, and in reason the Word (Senna), not
distinct from God, but in vulva cordis. For the pur-
pose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as
Son. There was a time when there was no Son and
no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge. In
his Christology Tertullian has had no Greek influence,
and is purely Roman. Like most Latin Fathers he
speaks not of two Natures but of two Substances in
one Person, united without confusion, and distinct in
their operations. Thus he condemns by anticipation
the Nestorian, Monophysite, and Monothelite here-
sies. But he seems to teach that Mar}', the Mother of
Christ, had other children. Yet he makes her the
second Eve, who by her obedience effaced the disobe-
dience of the first Eve.
Tertulhan's doctrine of the Holy Eucharist has been much discussed, especially the words: "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum ilium fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura cor- poris mei". A consitleration of the context shows only one interpretation to be possible. Tertullian is proving that Our Lord Himself explained bread in Jer., xi, 19 (mittamus lignum in pa?ie>n ejus) to refer to His Body, when He said, "This is My Body", that is, that bread was the symbol of His Body. Nothing can be elicited either for or against the Real Presence; for Tertullian does not explain whether the bread is the symbol of the Body present or absent. The context suggests the former meaning. Another passage is: Panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprcesenlat. This might mean "Bread which stands for His Body", or "Presents, makes present". D'Ales has calculated that the sense of presentation to the imagination oc- curs seven times in Tertullian, and the similar moral sense (presentation by picture, etc.) occurs twelve times, whereas the sense of physical presentation oc- curs thirty-three times. In the treatise in question against Marcion the physical sense alone is found, and foiu^teen times. A more direct assertion of the real presence is Corpus cjxis in pane censetur (De orat., vi). As to the grace given, he has some beautiful expres- sions, such as: "Itaque petendo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuita- tem a corpore ejus" (In petitioning for daily bread, we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body. — Ibid.). A famous passage on the Sacra- ments of Baptism, Unction, Confirmation, Orders, and Eucharist runs: "Caro abluitur ut anima maculetur; caro ungitur ut anima consecretur; caro signatur \it et anima muniatur; caro manus im])ositione adumbra- tur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christ! vescitm- ut et anima de Deo sagine- tur" (The flesh is Wiished, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed [with the cros.<], that the soul, too, may be fortified; the fle.ih is shallowed with the imposition of hands, that the sold al.so niav be illuminated bv the Spirit ; the flesh feeds on tin- body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewi.se may have its fill of God — "Dcres.carnis.",viii). He testifies to the ])ractice of daily communion, and the preserving of the Holy Eucharist by private per- .sons for tliis purpose. What will a heathen husband think of that which is taken by his Christian wife be- fore all other food? "If he knows that it is Bread,
