BT I Mo HE CONCEPT OF MORTAL SIN IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY BY THE Reverend Hubert Louis /Motry, S.TX., OP The Diocese of Albany, N. Y. DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctorate in Sacred Theology WASHINGTON, D. C, 1920. EXCHANGE Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/conceptofmortalsOOmotrrich THE CONCEPT OF MORTAL SIN IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY BY THE Reverend Hubert Louis Motry, S.TX., OP The Diocese of Albany, N. Y. DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Theology at the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctorate in Sacred Theology The Catholic University of America Washington, D. C^ lft2«i ^u WCCH' 1 H K*CCHANGE Nihil obstat. Joannes A. Ryan, Censor DepiUatiLS. Die XV Martii, 1921. Imprimatur. J. Card. Gibbons, Archiepiscopus Baltimorensis, Baltimorae. Die XV Martii, 1921. frxCHANOC CONTENTS. Introduction i Abbreviations iv FIRST PART. Authors and Documents of the Pre-TertuUianic Period* Chtptcr Paff« I The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles 3 II St. Barnabas and St. Clement of Rome 10 III St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp 17 IV The Shepherd of Hermas 20 V St. Justin 27 VI St. Irenaeus 33 SECOND PART. Tertullian. VII Preliminaries. TertuUian's Works. His Views on Christian Perfection 41 VIII Tertullian's View on the Nature of Sin 60 IX TertuUian's View on the Prerequisites of Moral Responsibility, Cognition and Volition 66 X Tertullian's View on the Beginnings of Sin ... 65 XI Various Views on TertuUian's Divisions of Sin 75 XII "Mortal" and Alleged Synonyms in Tertullian's Works 85 XIII The fertuUianic Term "Mortal" 101 XIV Catholic Concept of Mortal and Venial Sin in TertuUian's Works 124 XV Summary 157 Bibliography 159 ^52390 INTRODUCTION. ""^ Moral Theology enumerates among its sources the writings of the Fathers. The present study is an at- tempt to gather from the earliest documents of this source the texts that have reference to the concept of mortal sin, and to determine the value of such passages for the fundamental notion of grievous transgression. The period from which these documents are taken ex- tends well into the first half of the third century. The expression "Concept of Mortal Sin" is used in this dissertation in its broader sense, comprehending not only the nature, the extent, the required conditions of grievous sin, and chiefly its contra-distinction to venial sin, but also the practical application of the concept to the various kinds of violation of moral precepts. The theoretical concept, therefore, and the practical, come into consideration. By "mortal sin" is understood per- sonal mortal sin, not original sin. As with other theological concepts, we do not expect to find a formal definition at so early a period as the first and second centuries. It is only in the second half of the second century that we find the defense of Christian morality assigning a gradually more discernible outline to the concepts in question. The dogmatico-historical discussion on penance and confession in primitive Christianity is not treated ex professo; sufficiently important points of contact of the present investigation with the discussion mentioned will be indicated in the course of the First Part. We refrain from referring to the discussion in the Second Part The subject becomes quite complicated in TertuUian's works and would lead far beyond the scope of our pres- ent study. We have found nothing in his writings that could be construed as conclusive against the milder view of Pesch, Esser, Stufler, D'Alds, "and Catholic theolo- gians generally."* 1 Rauschen, "Eucharist and Penance," p. 153 sqq. Eng. trans!, of 2nd Germ, ed., St. Louis, 1913. (i) ii INTRODUCTION The First Part of the book deals with the Pre-Tertul- lianic documents. They treat extensively of moral topics, especially so the Didache and the Pastor Hermae, but their contribution to the concepts of mortal sin and its various aspects is, at least at the present stage of in- vestigation of early patristic writings, proportionately small in comparison with that of the works of Tertullian, though it is by no means a negligible quantity. Hence the apparently disproportionate consideration given to the Pre-Tertullianic and to the Tertullianic documents. The Second Part is devoted exclusively to the study of Tertullian. The writings of the Pre-Tertullianic period may be considered in a justifiable sense as merely pre- liminarily constructive of his orthodox theology. Tix- eront claims that Tertullian deserves pre-eminently the title of Founder of Theology in the West.^ Barden- hewer, while valuating the influence of Tertullian on later theology (in the Occident) as practically unimport- ant, admits the thorough and comprehensive grasp that the great Apologist had of Orthodox doctrine.* His views on morality — with due allowance of course for his rigoristic attitude both during and after his Catholic period — are as to their importance in determin- ing the early Christian concept of mortal sin in propor- tion to the preeminence and ttiorough grasp of his mind. It is to be expected that a matter of so vast practical im- port as the distinction between mortal and venial sin should find appropriate allocation in TertuUian's treat- ment of moral questions. An unbiased investigation of his works will fully meet this expectation. 2 "History of Dogmas " Vol. I, p. 304, St. Louis, 1910. 3 Bardenhewer, "Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. II, p. 386, Freiburg, i. Br. 1914: So ticf und wahr nun auch Ter- tullian manche Momente der Glaubensueberlieferung erfasst, so scharf und klar er insbesondere die Bedingfungren und Gesetze alles theologischen Forschens ausgesprochen hat, auf die spaetere Thc- ologie des Abendlandes — und das Morgenland kommt ueberhaupt nicht in Betracht— hat er nur verschwindend geringen Einfluss erlangt. Er ist nun einmal kein Mann der Kirche gewesen.— Op. cit., p. 389: Augustinus konnte die Anschauungen seines altea Landsmannes einlaesslicher rechfertigen und hie und da auch schaerfer fassen; aber zu aendern brauchte er dieselben nicht. INTRODUCTION iii If in several places we cover well-known territory in Tertullianic lore we do so with the express purpose of shaping results and views of others for the particular aim of this study. The investigation is based on the texts of Migne, Funk, Oehler, de LabrioUe, Reifferscheid-Wissowa, for the respective documents. Other collections or editions will be noted in the remarks. The English translation of the passages quoted is taken, as a rule, from the Ante- Nicene Fathers. The patristic documents are to be considered in their chronological order — unless otherwise indicated — ^the certain or most probable date of their appearance, as given by Bardenhewer, Funk, or D'Ales, being the guid- ing rule in placing them in their proper sequence. The authors and the documents are to be considered aeparately since the nature and purpose of this study ob- viously demands the method of separate investigation for the sake of thoroughness and convenient presenta- tion. iv ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS. Kgau, — Kirchengeschiehtliche Abhandlungen und XJn^ tersuchungen. Pa., . — Patres ApostoUci, Tq, — Tkeologische Quartalschrift, Zkt, — Zeitschrift fuer katholische Theologie, Tu, — Texte und Untersuchungen. Anf, — Ante-Nicene Fathers* (TERTULLIAN'S WRITINGS) NaL'—cd Nationes, ApoL — Apologeticum. Test Anim, De testimonio animae. SpecL — De spectacidis. Adv, Marc. — Adversus Marctonem. Praesc. Haer. — De praescriptione haereticorum. Orat. De oratione. Bapt. — Z>6 haptismo. Pat. — De patientia. Paen. — De paenitentia. Cvlt. Fern. — De cuitu feminarum. Ux. — ad XJxorem. Herm. — Adversus Hermogenem. Jud. — Adversus Jv^daeos. Virg. Vel. — De virginibus velandis. Pall. — De pallio. Vol. — Adversus VaZentinianos. Anim. — De anima. Cam. Christi. — De came Christi. Res. Cam. De resurrectione camis. Exh. Cast. — De exhortor- Hone castitatis. Cor. — De corona. Scorp. — Scorpiace. Idol. — De idololatria. Scap. — Ad Scapvlam. Fug. in Pers. — De fuga in persecutione. Prax. — Adversus Praxeam. Monog. — De Monogamia. Jej. — De jejunio. Pud. — De Pudidtia. FIRST PART Authors and Documents of the Pre-Tertullianic Period. CHAPTER I. THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. " The first extra-canonical compendium of Christian Morality^ is the Didache (between 80 and 100 A. D.). The document presents a practical catecheticaP concept of grevious sin in a manner that, no doubt, made the matter of instruction intelligible to the illiterate convert to Christianity and still appealed in its logical simplicity to the better educated who had found their way into the Faith of Christ. The Scripture-like clearness and di- rectness with which moral laws, counsels of perfection, and ecclesiastical regulations are placed before us is not a negligible consideration in assigning the document to the Apostolic Period. In the first sentence of the opening chapter our minds are prepared for the understanding of grievous moral transgression. "There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but there is a great difference between these two ways."^ The "great difference" is shown in the con- trast between the positive and the negative precepts (chapters I-IV) on the one hand and the list of trans- gressions (chap. V) on the other. The precepts of the first chapter, taken mostly word for word from Scripture, do not demand our attention so much in this study as do the commandments, mostly negative, of the second chapter. These are to a great extent of Scriptural origin, also. Murder, various sins of the flesh, theft, magic, witchcraft, infanticide, abor- tion, mentioned in the order given, are followed by cove- 1 Harnack, "Tu." II, p. 37- 2 Holtzmann, "Die Katechese der alten Kirche," p. lOO. Cf. Schlecht, "Doctrina XII Apostolorum,"p. 6. 3 "Did." I, I. The very adaptable concept of "ways" occurs frequently in Sacred Scripture e. g., the way of the Lord, the ways of men. The ways of life and death are mentioned in "Jer." 21, 8. Cf. "Baruch 4, i-, "Prov." 12.28., "Matt." 7, i3 :i4- "Pa." p. 3— Tay- lor's Iselin's and Harnack's views of the "two ways" are treated extensively in "Kgau," II, p. 137, ss. 3 4 THE l^CIfmG;CF THE TWELVE APOSTLES tousness, swearing, false witnessing, evil speech, and other sins that are less grievous than the preceding. To the difference in degree of grievousness no special clause of the chapter calls our attention, but the order in which the sins are mentioned seems a fair criterion for judg- ing the relative amount of guilt. The criterion of sequence should not be urged to the minutest detail. Theft and magic, for instance, are mentioned after murder but before poisoning, infanti- cide, and abortion, whereas they should quite naturally be classed after the latter group. There is no textual solution of this apparent discrepancy of sequence. It is most probable that the group of magic, witchcraft,* in- fanticide, and abortion was added here to the enumera- tion of the fifth, sixth, and the seventh commandments without any further purpose than that of comprehen- siveness. The mention of pederasty and fornication immediately after adultery seems to put special stress on the prohibition of pederasty because of its prevalence, and of fornication because of the quite common error among the gentiles concerning the illicitness of this vice.^ The commandment of Exodus XX: 17, not given in its Scriptural sequence, serves as an elucidation to the seventh commandment with various directly or indirect- ly connected species of sin : perjury, false witnessing, evil speech,^ mindfulness of injuries and duplicity in mind and in speech. There seems to be no doubt that the sins thus far men- tioned are considered grievous transgressions of the moral law since the last mentioned, duplicity of tongue, while evidently a sin less grievous than perjury, is nevertheless described as a "snare of death".^ Duplicity is the only sin in the second chapter to which the reason 4 aptmKevGra^ signifies the magic arts: poisoning and incan- tation. Thus Funk, "Pa." in loc. p. 8. 5 "Cursus Scripturae Sacrae." "Comment, in I Cor., p. 147. Cornely, Paris, 1890. 6 Cf. "Matth." 5 :22. 7 "Prov." 14, 27, also 21, 6. Duplicity of speech and a pari of mind means apparently a deceitful, hypocritical character. THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 5 of its grievousness is added — as if to do away with a pos- sible doubt concerning the amount of guilt attached to a transgression so far down on the list of sins. We may conclude with some probability that the sin of menda- city,® belonging to a different category and forbidden in a clause separate from that containing the condemnation of duplicity, is not of a grave nature, especially since it is logically and grammatically connected with "vain and empty speech",^ sins of a weak character. A brief re- capitulation, in a varied form,^^ of the sins mentioned, with a few words concerning hatred and love and prayer conclude the second chapter. From the preceding remarks we gather that in the list of transgressions under consideration there seems to be a line drawn between the sins of chapter II verses 1 to 4 and the sermo mendax et inanis of verse 5. The textual evidence, therefore, seems to imply a distinction between transgression of a grave nature, the last of which is positively accentuated as a snare of death, and the faults of a light nature, or faults of a weak character. The supposition of a distinction between grievous and non-grievous sins in the important enumeration of the second chapter is well supported by the fact that dupli- city is mentioned among the sins of the via mortis (chapter V) , whereas mendacity,^^ as such, is not. True, the amatores mendacii are among the persons travelling in the via mortis, but the qualifying word amatores, the preceding expression osores veritatis, and, in general, the concomitant transgressions, sufficiently show that in chapter V we are dealing with sins of a serious nature. The sources of murder, fornication, adultery, idolatry, theft, and blasphemy are enumerated in chapter III. Anger is mentioned as the source of murder, but it is not given as a grievous sin in chapterV. Concupiscence,^^ however, the source of the sins of the flesh, is listed as 8 "Did." II, 5- 9 "Ibid." II, 5. 10 Cf. Noldin, "Summa Theol. Moral." II. Innsbruck, nth ed., 1914, p. 650. 11 In the sense of evil desire, "Matth." 5:28. 6 ,THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES belonging to the via mortis. The various kinds of magic, leading to idolatry, have their place under the generic term magiae in Chapter V. The nature of lying, given in III, 6 as one of the sources of theft has been sufficient- ly dwelt upon in the preceding paragraph. The fact that it is treated as the source of a serious wrong, that is, of theft, does not argue against the statement that it is of a non-grievous nature, since anger, contextually shown to be a non-grievous sin, is likewise the source of a grievous transgression, that is, of murder. Blasphemy originates with murmuring,!^ that is, most probably, a dissatisfaction with the Church or its laws. This source does not seem to be specifically or even gen- erally listed in the via mortis chapter, and, therefore, may be considered a minor fault. The immediate con- text supports the conclusion that murmuring can well be classified as a lack of meekness or as a mild form of in- solence. The canon of contextual comparison brings out the fact that the Didache distinguishes with consistency along plainly discernible lines between faults of a grave nature and faults of a light nature. Sermo mendax is distinguished from the sermo of the osores veritatis and the amatores mendacii; proneness to anger and murmur- ing are distinguished from the sins of those, a quibis longe ahest mansuetudo et patientia.^^ The concept of mortal sin in its practical application and in its extent was apparently not a vague and unsettled matter. The conclusion of the fourth chapter contains the much discussed confessions of sins.^* It is not the pur- pose of the present dissertation to enter upon the ques- tion as to what is precisely meant here by confession, what sins are to be confessed, and what the conscientia 12 "Did." 111:6. yoyyvgos. Cf. "Concordance to the Greek Testa- ment." Molton and Geden- 13 "Did."V.2. 14 "Die Suendenvergebung in der Didache." Weisz in "Tq.," 1915, P- "3 ss. THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 7 mala^^ comprehends. But from the brief consideration we have thus far given to the wording of the Didache we may conclude that the method of expression used in the last few lines of chapter IV concerning confession in ecclesia need not be subjected to textual reconstruction. The fifth chapter of the Didache is of importance for the present investigation in so far as it contributes more definite elements to the concept of grievous sin. The nature of grievous transgression is described at the outset as "full of curse".^® This description removes the doubt that could arise from a one-sided interpreta- tion of the term via mortis. For via mortis could be ex- plained in the sense of a way leading to death ultimately without implying the existing serious state of those who are travelling thereon. Then follows the long list^^ of mortal sins, sins "full of curse", forty-one in number. Although many of the sins are mentioned in the plural, we would not be justi- fied in concluding that therefore frequently repeated acts, or better said, the state of sinfulness resulting from such acts, is alone considered grievous. The term "full of curse" comprehends apparently the indivi- dual act. Sins of deed, of word (e. g. turpiloquium, falsa testimonia) and of thought (e. g., concupiscentia, invidia) are on the list. Not only sinful acts, but also sinful dispositions receive due consideration. Murder and sins of the flesh, theft and idolatry lead the list. False witnessing, deceit, pride, avarice, filthy talking and a few other vices complete the first division, all the sins of which are given in the form of the noun- name of the sin. i In the second division of the list we find the sinful acts of those who are travelling on the way of death. The sins are mentioned in the noun-name or its equivalent denoting the person of sinners. "Persecutors of the 15 "Did." IV:i4. 16 "Did." V:i. 17 Cf. "The Irish Theol. Quarterly," p. 23, Jan., 1917. "The Di- dache" by the Rev. J. J. McNamee. 3 THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES good," "persons hating truth", "loving a lie", "those who love vain things," are examples of the method in which the list of sins in the second division is written. Social sins receive a good share of attention. Persons who do not recognize the reward of justice, who have no pity for the poor man, who labor not for the down-trodden, who turn away the needy, who oppress the afflicted, then the advocates of the rich, the unjust judges of the poor, — all these are on the way that is cursed. Abor- tionists and infanticides are also mentioned. The field of grievous sins is quite well covered by the long list of the chapter just considered. The words of the Didache are addressed to adults only, since obedience of children towards their parents is nowhere mentioned. Servants or slaves are told to obey their masters in chapter IV, 10, which verse, incidentally, furnishes matter for reflection on the equality of all men before God. No mention is made in this list of those who neglect to fulfill certain counsels which at first sight seem to be pre- cepts, for instance: "If one impress thee for one mile, go with him two" or, "If one take away thy cloak, give him also they coat."^^ The following passage offers a plausible solution : "If thou art able to bear all the yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect; but if thou art not able, what thou art able that do".^^ The quotation concerning the irremissible sin^^ pre- sents the same difficulty as Matt. 12 :21 : "Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven."^! That the irremissible sin refers most probably to a continued disposition, or state, of moral obduracy as exemplified in the Pharisees and the Scribes, whom the context shows to be guilty of that sin, we may deduce from the fact that Mark quali- fies the sin as an eternal one. The Didache gives this Scriptural view no new version, hence the concept of i8 "Did." 1 :4 of Scriptural origin. Cf. "Matth." 5 :40-4i. 19 "Did." VI :2. Funk "Pa." in loc. refers "jugum" to "Did." 1:3-6. However, "do what thou art able" would be ill applied to "love of enemy." 20 "Did." XI 7. 21 Cf. also "Mk." 3:28-29. "Lk.." 12:10. (I "John" 5:16?) THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 9 mortal sin is not qualified by the supposedly new element of irremissibility. Enemies must be reconciled before the eucharistic sac- rifice takes place.^^ That there is question here of seri- ous sin against charity cannot be demonstrated.^^ "That your sacrifice be not profaned" can easily be interpreted to exclude all faults against charity, especially since the divine service was considered a "love feast". One more passage of the Didache is, perhaps, of some value for our present study. "To everyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear ought from you until he repent."^* The expression "acts amiss" has apparently the meaning of erring in faith, swerving from the truth.^^ It is most likely a question of the sin of heresy, which would entail excommunication for the guilty one. Funk seems to interpret the passage in connection with the preceding words: "Reprove one another not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel". He considers avoiding the delinquent as the last means of bringing such a brother to the realization of his transgression. The context, however, and the Scriptural use of acrrox^*^ apparently do not warrant Funk's interpretation.^^ The general impression that we gain from the Didache as to the concept of grievous sin is that of a precision which we would not expect in so early a writing. The distinction between the degrees of guilt, the long and exact list of mortal sins, the unmistakable characteriza- tion of the sins on this list as the "way of death", "full of curse", the consistency, brevity and clearness with which the sins are placed before us — all this deserves indeed the praise bestowed on the Didache by one of the foremost modern non-Catholic scholars of Christian antiquity, when in speaking of its arrangement and con- tents he says that "it attains its purpose completely", part of which purpose is to sum up "in the form of a compendium the moral precepts of the Gospel"." 22 "Did." XIV. 2. Cf. "Matth." 5 :23-24. 23 "Cum amico suo." 24 "Did." XV :3. 25 Cf. I "Tim." 6:6-21; II "Tim." 2:18. 26 Cf. Funk "Pa." in loc, p. 35. 27 A. Harnack, "Tu." II, p. 37. 10 ^T. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME CHAPTER 11. ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME. The date of this epistle of St. Barnabas is a matter of conjecture. It is generally accepted that the letter was not written before 70 nor after 137. Funk is of the opinion that it appeared during the reign of Nerva 96-98 or shortly after.^ Barnabas is most probably not the author of the epistle, but it had been so generally attri- buted to him that it still retains his name. At all events, it reflects some views of the Christians in the half -cen- tury following the destruction of Jerusalem, and in so far its texts pertaining to grievous sin can be of value for the present study. The effect which grievous sin has on the soul is well stated in the opening chapter of the Epistle. The author obviously took pains to impress his views on his read- ers.2 The quotation from Zach. 8:17,^ is soon followed by the admonition to be very careful concerning salva- tion "lest the evil one having made his entrance by de- ceit, should hurl us forth from life".* That by "life" the author has reference to the very essence of salvation is quite apparent from the immediate context^ and from the first chapter, in which "the hope of life" is described as the beginning and the end of our faith. Evil thoughts, therefore, in the sense of hatred and of false oaths as the external means of satisfying that hatred are branded as grievous. The nature of this grievousness is best shown by its result, namely, the privation of "the hope of life", which may be easily understood by infer- 1 "Kgau," II, p. Tj ss. 2 "Epist. Barn." I passim, II :9, lo. 3 "Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his friend; and love not a false oath." 4 II:io. 5 Care concerning our salvation. ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME 11 ence from Titus I ; 2, III ; 7, to be the privation of sancti- fying grace.® The element of human frailty in trying to fulfill the commandments of God is taken into account by the Epistle as much as it is by the Didache.^ The readers are advised to do what lies in their power to avoid sin. "As much as in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep his commandments, that we may rejoice in his justifications."* And a few sentences further on we read: "Take heed lest resting at our ease. . .we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked prince, acquiring power over us should thrust us away from the kingdom of the Lord."^ These few passages do not permit us to share the conviction of those who lay so much stress on the perfect life of the early Christian as to exclude reconciliatory penance. The justice of punishment for sin is based on the knowledge that the sinner has of the way of righteous- ness. "That man perishes justly, who, having a knowl- edge of the way of righteousness, rushes off into the way of darkness".^" This is the first explicit mention in the early writings of moral cognition as a prerequisite to the imputability of grievous transgression. The function- ing of the will is not mentioned in so explicit terms, but we may easily deduce from the term eavroi/ diro-aw-exa that the consent is of as much importance as knowledge. Several grievous transgressions are considered in alle- gorical explanations'^ of the Mosaic law concerning the prohibition of certain kinds of food,'^ but they do not 6 "Titus" 3:7: "That, being justified by His grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting." 7 "Did." VI :2, 3; XIV :i, 2; XV 13. 8 "Epist. Barn." IV:ii. 9 IV:i3. ID V:4. Funk interprets "rushing off into the way of dark- ness" as conversion to the Jewish ceremonies. The "way of darkness" of chapters XVIII and XX does not support Funk's view. Moreover, iavrov a7r(XTvv€\€i has most probably the meaning of letting one's self go completely in the face of temptation (retia). 11 X. 12 "Lev." 11; "Deut." 14. 12 ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME claim our attention as much as chapters XVIII, XIX and XX. These are quite similar to the first five chap- ters of the Didache. As in the Didache, the figure of the two ways is chosen to impart more strikingly the teaching of moral- ity. While the Didache calls one way that of life and the other that of death, the Epistle changes the names but not the substance of the concept. "The way of light" and "the way of darkness" are the title descriptions used by the author of the Epistle. In chapter XIX "the way of light" adds the command- ment, not found in the Didache, forbidding the profane use of God's name. The way of darkness receives an additional descrip- tion in the Epistle, which is quite explicit. It is de- scribed as being "full of cursing", as the way of eternal death with punishment, on which way are the trans- gressions that cause the soul of man to be lost.^^ No doubt is left in the mind of the reader that the sins in the list of chapter XX are deadly. The order of se- quence is different from that of the Didache, but the sins mentioned are practically the same. The Epistle has added some new elements to the con- cept of mortal sin. Knowledge and consent as prere- quisites, human frailty as a mitigating circumstance, the privation of the spes vitae and eternal death with punishment as the effects of serious transgressions are results sufficiently well supported by a study of the text. Whatever the "lack of literary ability" in the author of the Barnabas document may have been, so much must be said in his favor, that he had a view of mortal sin which as to correctness of concept would do ample justice to our demands from later writers on morality. A. First letter of Clement to the Corinthians, The Barnabas document was written — probably — for the converts from Judaism and Paganism who lived in 13 XX :i. ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME 13 the vicinity of Alexandria. The letters of Clement were addressed to the Christians at Corinth. The Didache is of the nature of an encyclical, the Barnabas and Clem- entine letters have a more restricted character. The first Clementine document was written about the end of the first century by Clement I.^* In the praise bestowed'^ on the Corinthians for their faith and virtue before schism had torn their ranks we meet with a difficulty concerning the concept of sin. The expression "involuntary transgressions"^® is used, which would imply that the faithful and virtuous Corinthians and, perhaps, Clement himself, had a wrong view of the conditions required for imputability of sin. To ask par- don for involuntary transgressions is an inconsistency which we would not impute to the author of this thorough document. If we remember, however, that the chapter in which this term occurs is a eulogy on the well ordered life of the faithful at Corinth, and if we consider that the im- mediate context speaks of their insatiable desire of do- ing good to such an extent that they besought God to be merciful to them for merely material transgressions, the difficulty loses its force. It was, therefore, not a dis- torted, exaggerated view of sin which the Corinthians had, but rather an extreme willingness to do penance. The expression, when correctly adjusted, created the strong presumption that the nature of sin was well un- derstood. The sin of envy with its long train of consequences is considered at length in several chapters'^ in a manner that leaves no doubt as to its grievousness. The Corin- thians, who have failed in their duty and have been in- 14 Cf. Bardenhewer, "Patrologie," p. 24. 15 I "Clem, ad Cor." I, II. 16 *Akovtcs. The Latin version ignorantes would merely shift the difficulty, while the Syriac version ix^vres (willing, pur- posely) would solve the immediate textual difficulty, but render the context a literary contradiction. "Akovtcs would, therefore, seem the preferable reading. 17 III-VI. 14 ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME volved in "envy, strife and vain labors" are exhorted to return to the "glorious and venerable rule of their tradi- tion". The exhortation constitutes the contents or mo- tive of a considerable part of the latter. Sedition, pride, envy and other closely related sins should be laid aside, and recourse be had to "God's compassions".^® No sign of rigorism is found in Clement's dealings vi^ith the un- ruly Church of Corinth. One of the first texts quoted to prove the possibility of repentance is from Isaias 1:18: "If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow, and if they be as red as crimson, they shall be as white as wool." There are numerous other references to God's mercy.^^ In connection herewith the following passage is of importance. "Whatever sins we have committed, seduced by a servant of Satan, let us implore the remission thereof ."^^ The statement is gen- eral as to the persons who have sinned and as to the sins committed. In the same chapter we find that "it is better for a man that he confess his sins than that he harden his heart."^! Whatever the nature of this con- fession, it is very improbable that rigorism concerning penance after baptism could have held sway at a time when so mild a doctrine as the one implied by the pas- sages just quoted was expressed by the Bishop of Rome. In this Clementine Letter we find sins of evil desire forbidden. "Let us forsake the impure desires after evil deeds that we may be protected by His mercy from the judgment to come."^^ A list of sins is found in this document, also. We shall be numbered among the elect if we follow "the way of truth and cast away from us all injustice, malice, avarice, strife, evil practices and deceit, whispering and evil speaking, the hatred of God, pride, haughtiness, vainglory and inhospitality"." i8 IX :i. 19 XVI, XVIII. 20 LI:i. 21 LI :3. it2 XXVIII :i. 23 XXXV :5. ST. BARNABAS AND -ST. CLEMENT OP ROME 15 That the above listed sins are of a grievous nature is quite evident from the introductory remark concerning the necessity of avoiding the transgressions here listed in order to be numbered among the elect, and from the sentence following, which, moreover, adds an element to the concept of sin which we have not met thus far, namely, cooperation. "They who commit these (sins) are hated by God, not however, they alone, but also those who give their approval."^* In the preceding chapter^^ we find the vices opposed to moderation, to humility and to meekness considered as cursed by God. Other sins or vices — mainly sins of the flesh— are also condemned as grievous in the same chap- ter. What we have gathered from the first Clementine document concerning the concept of sin supports with more than conjectural probability the impression that certain sins were consistently considered grievous, that the nature of grievous sin was such as to deprive the guilty person of God's friendship, but that the condition of being hated by God was not an unalterable one ; more- over, that the Church's attitude towards seriously de- linquent members was inf erentially not that of rigorism, and that the principle of cooperation was at least ele- mentarily recognized. As to whether this document teaches a distinction between grievous and non-grievous sin, we could not answer affirmatively with the same de- gree of probability with which we have asserted the pre- ceding conclusions. The expressions in which Clement includes himself among the sinners^^ will not permit us on the one hand to judge him guilty of serious trans- gression, nor on the other to believe him free from all fault. We would be inclined to say that the document consid- ers the individual transgression as grievously sinful, and not merely the accumulation of violations. The use of 24 XXXV :6. 25 XXX. 26 VII :i; LI:i. X 16 ST. BARNABAS AND ST. CLEMENT OF ROME "all injustice, all sedition", "blameless", "in every re- spect", seems to include reference to individual acts. B, The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinth- ians,^'' This document contains little that is of importance for our present study. It is the first homily — and stress is to be put on the fact that it is a homily. No clear sup- port is found in it for the opinion concerning extreme rigorism in primitive Christianity. This world, which "preaches adultery, corruption, av- arice, and deceit", is inimical to the next, which "re- nounces these sins".^* A rather rigoristic view is expressed in the words: "Unless we keep our baptism holy and undefiled, with what confidence can we enter the palace of God?"^^ and in the words: "Keep they flesh chaste and thy soul un- defiled, that ye may receive eternal life".^^ The impres- sin of rigorism weakens, however, in view of the fact that the document is an exhortation to penance. The following texts contain quite a limitation to the strict interpretation we would feel inclined to put on the homily. "Let us not be dragged away by worldly re- sires, but let us attempt to make advances in the com- mandments of the Lord."^^ And again : "Let us not, un- wise as we are, be affronted and sore displeased, if someone admonishes and turns us from iniquity unto righteousness. For sometimes, while we are doing evil, we do not perceive it on account of the double-minded- ness and unbelief that is in our breasts, and we are darkened in our understanding by our vain desires."^^ 27 We may accept Funk's opinion that this document — attri- buted to Clement, though he was most probably not the author — was written in the first half of the second century. 28 II "Clem." ad Cor. VI 13, 4- 29 VI :9. 30 VIII :6. 31 XVII :3. 22 XIX ;2. ST. IGNATIUS AND ST. POLYCARP 17 CHAPTER III. ST. IGNATIUS AND ST. POLYCARP. The documentary evidence that St. Ignatius of Antioch puts forth concerning the concept of mortal sin bespeaks the mind of the Oriental Church at the begin- ning of the second century. A saintly and learned disciple of the apostles, he is undoubtedly an authority on their doctrine. In the writings of St. Ignatius we have no explicit statements as to the nature of grievous transgression of divine law. But there are several texts that show quite conclusively the correct concept of grievous sin. Op- position to the will of God characterizes the sin of those who are against the accepted doctrine concerning the grace of Christ.^ They neglect the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed, they have no regard for charity. There seems to be question in Ad Smyrnaeos VI concern- ing those who do not accept the doctrine of the Eucharist. The immediate context speaks o± those who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer. Those who speak against this gift of God die in their disputes. Funk takes it for granted that Ignatius is here treating of heretics. 2 The argument deducible from the words of Ignatius for the remissibility of the sin of heresy has strong sup- port in the context. In his letter to the Ephesians Igna- tius speaks of the guilt of persons who corrupt the faith of God by wicked doctrines.^ If the corruptors of fami- lies* have suffered death, how much more deserving thereof are corruptors of doctrine? The Trallians are told to avoid the "evil off-shoots^ that produce death-bear- 1 "Ad Smyrnaeos" VI. The shorter version is used in this and the following passages. 2 "Pa." p. 281, in loc. 3 "Ad Eph." XVI :2. 4 "Ibid." 5 Heresies. 18 ST. IGNATIUS AND ST. POLYCARP ing fruit, whereof if anyone tastes he immediately dies."^ Although the passage is figurative, one cannot seriously doubt the meaning the author wanted to im- part. There are few passages that convey so well the concept of spiritual death as the result of grievous offense. Ignatius may be quoted directly to show that fallen away Christians could return to the Church. "As many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God that they may live according to Jesus Christ."^ That the sins of thought were also given consideration we may infer from the epistle to the Ephesians. "Our very secrets are near to Him. Let us, therefore, do all things as if He were dwelling in us."^ St. Polycarp of Smyrna, in his letter to the Philip- pians, a document of the first half of the second century, speaks of internal sin: "Nothing is hid from Him, neither reasonings nor reflections, nor anyone of the se- cret things of the heart."^ He exhorts us to ask God, the all-seeing, not to lead us into temptation.^^ In his exhortation to the presbyters the expression "bringing back the erring" ^^ suggests the remissibility of heresy. The suggestion is confirmed by the quite gener- al petition : "Let us return to the doctrine handed down to us from the beginning."^^ He asks God to grant Valens and his wife true repentance,^^ and he desires to have the faithful call back the straying and suffering members.^* 6 "Ad Trail." XI :i. 7 "Ad Philad." Ill :2. This quotation does not favor Rauschen's statement. The Oriental Church about and before the year 200 affords us but two expressions in regard to grievous sins. (Dio- nysius of Corinth, Clement of Alexandria) Rauschen, "Eucharist and Penance," p. 183. 8 "Ad Eph." XV :3. 9 "Ad Philipp." IV :3. 10 "Ad Philipp" VII :2. 11 "Ad Philipp." VI :i. 12 "Ad Philipp." VII :2. 13 "Ad Philipp." XI :4. 14 "Ibid." ST. IGNATIUS AND ST. POLYCARP 19 Heresy is not considered a slight matter by Polycarp, as is obvious from the words: "Whosoever does not con- fess the testimony of the cross is of the devil."^^ Several passages from the Reliquiae Presbyterorum re- fer to New Testament quotations concerning sin. The reference to sinning after having the knowledge of Christ creates the impression at first reading that cer- tain sins are irremissible. This difficulty occurs in the first fragment. "We should not be proud, nor reprehend the people of old (David and Solomon for sinning), we should rather fear that perhaps after possessing knowl- edge of Christ, by doing a thing displeasing to God, we no longer have remission of sins, but are excluded from His kingdom."^^ The word "perchance" suffices to solve the difficulty for there is no reason to construct the act of sin and its irremissibility as logically inseparable because of their grammatical unity. The "perchance" may be applied to the '^remission of sins" and it would then argue equally well against the interpretation of rigorism. Besides touching upon the remissibility of sin and the wrong of internal transgression, this chapter's study has shown that according to a disciple of the Apostles oppo- sition to the will of God by a grievous sin — ^that of her- esy — causes immediate spiritual death. 15 "Ad Philipp." VII :i. i6 "Fragment" I :ii. Cf. "Hebr." 10:26. 20 THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS CHAPTER IV. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. The document we are to consider in this chapter dates from the middle of the second century. It is generally accepted that the brother of Pope Pius I is its author. Irenaeus in Gall, Tertullian in North Africa, Clement in Alexandria, and the Muratori Fragment in Rome give ample proof of the wide circle of its readers. The popular style, the ease of presentation, the naive of many questions put by Hermas, show that the work was primarily intended for the common people. It should, therefore, give us an insight into the concepts of the large majority of Christians, and also of the better educated class to which the writer probably belonged.^ The character of Hermas, quite consistently portray- ed, suggests the conclusion that the author was a man of more than ordinary education. We are not prepared to grant that his knowledge of theology was thorough. The apparent lack of consistency in the theological views of the author should be kept in mind in judging the value of certain passages that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to interpret. It might be appropriate to offer here a quotation from D'Ales concerning "The Shepherd of Hermas": ''Ce n'est pas un document official; mais c'est un document prive de tres haute valeur, parce qu'il reflete avec une grande naivete les preoccupations des pasteurs de VEglise romaine au deuxieme siecle et les expedients de leur zele. Egalement soucieux de ne jeter aucun pecheur dans le desespoir et de n*autoriser aucune presomption, ces pasteurs ne croyaient pas trahir la doctrine en la dispensant avec mesure selon les hommes et les circon- stances, et parfois pratiquaient assez hardiment la re- striction mentale. Telle est la raison derniere, souvent I The Interpretation of the Shepherd, p. 542 in "Biblical and Theological Studies." THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 21 meconnue, de certaines particidarites surprenantes que presente le langage d'Hermas."^ The theory here pro- posed to harmonize the inconsistencies of Hernias would expose the "pastors of the Roman Church" to severe criticism. It is difficult to accept this theory in view of the fact that Hermas frequently inculcates simplicity and truthfulness. The criterion of comparison along general lines with the documents that immediately pre- ceded or followed "The Shepherd" should enable us to give the views of Hermas their proper value. Hermas speaks of the nature of serious sin in several places. The first instance is in connection with a quota- tion from the Epistle to the Hebrews.^ "But that has saved you, that you did not depart from the living God."* Hermas had just been reproached because of his carelessness concerning the transgressions of his family and because of too much preoccupation with worldly matters.^ The context implies that Hermas is still "sal- vus" because he has as yet done nothing that would separate him from God. "Evil desires after another's wife or husband deliver men over to death."^ The same concept of the nature of grievous sin lies in the words : "If anyone commit this wicked deed (adultery), he works death for himself."^ And again: "Among such persons (who keep the commandments) is the life of the Lord, but amongst the quarrelsome and transgressors, death."' The positive form "living unto God" occurs frequently, evidently showing by inference how deep- rooted was the thought of sin as the death of the soul. Whether Hermas and the people his type represented had a definite concept of the distinction between great and small sins cannot be satisfactorily answered from the wording of the text. If we analyze the morality views 2 "L'Edit de Calliste," p. 112. Cf. also Zkt.," 1907, p. 454- 3 "Hebr." 3:12. 4 "Vis." lie 3:2. 5 "Vis." lie. 3:1- 6 "Mand." Xlle. 2. 7 "Mand." IVc. i. 8 "Mand." VII :5. 22 THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS which Hermas brings with him from the ranks of the common people, we find that he is quite astonished to learn that evil thoughts are sinful at all. The promin- ence that is given the correction of his wrong views on the nature of thought-sins is of more than passing signi- ficance. We can hardly doubt that the author wished to impress his readers with the malice of interior sins. There must have been a serious reason for this conspicu- ous and thorough correction. Hermas distinguishes between sins of thought and "perfect sins",^ apparently sins of deed — after he has been corrected. But we find no sufficient evidence on which we could base a solid dis- tinction between mortal sin and slight transgression. Unchaste thoughts, as stated above, are to be consid- ered sinful. The very introduction to "The Shepherd" insinuates that they are to be at least a part of the theme which the author has set himself. The anger of God is upon those who sin by unchaste thought.^^ The clause "qui multiplicari et crescere fecit" seems to indi- cate the ultimate reason why God is angry with such sinners. Unchaste thoughts would work untold harm to the procreation of man. Interior transgression is "indeed a great sin."" "Such as entertain wicked thoughts are bringing upon themselves death and cap- tivity."^2 Although these words indicate the grievous- ness of sinful thoughts, they are not in full accord with a concept which we find in a later part of the work. The sin of desire and the sin of deed are there well kept dis- tinguished. The sin of desire is called a great sin — be- cause committed by a servant of God, but the sin of deed (adultery) is alone mentioned as deserving of death.^^ It is impossible to argue away the inconsistency shown by the author concerning the degree of guilt in sins of thought. The desire of a wicked deed is called "abominable in 9 "Vis." I, c. 2:1. 10 "Vis." I, c 1 :6. 11 "Vis." I, c. 1 :8. 12 "Ibid." 13 "Mand." IV, c. i :2. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 23 a well tried spirit."^* Evil desires that "slay the ser- vants of God** comprehend, however, not only those against chastity, the desire after "another's wife or hus- band", but also those "after extravagance and many use- less dainties and drinks and many other foolish lux- uries/'i*^ The latter are obviously not so sinful as those against chastity but are still mentioned as delivering the transgressor "up to death". It is to be regretted that no other distinction was made in the enumeration of sin- ful desires than that of sequence. Some stress, however, is laid on the first mentioned: "Foremost of all is the desire after another's wife or husband."^^ Sins committed by word of mouth receive frequent mention. In his resentment at being accused of having sinned, Hermas exclaims : "When spoke I an unseeming- ly word to you?"^^ The thought that he had perhaps sinned by evil desire, did not enter his mind. His first query concerned that sin which he deemed least in the category of wrongs. That he had not been much con- cerned about the sinfulness of lying is quite evident from his interesting remark upon hearing how wrong false- hood should be considered by a servant of God : "I never spoke a true word in my life."^^ He is warned to "keep these precepts (i. e. those that he had just received) and from this time forward" to speak the truth at all times, if he wishes to obtain life. Falsehood is called a great wickedness and whosoever departs from it shall "live to God".'^ The commandment to tell the truth at all times is quite comprehensive, and includes the prohibition of serious sins of falsehood, as is evident from other pas- sages. Detraction is forbidden with special stress,^^* false witnessing and deceit are mentioned with other "evil deeds"," such as robbery and theft. 14 "Vis." I, c. 2:4. IS and 16 "Mand." XII c, 17 "Vis." I. c. I :-7- 18 "Mand." 111:3. 19 "Mand." 111:5. 20 "Mand." II: i, 2, 3. 21 "Mand." VIII :5. 24 THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS Carelessness in responsible positions is condemned quite forcibly. Hernias is rebuked for not having warn- ed his family against evil and for having allowed his sons to be corrupted.^" — Adultery and all sins of the flesh "that are similar to those committed by the Gen- tiles"'^ are grievously wrong for they bring death to the transgressors.^* The indwelling of the devil in anger^^ would not con- vincingly prove that serious sin is meant thereby, since the presence of the devil could be interpreted as mean- ing the source or beginning of temptation to do greater wrong. Theft, robbery, avarice, deceit, vainglory, hypocrisy, unlawful revelling, extravagance of riches and other sins, or vices, are mentioned as evil deeds^*^ but in so general a manner that it is evidently not the in- tention of the author to give an exact or even an ap- proximate valuation of their malice, but merely to place before the faithful some sins, from which enumeration they could easily deduce conclusions as to the attitude to be taken towards similar faults." The Shepherd presents a difficulty as to the remissibi- lity of sin. The words which give rise to the difficulty are found in the Fourth Mandate. "Whosoever", says the angel of repentance, "after that great and holy call- ing tempted by the devil, has fallen into sin, has one op- portunity to repent. But if he sin again and repent once more his repentance will be of no avail ; he will live with difficulty."28 From this it appears all sins committed after the great and holy calling, which Clement of Alexandria interprets as meaning baptism,^^ are remissible, at least 22 "Vis." I, c. 3:1. 23 "Mand." IV, c. 1 19. 24 "Mand." IV, c i :2. 25 "Mand." V, c. 1 13. 26 "Mand." VIII :5. 27 Other enumerations of sins are to be found in "Sim." VIII, 6-9-; "Sim." IX, 19-23, 26. 28 "Mand." IV, c. 3 :6. 29 "Strom." II, 13:57. Funk interprets "the great and holy calling" as meaning "time of grace," and "one opportunity" as baptism. "Kgau.," I, p. 170. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 25 once. Even if we accept Funk's opinion that "one op- portunity" means baptism, the clause that the sinner would "live with difficulty" does not exclude all chance" of remissibility, as Funk himself admits. He argues that since the angel of repentance absolutely approved of the opinion which held baptism to be the only remis- sion of sins, it would have been a flagrant contradiction had the angel admitted another remission of sins after baptism. To Funk's mind there is no doubt about the interpretation given. Rauschen considers Funk's as- sumption impossible.^^ D'Ales would have us keep in mind, while trying to explain this difficulty, that the angel is addressing catechumens and baptized Chris- tians. Different language had to be employed for diff- erent classes.^^ Stufler claims that the time granted for the second penance is to be understood relatively, that is, under the condition that the end of the world was soon to come.^2 This explanation would gain in plausibility, if the eschatological view expressed in the context could be shown to be of a definite nature. It is not impossible that the author was inconsistent or at least unguarded in his utterances on the doctrine of frequent remission of sin. The dogmatic utterances of the Church will not gain in strength or likelihood by a too far fetched de- fense of non-vital passages, as the one in question. The general position of Stufler and his defenders on the question of frequent remission of sin through abso- lution granted by the Church in the early centuries seems quite favored by the texts on remissibility of grievous sin which have thus far been adduced. "If, as even some Catholic Church historians contend, the Church had for centuries refused to grant pardon to cer- tain classes of sinners, regardless of their disposition, we should have to assume either that she was unaware of her duty to grant absolution and thus erred in an es- sential point of faith, or that she was inexcusably remiss 30 "Eucharist and Penance," p. 156. 31 "L':fidit de Calliste," p. 71. 32 "Zkt.," 1907, p. 454 ss. 26 THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS in the performance of her duty. Both assumptions are untenable for one who admits the divine institution of the Church."^^ Pohle, the only dogmatician who has thus far accepted the stricter view of some Church his- torians,^* "would insist that the dogmatic theologian must bow before the facts of history", which facts Bart- mann considers "undemonstrated as yet,"^^ In summing up the matter gathered for the concept of mortal sin as presented by The Shepherd we can state that the document reflects sufficiently well the second century notion of the nature of grievous sin. Non-grie- vous sins are apparently not treated because they do not fall within the range of the work's purpose. Sins of thought, word, and deed are explained in a popular, easily intelligible manner. The doctrine of sin in theory and in practice remains untouched by the discussion to which the inconsistency of the document on the point of remissibility of sin is subjected. 33 "Kkt.," 1907, p. 437. 34 "Lehrbuch der Dogmatik," III, p. 401. 35 "Lehrbuch der Dogmatik," p. 764. ^T. JUSTIN 27 CHAPTER V. ST. JUSTIN. The defense of the Church against Paganism, Judiasm, and the various forms of heresy by the leading apologist of the second century, brought out the views of Christian morality in strong relief. We expect a quite systematical exposition of moral wrong from the pen of a philosopher-convert to the religion that in- sisted not merely on a deep faith but also on the fulfill- ment of the precepts proposed or confirmed by that faith. We find the concept of grievous sin entering upon the period of transition from popular to technical forms of expression. Sin is the transgression of the law with knowledge and consent. This is the brief definition we think we are justified in formulating from the words of Justin: "God, wishing men to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness, possessing reason that they may know by whom they are created and with a law, that they should be judged by Him if they do any- thing contrary to right reason."^ Even if the text as it lies before us would permit of another version, the con- text of the chapter from which the above quotation is taken would force us to conclude that Justin's purpose is precisely that of giving an exact statement as to the na- ture of a transgression bringing on moral imputability. His exposition of the cause of guilt is in reply to the fundamental difficulty concerning the freedom of the will. The philosopher apologist had sufficiently emphasized the elementary prerequisite of free will in other parts of the Dialogtce, There remained apparently but one ade- quately satisfactory solution to the anticipated ob- jection of the well educated Typho, and that was a clear, I "Dial.," 141 ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. i. Migne, "Pg.," Vol. 6). 28 ST. JUSTIN comprehensive statement of the very nature of trans- gression. Less explicit expressions concerning the na- ture of sin in one or more respects are found in other passages. Rejection by God denotes the state of the sinner after a grievous wrong: "He who commits adul- tery is rejected by God."^ Wicked deeds, as for instance, idolatry, are compared to the fangs of the serpent.^ There is no definite line of demarcation between grievous sins and non-grievous sins, but some distinction seems to be presupposed. The venerable instructor, men- tioned in the opening chapters of the Dialogue, who had kindled the love of Christian philosophy in the soul of Justin, probably presupposes the notion of a slight trans- gression of divine law. **The souls," he says, "would, af- ter punishment, be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin."* The interpretation of this "most trivial sin" as meaning the least grievous sin would appear rather forced, especially in view of the context. Freedom in moral choice is a concept frequently and extensively mentioned in the writings of Justin. Plato, he claims, took the concept from the works of Moses.*^ And again he tells us "we have learned from the prophets that punishment and rewards are rendered ac- cording to the merit of each man's actions." "Unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choos- ing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be."^ The whole chapter from which these passages are taken is a philosophical exposition of moral responsi- bility as based on the freedom of the will. Several other passages attest the conviction of Justin that voluntari- ness is "a conditio sine qua non" of formal sin. Nor is free will a merely theoretical matter with Jus- 2 "Apol." I, 15. 3 "Dial." 94. 4 "Dial." 4, The English version in "Anf.," given above, seems rather extreme. Kal €oftovvTo av kol to tv^ov i^afiapTiiv vcrcpov. Ac metuerent ne quid deinceps vel leviter peccarent. Migne, "P. G.," VI, 485, 486. 5 "Apol." 1:44- 6 "Apol." 1:43. < ST. JUSTIN 29 tin. Flemming^ claims Justin has added so many practi- cal limitations to his defense of the free will that the exercise of freedom in moral choice becomes an impossi- bility. Among the limitations Flemming quotes are stifled conscience and demoniacal influence. The limi- tations are, of course, put to the ethical actions based on the freedom of the will. "Though they all commit such practices, yet they do not escape the knowledge that they act unrighteously whenever they do so, with the excep- tion of those who are possessed with an unclean spirit, and who have been debased by education, by wicked cus- toms, and by sinful institutions and who have lost, or rather quenched and put under their natural ideas."® This is the passage to which Flemming refers — and a first glance will show that it is an obvious contradiction of his statement. The few and not the many are under the influence of demons, and suffering from a stifled conscience. As we have seen in the text enumerating the essentials of mortal sin, reason, or knowledge, is considered as im- portant as free will. It is likewise evident from other texts that moral cognition is looked upon by Justin as an obviously presupposed condition for sin. "It is in the nature of man to know good and evil."^ A more practi- cal statement of his conviction on this point is found in the following: "Every race knows that adultery and fornication and homicide and such like are sinful; and though they commit such practices, yet they do not escape from the knowledge that they act unrighteously whenever they so do."^^ Justin has stated in unmistak- able terms the theory, that knowledge of evil is a pre- x^ requisite condition to imputability. The objection, how- ever, has been made that, while he upholds theoretically the faculty of moral cognition, he restricts it practically 7 Flemming, "Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Martyrers," p. 14. 8 "Dial." 93- 9 "Apol." 11:14. 10 "Dial." 93. 30 ST. JUSTIN to such an extent in his exposition of demonical influence "that the exercise of that faculty is not only greatly re- duced but becomes almost impossible."" A brief exam- ination of the passages adduced to support this objec- tion will show that the influence of the demons is not so universal nor so strong in those under the spell of dia- bolical power as to render the faculty of moral cogni- tion practically impotent. The following text speaks for itself: "These evil demons showed such fearful sights to men that those who did not use their reason in judg- ing of the actions that were done, were struck with terror and called them (the demons) gods."^^ xhe use of the faculty of moral cognition is obviously not consid- ered as "almost impossible" in the words: "We fore- warn you to be on your guard lest those demons divert you from understanding what we say. For they subdue all who make no strong opposing effort for their own salvation."^^ Another text adduced to prove the objec- tion is the following: "We know that the wicked angels appointed laws conformable to their own wickedness, in which men who are like them delight ; and the right Rea- son proved that not all opinions nor all doctrines are good."^* Immediately preceding this text we find the complaint of some that the laws of men are diverse, that there is not a definite standard of good and bad in their laws. Justin views the complaint as justifiable. The in- fluence of the demons is given as the cause for the ab- sence of this standard in those who wanted the criterion of justice abolished. The very demand of a practical standard of justice in legislation argues the presence of moral cognition. The reality of unjust legislation is a fact that can be recognized and deplored by the faculty of moral cognition only. The grievousness of sinful thoughts is thoroughly un- 11 "Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Maertyrers, Flemming, pp. 14, 16. In a footnote on page 25 Flemming appar- ently retracts his objection. 12 "Apol." 1:5. 13 "Apol." 1:14. 14 "Apol." 11:9. ST. JUSTIN 31 derstood and propounded by Justin. "Not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he — _ who desires to commit adultery; since not only our own works but also our thoughts are open before God."^'' In another passage he wished to correct the view of the heathens who judged the external sinful acts as wrong, but left the intention out of consideration: "Those per- sons, if they learned and were convinced that nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God, would by all means live decently."^' It would seem from the first text quoted above to show Justin's view of the sinfulness of interior transgressions that he did not distinguish between thoughts and desires. There is no text, to our knowledge, that would give evi- dence of Justin's attention to this finer point of interior morality. From one who has so explicitly condemned the sin- fulness of wicked desires and evil thoughts we may rightly expect the condemnation of sinful speech: "All kinds of filthy conversation"^^ is an expression Justin uses in speaking of the degraded condition in which now faithful members of Christianity had lived before their conversion. Lying receives especial mention in his Dis- course to the Greeks.^^ Among the sins of deed, murder, of course, has a con- spicuous place. It is interesting to learn the reason Jus- tin gives why Christians should not commit suicide. The major of his argument contains the two-fold doctrine, that God made the world for the sake of the human race, and that He takes pleasure in having the human race imitate "His properties". "If then", follows the minor, "we all kill ourselves, we shall become the cause, as far as in us lies, why no one should be bom, or instructed in the divine doctrines."^^ The conclusion, which, more- over, shows Justin's clear concept of the nature of sin. 15 "Apol." I:i5. 16 "Apol." I :i2. 17 "Dial." n6. 18 "Disc" 2. 19 "Apol." 11:4. 32 ST. JUSTIN condemns the act of killing as being in opposition to the will of God. The wickedness of sins of the flesh is treated in many passages.2^ The scathing denunciations of the various sins of impurity show how strong the face of Christian- ity was set against this vice. A passage in the Dis- course to the Greeks speaks in a detailed manner of oc- casions that lead to shameful deeds. Even the influence of improper music is touched upon. "There are exces- sive banquettings and subtle flutes which provoke to lust- ful movements, and useless and luxurious anointings and crowning with garlands."^! The text which Justin quotes from Isaias (III. 16) is apparently not applied by him to temptations against purity. "The daughters of Sion have walked with outstretched necks, and wanton glances of their eyes, and made a noise, as they walked, with their feet and moved in a set space." The context refers chiefly to pride.^^ Idolatry, perjury, wrath, covetousness, envy, hatred are among the sins condemned by Justin as grievous. In summing up the matter we have gathered from the most prominent apologist of the second century, we may state that Justin is the first moralist who has dealt so extensively with the nature of grievous sin. He has de- fended well the part that free will and moral cognition take in the conditions required for the imputability of serious guilt. It may be stated that he is also the first to mention explicitly a levitas peccati. We have, how- ever, not found in any of his works a definition of the nature of light sin. His enumeration of grievous sins agrees with the traditional views. 20 "Apol." 1 :4, 5, 9, 14, 15, 25, 26. 21 "Disc." 4. 22 "Dial." 27. ST. IRENAEUS ) 33 CHAPTER VI. ST. IRENAEUS. In the writings of this venerable bishop of Lyons (4-202 A.D.) we do not find so explicit and extensive a doctrinal exposition of the concept of grievous sin as we have seen in the documents of Justin. Irenaeus does not deal with the elementary constituents of sin; he obviously presupposes the knowledge thereof in his works against the heretics of his day, who had distort- ed the views of Christian morality once correctly im- parted and accepted. That Irenaeus had a clear concept of serious sin is easily deduced from the texts we are to consider. He distinguishes between those who unite themselves by faith to God, and those who by shunning the light have separated themselves from God and have deprived them- selves of all good.^ Heretics and apostates from the truth are patrons of the serpent and of death.^ Sinful men lead lives "contrary to reason".^ They are contrast- ed with "spiritual men" who have received the spirit of God into the union of flesh and spirit.* Those who have given themselves over to "filthiness, gluttony and reck- lessness of all sorts" have cast out from themselves "the life-giving Word".^ Sinful deeds are detested by God.^ Defilement is contracted by eating meats sacrificed to idols.^ False doctrines are "the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent."^ We should seek through faith and chaste conversations to preserve the Spirit of God, "lest having become non-participative of the Divine Spirit we lose the kingdom of heaven."® 1 "Adv. Haer.," V, c. 28:1; Minge, "Pg.," Vol. 7; "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. i. 2 "Adv. Haer.," Ill, c. 18:8. 3 "Adv. Haer, V, c. 8:2. 4 "Ibid." 5 "Adv. Haer," V, c. 8:4. 6 "Adv. Haer.," IV, c. 24:1. 7 "Adv. Haer.," I, c 6:3. 8 "Adv. Haer.," I, c 27 14. 9 "Adv. Haer.," V, c. 9:3- 34 ST. IRENAEUS Irenaeus lays special stress on the fact that sin is, in its nature, not a matter of indifference. The contention of the heretics, that adultery and eating of things sacri- ficed to idols, grievous sins in general, were of no further consequence, brought out the opposition of Irenaeus. He condemns at considerable length the heretical doc- trine, that "carnal things should be allowed to the car- nal."^° The heretic Basilides "attaches no importance to meats offered in sacrifice to idols" and asserts that lust in all forms is a matter of indifference." Carpocrates and his followers are accused of unbridled madness in maintaining "that things are evil or good simply in vir- tue of human opinion." ^^ Irenaeus quotes the Apo- calypse to prove the falsehood of the Nicolaitanian doc- trine, that adultery and eating of things sacrificed to idols are matters of indifference.^^ Marcion's doctrine that murder, sodomy and all kinds of abominations are authorized by God is mentioned as coming from "the mouth of the devil."^* Knowledge and free will as prerequisites to imputabi- lity are quite easily deduced from the following text: "Man, being endowed with reason, having been made free in his will, is himself the cause to himself that some- times he becomes wheat and sometimes chaff."^^ A whole chapter of more than usual length is devoted to the proof of the doctrine that man is endowed with the faculty of making a choice.^' Part of another chapter explains quite extensively the faculty of moral cogni- tion.i^ The remissibility of sin is a doctrine well defended in the writings of Irenaeus.^* In one passage, however, there seems to be a difficulty concerning this teaching. 10 "Adv. Haer.," I, c- 6:3. 11 "Adv. Haer.," I, c. 2:4. 5. 12 "Advr. Haer.," I, c. 25:4. 13 "Adv. Haer.," I, c. 26:3. 14 "Adv. Haer.," I, c. 27:3. 15 "Adv. Haer.," IV, c. 4:3. 16 "Adv. Haer.," IV, zj. 17 "Adv. Haer., IV, c. 39:1. 18 "Zkt.," 1008, p 488 ss ST. IRENAEUS 35 An impartial examination of the context will, we believe, solve the seeming contradiction between this and other statements of Irenaeus on the remission of sins. "Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin."^^ In the same paragraph we read: "We ought to fear, lest perchance, if we do things displeasing to God, after the knowledge of Christ, we obtain no further for- giveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom."^** The context suggests the warning that we should avoid sin because we might become hardened therein. The first passage in the early documents of the Fath- ers that contains the "thought, word, and deed" divi- sion of sin in concise form is found in the writings of Irenaeus. "Christ not only turned His disciples away from evil deeds, but even from words and thoughts."^^ That Irenaeus did not wish to permit hereby the de- duction that words and thoughts are merely preliminary to sin in deed is quite evident from passages which show that he considered certain words and thoughts sinful. Unchaste conversations would make us "non-participa- tive of the Divine Spirit."^^ An impious opinion of the heretics is "refuted by the teaching of the Lord with whom not only is the adulterer rejected, but also the man who desired to commit adultery.^^a in the texts just quoted the terms "non-participative" and "rejected" leave no room for doubt that the sins mentioned are grievous. Murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, and "whatever things are done to our neighbor's prejudice" are evil and detested by God.^* Heresy and apostasy are, as we have seen, the sins of those "who show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death."25 Anger without cause brings on damnation.^® The text shows that anger 19 "Adv Haer,," IV, c. 27:2. 20 "Adv. Haer./' IV, c. 2^.2, 21 "Adv. Haer.," II, c. 32:2. 22 "Adv. Haer.," V, c. 9:3- 23 "Adv. Haer.," II, c. 32:1. 24 "Adv. Haer.," c. 24:1. (IV). 25 "Adv. Haer.," III. c. 18:8. 26 "Adv. Haer.," II, c. 32:1. 36 ST. IRENAEUS per se is not necessarily a grievous wrong. All swear- ing, especially false swearing, is to be avoided, but no de- gree of guilt is mentioned.^^ Irenaeus has shown us, in practical terminology, the nature of sin. Particular stress is placed on the doc- trine that grievous sin is not a matter of arbitrary opinion. He has explained the elementary requisites of imputability. Sins of thought, word, and deed receive explicit mention, likewise various kinds of sin. Sins of a non-grievous nature are not given any consideration, because of the fact, that perhaps, in dealing with the heretics of his day, Irenaeus could show the falsity of their doctrines by the more palpable errors concerning evidently grievous transgressions. From the documents of other writers toward the end of the second century we may gain a few points of con- siderable value for our present investigation. Athena- goras of Athens has contributed the most among the min- or writers. The following passage seems to carry the conviction that when speaking of sin the writers meant not so much the habit of sin, or its repetition, as the single act. "You know that those whose life is directed towards God as its rule — so that each one among us may be blameless and irreproachable before Him, — will not entertain even the thought of the slightest sin."^^ In another passage Athenagoras likewise speaks apparent- ly of non-grievous sin. **As to those who are persuaded that nothing will escape the scrunity of God ... it is not likely that they will commit even the smallest sin."^® It is not improbable that non-grievous sin, or as we term it, venial sin, was understood by the Christians of his day. The texts adduced however prove only this con- 27 "Ibid." 28 "Legatio pro Christianis," c 31.; "Anf.," Vol. 11. *Io-tc tov- Tov% fornication, fraud, etc. A mutual source-relation, therefore, between the so-called capital sins, adultery, murder and idolatry, was perhaps before the mind of Tertullian. At least, it cannot be said with certainty that Tertullian wished to constitute seven as the number of capital sins. The text in which the enumeration occurs is quite ob- scure.^ In the strikingly similar passage of Pud. 19 we find no reference to the passage from Adv. Marc. IV, 9.'' From a comparison of the two passages we would not be inclined to believe that Tertullian attached any value in 8 Si autem Helisaeus prophetes creatoris unicum leprosum Naaman Syrum ex tot leprosis Israelitis emundavit, nee hoc ad diversitatem facit Christi, quasi hoc modo melioris, dum Israeliten leprosum emundat extraneus, quern suus dominus emundare non valuerat, Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emun- dationis in Christo lumine earum quae septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idolatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adul- terio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. "Adv. Marc." IV, c. 9 Oehler, Vol. II, pp. 174 sq. Oehler quotes Fr. lunius as saying of the text "Locus obscurus, quia scribit auctor ex Marcionitarum hypothesi." Op. cit., p. 175 in footnote. The "Anf." version is as follows : If, however, the Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naa- man the Syrian alone, to the exclusion of so many lepers in Israel, this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if He were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather was significant throughout the nations of the world of their own cleansing in Christ their light, steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins : idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud. "Anf." Vol. Ill, p. 356. The solid prob- ability that Tertullian is here quoting Marcion's words concerning the seven capital sins opens up an avenue of doubt as to whether Tertullian himself accepted the list of sins mentioned as a stand- ardized enumeration. Several variations in the list of "Pud." 19 leave the doubt unsettled. 9 "Pud." 19; Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et ex- itiosa, quae veniam non capiant, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. (de Labriolle p. 182.) It will be noticed that there are eight, or even more, sins mentioned in the enume- ration which agrees however substantially with the text from "Adv. Marc." IV, 9. 90 ALLEGED SYNONYMS a particular sense to the term capital as to an accepted designation of a certain number of sins.'^ The sequence given in Adv. Marc. IV, 9, idololatria, blasphemia, homi- cidio, adulterio, stupi^o. falso testimonio, fravde, follows with the exception of the last term — and explicitly the second last term — ^the order of the Ten Commandments. The order of succession given in Ptid. 19; homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et meochia et fomicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei, finds, per- haps, a partial excuse for its disregard of perspective in Tertullian's intention of stressing the sins of the flesh. There is no method in the sequence of the first five terms. If it was Tertullian's intention to enumerate a standard- ized series of sins it would seem a proper sequence should have been given. The variation in number and the apparent lack of a standard sequence makes it high- ly probable that there was no set number of sins claiming the definite term capital as a generic appelation. The similarity between the passages need not be explained by recourse to an accepted enumeration of sins. A reason, simple enough, for the similarity can be found in the fact that several enumerations of the principal sins will by their very nature be restricted to possibly the same offenses, if not the same terminology. The chief trans- gressions of the Ten Commandments will always be mentioned as the principal sins with a variation, most probably, of terms according to the viewpoint which the morality concepts of the enumerator would fashion. In the passages which offer synonymic concepts for the term capital we find sufficient grounds for the as- sumption that the term capital sins was not used to signify a set group of sins in the sense which we find as- cribed to it for the Tertullianic period of Christianity. Honoravit utique moechiam, quam homicidio anteponit, in prima itaque fronte sanctissimae legis in primis titulis caelestis edicti, principalium utique delictorum proscrip- tione signatam . Pud, V. 5, (de Labr. p. 72). Moechia 10 D'Ales, "L'fidit. de Call., pp. 205 sq. ALLEGED SYNONYMS 91 is either in this term or in a similar one always men- tioned as one of the capital sins. If any passage should demand its enumeration according to a recognized and accepted terminology, the passage just quoted would surely lay claim to that right. We find in it several qualifications that apply to the position of moechia among the transgressions of the decalogue. We find the proscHptio with which .moechia is marked in the clauses : Homiddio anteponit, in prima fronte, in primis titvMs. The particle utique makes the final clause a self evident conclusion or one about which there can be no reason- able doubt, at least according to Tertullian's view. It is to be admitted, if we argue along Tertullian's lines, that the conclusion was one with which all moralizers should agree. The use of standardized terms would therefore be most expected in just such a passage. If capital sins had been a quite universally recognized title for certain transgressions, the appearance of the expression could be most logically demanded in the passage quoted. It may be well to preclude an objection that could easily arise from the consideration, that Tertullian by principal meant perhaps the more or most prominent sins among those recognized as capital. Tertullian has, however, in the passages we considered, given capital as much superlative force as any other similar adjective that he used in qualifying delictum or crimen,^^ In Pat. V.'2 murder, adultery, trafficking in impurity, are mentioned as principalia penes dominum delicta. Other sins, also are mentioned in the context. They seem to be connected however as preliminaries to the few just mentioned. Among the concomitant or prelim- inary sins we find hatred, anger and avarice. If we con- sider them as merely connected with the graver sins of murder and impurity — and there is apparently no con- texual objection thereto, for we may rightly assume that Tertullian understood hatred, anger and avarice to be 11 Cf. passage adduced above in discussion of the question con- cerning the synonymic value of the terms capital and mortal. 12 Oehler, Vol. I, p. 597, line 20. 92 ALLEGED SYNONYMS sinful dispositions rather than sinful acts — we have then two of the usual three capital or principal sins. Idolatry is left out in that enumeration but it is added apparently in afterthought to the preceding number in the final paragraph of the chapter mentioned. There is however no conclusive evidence from the passage, in which men- tion is made of Israel's turning gold into an idol,^^ that any stress is placed on idolatry as an effect of impatience. The sin of idolatry is not mentioned as such. The sin of turning gold into an idol enters somewhat incidentally into the narration of the several occasions on which Israel impatiently deserted God. It cannot be said that Tertullian sufficiently mentioned idolatry in this passage to give us reason for the assumption that idolatry con- stituted with murder and impurity a standardized trio of sins at this period, at least in Tertullian's writings. It should be remembered that De Patientia appeared between six and twelve years before De Idololatria or De Pttdicitia, in which works the enumeration of the trio becomes more prominent.^* If Tertullian grouped the principal or capital sins into a standardized trio we have no definite proof thereof in his Catholic period. The logical sequence of ideas in his Catholic works^^ would not warrant the supposition that Tertullian wish- ed to be complete in his enumeration^^ of all sins due to impatience, especially of the principal ones. The addi- tion of idolatry, moreover, would have been made with some explanatory remark, and its separation from the others would likewise have been called to our attention for its special mention. This passage therefore from Pat. V, the only one that can be adduced from Tertullian's Catholic period, does not sufficiently demonstrate that in Tertullian's orthodox theology a separate grouping of principal sins is to be found. Still less reason have we 13 "Pat." V. Oehler I, p. 598, line 7: cum in idolum auri sui col- lationes defundit. 14 "Pat." belongs, moreover, to Tert's. Catholic period, "Idol." to his Semi-Montanistic interlude, "Pud." is Montanistic. 15 E. g. "Orat.," "Apol.," "Test. Anim." 16 "Pat." V. ALLEGED SYNONYMS 93 to believe that principal and capital are used with a specifically different sense. There is of course no logical demand for a presentation of the capital sins in the pas- sage just considered, but we could expect, with some jus- tification, to see them mentioned under a standard title, such title existed. The passage from Pvd, V^ offers nothing towards the question under consideration: Nee enim moechia et for- nicatio de modicis et de maximis delictis deputabuntur. It is evident from the context that Tertullian is using the terms most aptly fitted to round out his argument against the edict concerning the remission of "one of the greatest sins." Sed cum ea sint qvxie culmen criminum teneant, non capiunt et indulgeri qitasi modica et praeca- veri quasi maxima^^ refers to the capital sins for culmen criminum is obviously a synonymic expression for capi- tal or principal. In the next passage lATofets autem maxima aut summa sic quoque praecaventur the term capital would well have been used, since, on the one hand, Tertullian was not in need of a superlative for contrast with the following thought, and, on the other hand, the mention of capital sin, if such a term existed in theological terminology as an accepted expression, would have most logically fitted the trend of argument in his first chapter attack on the decree of Callixtus. The terms maxima, summa, and culmen criminum are qualifying expressions of ordinary terminology. A standardized expression as delicta capi- talia would have found its way into Tertullian's intro- ductory argument. It is true, the term capital appears in other parts of Pud. But if we may assume that the first chapter i^ along general lines in so far as it attacks the decree of the Pontifex Maximum because of its assert- ed break with the traditional penitential discipline and its supposedly disastrous results in inviting to further sin, it is undoubtedly very reasonable to expect the use of a term, which because of its accepted conceptual 17 Oehlcr Vol. I, p. 794, lines 8, 11 sq. 18 Ibid., line 9. 94 ALLEGED SYNONYMS meaning would appeal more forcibly to the Christian public or surely to the better educated classes thereof. The body of Pud, deals directly with the arguments pre- sumably adduced by the Psychics in support of the edict. Even in the body of Tertullian's criticism of the edict we find no one special argument grouped about the ex- pression capitalia delicta. As a mattter of fact the ar- gument, or better the minor premise of the argument, in which the expression occurs, is adduced as a secondary element. It is indeed only after the conclusion of a lengthy defense of the interpretation which he puts on certain parables, principally that of the prodigal son, that mention is made of capital sins. And the mention they receive is quite incidental. Tertullian closes his ar- gumentative interpretation of the parables by stating: Puto me et materiae paraholarum et co7igruentme rerum et tutelae discipUnarum accomodatiores interpretationes reddidisse. Pud. IX, 20, (de Labr. p. 106). Then he immediately adds as if because of secondary importance : Ceterum si in hoc gestit diversa pars ovem et drachmam et filii luxuriam christiano peccatori configurare, ut moechiam et fornicationem paenitentia donent, aut et cetera delicta pariter capitalia concedi oportebit, aut paria quoque eorum moechiam et fomicoMonem incon- cessibilia servari. Pud. IX, 20, (de Labr. pp. 106, 108.) The next sentence takes up an altogether different thought, the enunciation of a general principle concern- ing the legitimate extent of interpretation : Sed plu^ est, quod nihil aliud argumentari licet citra id de quo age- batur.^^ We say that the sentence Sed plus etc., takes up an altogether different thought. However, there is at least a general reference to the lengthy argumentative interpretation of the various parables. The thought ex- pressed in the sentence referring to the delicta capitalia is completely overlooked. Difficult as the dilemma which Tertullian interjects (aut et cetera delicta pariter capitalia concedi oportebit, 19 "Pud." IX, 21, ibid.— The English translation very correctly begins with a new paragraph. "Anf." Vo. IV, p. 84. ALLEGED SYNONYMS 95 aut jKivia quoque eorum moechiam et fornicationem in- eoncessibilia servari) may seem, he pays apparently little attention to it, which may be due to the consideration that, for the present, he is interested principally in show- ing what he considers a more appropriate interpretation. Incidentally, the forensic mind of Tertullian added its re- flection to the exegetical product.^^ Not improbable either is the consideration that the dilemma would open up too large a field for argument with his adversary. Moechia and fomicatio had to be demonstrated as the irremissible sins, others for the present must not enter to disturb the trend of the broader argument. Before proceeding to the examination of the other texts in Pud. which use the term capital it is well to note in the present one the full meaning of a few words that are used in connection with capital, Tertullian speaks here of cetera delicta. To our knowledge there is no passage in Tertullian that uses cetera for merely two. Adultery, murder and idolatry are not the three capital sins. This text seems to be a confirmation of that statement. Cetera, we believe with a good probabi- lity, does not apply merely to murder and idolatry. If there are several sins to be recognized as capital their number includes others beside those just mentioned. Eight irremissible sins are listed in Piid, 19. Their striking resemblance to those listed in Adv. Marc. IV, 9, give them the title of capital, but the very difference in number shows that capital was not applied to a stated number of sins and, viewed in the light of the two texts just mentioned, makes it highly improbable that capital had any definite recognized application in moral termino- logy. Cetera in Pud. IX, 20, apparently refers to a series of sins that includes seven or eight or even more. It is a fine question as to whether cetera was used here by Tertullian in the sense of "the other" or merely of "other" capital sins. The answer would have little or no consequence perhaps for the general question concerning 20 D'AIes "L'fidit." de Call." p. 199, lines 15, 16. 96 ALLEGED SYNONYMS the extent and the import of the term capital It might however be of some value if we could determine whether Tertullian meant to leave it to admissible divergent views as to what should and what should not be consid- ered capital. Concerning the term pariter it may be stated with cer- tainty that Tertullian did not use it here equivalent to absolute, that is, eodem gradu. The term capital would not easily lend itself to strict comparison. In Pud, V the relative position of adultery to murder and idolatry is treated at length, in Tertullian's Montanistic view of course, and with more rhetorical than exegetical exact- ness.^^ We may attach more probability to the consid- eration that pariter should not modify capitalia if the latter has an established place in theological terminology. The second member of the dilemma aut paria quoque eorum moechiam et fomicationem inconcessibilia ser- vari does not militate against this probability since paria is used with the evident intent of strengthening the dilemma by making one term in the second member cor- respond to one in the first. Incidentally, it is to be added that Tertullian seems to place more stress on the parity of the eminence above other sins than on the eminence itself. The quality of being capital, or eminent, is pre- supposed. We may well suppose that a much stronger argument could have been made by appealing principally to a presumably standardized title. The other passage in Pud. in which the word capital occurs is as follows : Adeo nihil ad delicta fidelium capi- talia potestas solvendi et alligandi Petro emancipata. Pud. XXI, 14, (de Labriolle p. 196). As indicated above a plausible interpretation of what capital means in this passage is given by a brief consideration of the context 21 D' Ales' "fidit. de Call." p. 198' criticising the way in which Tertullian maneuvers the relative positions of idolatry, murder and impurity, states : "Le mouvement est beau, sans doute, mais il est faux, car pour le rendre plus dramatique, Tertullian a du in- tervetir I'ordre du cinquieme et du sixieme precepte du Deca- logue: en realite, I'impudicite, n'y est mentionnee qu'apres 1' homi- cide, II faut done reconnaitre ici une erreur, sinon un artifice con- scient." ALLEGED SYNONYMS 97 in which the term is found. Sins against the Lord, not sins against the neighbor, were to be retained, if, indeed, alligare or retinere are at all according, to TertuUian, to be interpreted as referring to the Power of the Keys. Capital sins would therefore have to be considered sins against the Lord. Sins against the neighbor are not capital. As to what has become of the subdivision of sins, namely those against the temple of God, there is no information to be found. In the preceding chapter Ter- tuUian had just mentioned the distinction of mortal sins into those against God and those against His temple. It is hardly plausible that within so short a space TertuUian would have set aside the distinction he had just men- tioned. It could be argued that TertuUian is lightly brushing away or passing over the importance attached to the argument of the Psychics based on the power granted to Peter, and that, strictly speaking there is no apparent reason why TertuUian should mention the three classifications of sin, those against the Lord, those against His temple, and those against the neighbor. Undoubtedly the expression nisi forte in Pud. XXI, 15 sufficiently indicates that TertuUian considers Peter's power of binding an exegetical difficulty of very minor importance, as is plainly demonstrated in the text imme- diately following: Praejudicatur enim non dimittenda in Deum delicta, cum in homine admissa donantur. Pud, XXI, 15. A logical argument is apparently not even de- manded to justify his standpoint. Py^aejudicatur is suffi- ciently conclusive to hold that the comprehensiveness of quaecunque, which is used both in connection with alligare and solvere, is therefore lightly dismissed. But it must be remembered that the theme of Tertullian's work De Pudicitia is precisely the defense of the irre- missibilia peccafa in templum dei. Therefore they should have been mentioned, and with special stress. The consideration that sins against the temple of God are also sins against God does not enter here, for it remains to be demonstrated that TertuUian comprehended the former under the latter. 98 ALLEGED SYNONYMS Of course, this text could be adduced to prove that sins against the temple of God are but a species of the sins against God himself, but we think the argument would not be convincing, because of the important reflection given above, namely, that Tertullian's purpose in De Pudicitia was to bring forth all favorable points for purity. Since the argument of the Psychics taken from the power granted to Peter for the remission of sins was un- doubtedly one of their strongest proofs, the inference seems absolutely justified that Tertullian on his part, even though he seemingly tries to pass over the difficulty, would touch on his principal object, the irremissibility of sins against the temple of God. As stated above, the capital sins of the faithful, comprised according to the context only those which were against God. The sup- position that Tertullian purposely left sins against God's temple altogether out of consideration and that, conse- quently, capitalia is not to be interpreted strictly ac- cording to the context as non-inclusive of sins against God's temple loses support in view of the Montanistic doctrine that idolatry, a sin against God, was, as to its exemption from the power of Peter, at least in the same class as impurity. The text cannot be dismissed, there- fore, as not to the point or as an insufficient argument against the term capital as an accepted expression in theological terminology. On the contrary the very value of it in the supposition that it was an accepted term should lead us to expect its use not only frequently in so important a work as Pvd. but above all in so prominent a passage as the one we have just considered. It is quite obvious from the passages considered that capital sin is an expression which had an altogether diff- erent meaning in Tertullian's day from the one that is now prevalent in theological science. The expression is used today as a definite term for the principal vices. We say definite in the sense that the principal vices or evil habits or sources of moral evil constitute a number universally recognized by Catholic theologians of today ALLEGED SYNONYMS 99 under the title capital, St. Thomas" calls a capital vice that which has an exceedingly desirable end, so that in his desire for it man goes to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source. Capital, therefore, according to St. Thomas, means the same as source. No mention is made of the term capital as the equivalent of principal. From the various texts and context investigation which we have submitted in the preceding pages con- cerning the conceptual relation of capital to mortal, prin- cipal and irremissihle, and concerning the conceptual content of capital we are inclined to be of the opinion that the term capital had no set theologico-terminological value in Teitullian's day, that there is not sufficient rea- son to believe that it had the same content as mortal, though there might be some reason for the opinion that capital was most probably an ordinary substitute for the term principal; that it referred to actual sin, not so much to evil vice ; that it was used to describe sins which stood out above others by reason of their greater degree of sinfulness. Whether it was used in the sense which is to be found in penal laws still remains to be settled. We are not concerned with that phase of the question. The investigation of the conceptual content of capital sin is preparatory for the proper study of personal sin in Tertullian's works in so far as it shows in the passages considered some of the restrictions to be placed on the extent of the terms. Though the restrictions are of a negative nature and give us but little positive ground on which to construct the principal outlines of the concept, they are sufficient to guard us against assumptions that are found wanting when sifted for substance. It is true, though trite, that we are only too prone to accept as certain that which appears probable, and so- called circumstantial proofs are overlooked as to their real value and taken for demonstrated, while their basis still lacks verification. This is especially applicable in 22 Ila-IIae, q. 153, art. 4; I^-H^®, q. 84, art. 3 sq. 100 ALLEGED SYNONYMS deductions from terminology. Terms have not the per- manency of concepts. The history of the development of Catholic dogma furnishes ample proof for that. The solid contents of the articles of faith existed at all times in the history of the Church, while terminology, accord- ing to the development of conditions, perfected itself to give the concepts their concrete expression. It would therefore be presuming too much as demonstrated, if we were to accept without further investigation a term as representing a standard concept merely because that term occurs several times in an apparently set form. The term capital, as we have seen, occurs several times in the works of Tertullian and at first glance occupies a recognized place among the terms he uses in designating the various kinds of delicta. We do not find sufficient evidence for attaching more importance to it than to any similar term. Principal has quite probably as much right to be considered a set theological term as capital. To all appearance, however, the term principal in Tertul- lian's time was not to be found in sanctioned theological terminology. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 101 CHAPTER XIII. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL." In the following pages we shall take up the concept of mortal sin in the works of Tertullian. We shall strive to construct from texts and contexts his view of mortal sin both as to content and extent. The question as to whether the Catholic view or the non-Catholic views on this important elementary concept of Christian morality have any support in the tradition of Christian doctrine in Tertullian's day is of course a fundamental study of the investigation of Tertullian's works. His influential position in the early stages of theological thought gives this topic a prominence most worthy of consideration. As has been stated, he was a determining factor in the molding not merely of theological thought but also of theological terminology. As to matters Catholic, his varying viewpoint must of course be taken thoroughly into consideration. It is quite evident to the sincere- minded reader of Tertullian that whole concepts may be taken bodily even from the Montanistic works of Ter- tullian, such as the high esteem in which Christianity held the virtue of purity, whereas correct Catholic con- cepts on certain points are obtained by direct denial of Tertullian's extreme view, such as the Catholic view of marriage and second nuptials in opposition to his exag- gerated opinion concerning the means of preserving the high Christian ideals of purity. In the investigation of Tertullian's concept of mortal sin it must be borne in mind that his principal expres- sions on this topic are to be found in his Montanistic writing De Pudicitia. The futile objection that a Catho- lic concept can be construed in an a priori method simply by dropping the undesirable elements and ascribing their omission to Tertullian's position will find its ready ans- wer in the fact that Tertullian himself has drawn suffi- ciently discernible lines between himself and the opposi- tion. Then, too, a concept cannot be construed without ^Ai k! 102 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM a sufficient basis, either directly or indirectly, in the word- ing of the author, in whose works a concept is sought. A sufficient basis is only that which affords a plausible in- terpretation of the author's mind. It is a significant fact that the term mortal does not occur in any other work of Tertullian outside of De Pudicitia, It is a quite elementary term in Christian morality, and the expectation that Tertullian would have used it on other occasions besides in the attack on the pa- pal edict concerning the remissibility of a certain kind of sins finds justification in the consideration that Tertul- lian's ascetico-moral works are of no small number and length. If the term mortal were to be considered pre- sumably the equivalent of irremissible in Pvd, there is little reason to find it used in any other work which does not touch on the topic of remission of sins. There might be some plausibility to the assumption that Tertullian used the term mortal merely in view of the well known passage of I John V, 16. As we shall strive to show later, the texts adduced support this supposition quite conclusively, and there is no solid reason to interpret Tertullian's composition otherwise. The details of this plausible possibility we shall take up in the course of the next few pages. The term mortal occurs, as has been said, only in De Pvdicitm. It occurs several times in this work, and the passages in which it appears are grouped together, with the exception of its first appearance, namely in chapter 3. The other chapters are 19 and 21. In the former, Pvd. 19, we might say it occurs in an exegetical capacity, and is used to summarize Tertullian's interpretation of I John V, 16. No special importance is apparent in the introduction of the term in Pitd. 3, nor in Pitd, 19, which lack of explanation can be interpreted to mean that mor- tal sin is an accepted technical term and its use is con- sidered quite common place, or that mortal is an ordinary adjective (or substantive-adjective as the text requires) of a merely descriptive capacity. For the present it is not of decisive importance which alternative we choose, THE TERTULLIANIC TERM ^MORTAL** 103 for a third supposition is also possible and makes the speculation as to the relative function of the term quite super jfluous. We may suppose, with sufficient probabil- ity, that the term is neither in the stiate of technical terminology nor in the function of an ordinary adjective, but that it is in the transition period. Indeed, after some consideration of Tertullian's use of the word, one would be inclined to think that he is taking the adjective from the rank and file of ordinary descriptives to give it a definite theologico-terminological meaning. A thorough investigation of the various passages in which the term occurs will give us a fair concept of what Teutullian wished to convey by his use thereof. The term first appears in Pud. Ill, 3 : qvxintum autem ad nos, qui solum Dominum meminimus delicta concedere, et utique mortalia, non frustra agetur (set, paenitentia) .^ As is evident from the context, Tertullian is replying to an objection of the Psychics, namely, that if there be no hope of pardon, penance is useless. From the fact that there is no introductory or, at least, no explanatory clause or phrase in the immediate text or context, one would be inclined to believe that Tertullian was using a well known term. It is true there is no clue to the cause of the term's sudden appearance in chapter 3, which chapter, by the way, is not in logical sequence with the preceding or the following chapters. It deals, namely, entirely with the objection mentioned, the solution of which Tertullian wishes to give in due time in order to do away with the possible accusation of inconsistency in his general sys- tem of penance. The fear of the accusation, which he saw arising in the mind of the Psychics, led tim to break off the trend of his treatise to check the harmful influ- ence the charge of inconsistency would have on his read- ers. Tertullian himself seems to realize that in his sys- tem of penance there is indeed a contradiction which I Oehler, Vol. i, p. 197, lines 14, 15.— De Labriolle op. cit., p. 68. 104 must be answered at all costs. Hence this chapter 3 is interjected. It begins with a sed vrius. There is however in the preceding chapter a quotation from I Johyi V, 16 with a few exegetical remarks, which would let us understand the use of the term mortalia m the third chapter. Proximity must supply sequence in giving a reason for the use of the term. The quotation from I John V, 16 deals with the sin unto death.- In the quotation and in Ter- tullian's explanation the phrase ad mortem occurs three times.^ It is highly probable that Tertullian in referring to delicta ad mortem in the third chapter simply chose the adjective mortalia in place of the descriptive phrase delicta ad mortem. As a matter of fact, the passage in Pitd, III apparently demands the adjective form in pre- ference to that of the phrase. The construction of Ter- tullian's reply and the clearness with which he wishes to state it, make the use of the adjective very advisable. The forensic mind of Tertullian would not permit a disturbing element to enter into what he probably con- sidered a most explicit statement of his position. If Ter- tullian had stated: qui solum dominum meminimus de- licta ad mortem concedere, in place of the setting he gave his words: qui solum dominum meminimus delicta con- cedere, et utique mortalia, the statement would have ap- parently lost in strength, since, in the preceding chapter, the singular form delictum ad mortem had the Scriptural impress, which Tertullian would not easily pluralize. The form in which he expressed his thought seems preferable. It could be argued that a repetition of the term delicta with the phrase ad mortem would have been even stronger than the form which he used, but as already indicated Tertullian considered it poor policy to 2 Clem. "Die christliche Lehre von der Suende," I, p. 98, Goet- tingen, 1897. 3 "Pud." II, 14, Sed et Joannes docebit : "Si quis scit fratrem suum delinquere delictum non ad mortem, postulabit, et dabitur vita ei; quia non ad mortem delinquit." Hoc erit remissible. "Est delictum ad mortem : non pro illo dico' ut quis postulet." Hoc erit irremissibile. THE TEBTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL'' 105 tamper with Scriptural form when the same results could be obtained by retaining the terms used in Scriptural Writings well known to the faithful. Of course, Tertul- lian knew well how to change Scriptural expressions when necessity in extricating himself from an objection called for it. We would say that in Pud, 3 there is no apparent reason why we should consider the term mor- tale one of recognized standing in theological termin- ology. One reflection however urges itself upon our minds at this stage of the investigation, namely, that the term in the interpretation which it has received from its ex- planatory variation of the Scriptural ad mortem would most probably retain the content here given it by Ter- tullian because of the outstanding position it occupies through its connection with so important a statement as the passage quoted. Its further use in Pvd, will, of course, receive importance, meaning and direction from the beacon passage in which it made its first appearance. For here it stands so to speak in a Tertullianic thesis: nos meminimus solum Dominum delicta concedere, et utiqv£ mortalia. The concept, therefore, expressed by the term mortal here is that which corresponds to Ter- tullian's exegetical interpretation of I John V. 16, de- lictum ad mortem. A more extensive exegesis of this passage from John we find in Pud, 19 where we also have the next application of the term delicta mortalia. It is well to remember before proceeding to an exam- ination of Pud, 19 that in the first passage (Pud, 3) we have sufficient reason to believe that the concept of mortal sin as distinguished from the concept of venial sin finds no challenging denial. It is not at all a settled matter how far the concept of a delictum ad mortem ex- tended in Tertullian's view, or what sins it included defi- nitely. As is quite apparent from Pud, 2* irremissibility and mortal sinfulness were co-extensive. Remissibility and irremissibility were Tertullian's only consideration. 4 "John" V, i6, "Hoc erit irremissible." De LabrioUe, p. 66. Oehler I, p. 796, lines 11 sqq. 106 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM ''MORTAL" The objective element, gravity of matter and the sub- jective prerequisites free will and understanding, are not at all in Tertullian's mind. Even the infinite malice of grievous sins as such does not enter into the discus- sion. Tertullian's one concern was to construe his Mon- tanistic doctrine according to I John V, 16. Evidently no accommodation for the denial of the distinction between mortal and venial sin can be found in the pas- sage under consideration (Pud. 3). If Tertullian, in his in Pud, 2. The assertion therefore that according to tradition all sins are mortal, would not find any support in the pas- sage under consideration (Pud. 3). If Tertullian, in his Montanistic rigorism, would have held that all sins are mortal there would most probably be some vestige of his opinion in this or the other texts in which the term mor- tal occurs. He would have had a welcome opportunity to show his belief that some sins are remitted only in the next life, and that others, though mortal, are remitted even in this.^ Though he speaks in Pud. 2 of the sins that are remissible he makes no mention of the malice of sin as such. Of course, he is viewing sin only as the cause of pen- ance, and there seems to be no doubt about the kind of penance he means, namely that which was performed in public. Such sins came under his consideration that could be held to be as grievous as the sins against purity. Hence we see him setting himself the task of distinguish- ing thoroughly and forcefully between classes of serious sin. The concept of a sin that does not belong to the classes of serious transgressions does not enter into the scope of the chapter, although, as some parts of his sec- ond chapter indicate in which he treats of the mutual forgiveness of faults against the neighbor, there would undoubtedly have been a most appropriate occasion to mention the allegedly infinite malice, objective and sub- S D'Ales, "La Theol. dc Tert." p. 275- THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL'* 107 jective, of every offense, not only of the offense against the angelic virtue. The argument of silence, while it does not disprove the Catholic teaching, does not favor in any manner the non-Catholic view indicated above. It could be said that, since Tertullian omitted mentioning the classification of sins that were most evidently not ad mortem, there exist- ed no traditional doctrine concerning them. The same argument could be used to prove that Tertullian had no knowledge of the equality of all offenses with respect to their infinite malice, for, just at this stage of Tertullian's explanations, a proposition by Tertullian concerning the allegedly common element of infinite offense to be found in all sins would at once have clarified the state of the question in his argument with the Psychics. The concept then, which we believe accompanied the word mortal in this treatise as evidenced by Pud. 2 and 3 comprised the following elements: the Church's ina- bility to restore a sinner guilty of a delictum ad mortem, to membership, the restriction of the power of remitting such sin to God alone, and, consequently, a gravity of offense that took the offender out of the jurisdiction and the communion of the Church. The term delictum ad mortem has therefore, in its last analysis, most probably the meaning that before death there is no sign of for- giveness. The sinner guilty of a delictum ad mortem is to remain outside the jurisdiction of the Church, he is ecclesiastically dead. The concept does not deny the ex- istence of the classes of sin that are mortal in our pres- ent day sense nor the existence of sins that are venial, as the term is understood today in Catholic teaching. It plainly does not assert or insinuate the opinion that all sins are equally mortal in the sense of infinite offense. As stated above, the concept of delictum ad mortem, or of delictum mortdle, occurs again in Pud. 19. Here we find the term used twice, at the conclusion of a chapter, in which we find Tertullian strenuously striving to dis- entangle several apparently conflicting concepts of sin- fulness in the first epistle of St. John. The term mortal, 108 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" the Tertullianic sense of which we are investigating in these paragraphs, does not represent however a concept different from the one implied in Pud C* A glance at the text and context in which the term mortal occurs shows that it is merely another version of the Scriptural phrase ad mortem. In preceding parts of Pud, 19 Tertullian speaks of various classifica- tions of sin which are mortal in the sense which he has applied in chapter 3. There is no evidence whatsoever that the term mortal displays any new phase of concept, or that it is used in a manner which would lead us to be- lieve that it is an accepted term of the theology of Ter- tullian's time. In describing the more comprehensive classifications of sin he speaks of those faults which are of daily occurence. Nam nee ipsi excidimAis a qua di- gressi sumus distinctione delictorum, — Et hie enim Ulam loannes commendavit, quod sint quaedam delicta cotir- dianae incursionis, quibu^ omnes simu^ obiecti. — Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiosaJ^ He speaks there also of delicta that are contrary to the daily faults, such as the graver ones and the destructive ones. Exitiosa is the only term which would approximate the meaning of the term mortal. There is one probable reason why Tertullian did not use mortal here in the place of exitiosa, though the term mortal plainly would have served the cause of Tertul- lian's defense more because of immediate clearness, less, perhaps, because of carrying final conviction. The term mortal, as we have seen, has been used in Pud, 3 in con- nection with the Scriptural phrase ad mortem. It is again at the end of Pud, 19 that Tertullian expatiates on 6 "Pud." 19, Oehlcr I, p. 838, lines 18 sqq. Mcminerat et ipse Hieremiam prohibitum a deo deprecari pro populo mortalia de- linqucntc. Omnis iniustitia delictum est, et est delictum ad mor- tein. Scimus autem, quod omnis qui ex deo natus sit non delin- quit, scilicet delictum quod ad mortem est. Ita nihil iam superest quarn aut neges moechiam et fornicationem mortalia esse delicta, aut inrcmissibilia fatearis, pro quibus nee exorare premittitur. — The different text readings do not influence the meaning of the term mortal in this chapter. 7 "Pud." 19, Ochler I, p. 837, lines 29 sqq. and p. 838, lines 6, 7- THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 109 the passage from St. John, which uses the phrase ad moHem repeatedly. Perhaps it is for the purpose of confirmation that Tertullian uses the term mortal in the immediate connection with that phrase and has reserved its use for the specific part of his argument in chapter 19 to condemn in an especial manner the gravity of moechm and fomicatio. The term exitiosa however re- presents the Tertullianic concept of mortal sufficiently well, since the sins termed delicta exitiosa are such as receive no pardon and such for which Christ will not in- tercede.^ We would not be inclined therefore to believe that any modification of the Tertullianic concept of mortal has ac- ceded to the use of the term in the part of Pud. we are now considering. Its omission in connection with the classification of sins enumerated as cotidiana, graviora, exitiosa would, moreover, argue that the term was most probably not of a standardized meaning. In fact, its quite commonplace substitution for the phrase ad mortem at the end of the chapter shows that there was most pro- bably no further importance to be attached to it. Hence, it would be merely an assumption, and not a demonstrat- ed fact, that the term mortal had an accepted termino- logical function in conveying the concept of a certain classification of sins. We say the use of mortal at the end of Pvd. 19 seems merely a substitute for the phrase ad mortem and consequently represents merely the concept which Tertullian had in his exegetical interpretation of I John V, 16sqq. If we examine the concluding para- graph of Pvd, 19 we think this statement will find suffi- cient support. The final paragraph begins with the sentence: Ita loannis ratio constabit etc.^ The paragraph is not so much a summary of the preceding explanation of the ap- parently conflicting statements in St. John that those born of God do not sin (I John III, 9) and that if we say 8 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838, lines 7 sqq., "exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant. — Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus." 9 Ibid., lines 11 sqq. 110 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL'' we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (IJohn 1, 8), as it is a conclusion against the Psychics in the presentation of the dilemma: aut mor- talicb delicta aut irt^emissibilia fatearis. The term mortal occurs only after Tertullian has again adduced the Scrip- tural phrase — three times to be precise. The verse from I John V, 16 is, therefore, the basis on which Tertullian constructs his concept of mortal sin, using the term as Tertullian considers it interpretative of St. John's text. No introductory or explanatory clauses are used to describe the term in its setting at the end of Pud. 19. Its mere association with the Scriptural text which uses the phrase ad mortem repeatedly suffices to indicate the purpose for which Tertullian intended it. To give it more importance than that of substitution seems to place an interpretation on its use that would not be in accordance with a primary rule of text explana- tion, namely, that a text is to be understood as it stands in its objective reading, unless sufficient reasons suggest other meanings. The remaining text in which the term mortal occurs is found in Pud. 21 : Quis enim dimittit delicta, ni solus deus? et utique mortalia quae in ipsum fuerint admissa, et in templum eius.^^ This passage is the only one in which the term mortal receives any further description than that given by the context. In other passages from Tertullian on the term mortal, the whole significance of the term was derived from the immediate connection with the Scriptural phrase ad mortem. Here Tertullian presupposes the difficulty concerning the forgiveness of the delictum ad mortem as a settled matter. The sen- 10 Oehler I, p. 842, lines 4, 5.— The edition "Joh. Gangneii," Paris, 1545, has one small variation which will not affect the text reading decisively, though it gives rise to a probable interpreta- tion. This edition has : et utique mortalia quod in ipsum fuerint admissa et in templum ejus. The quod refers most probably to the preceding question: quis enim demittit delicta ni solus deus?, though it is not excluded that quod could refer to mortalia by way of explanation of the term. Then however it would have the same meaning as the relative clause given in the editions of Oehler and Wissowa. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM ''MORTAL" 111 tence in which the term occurs is merely a rhetorical question.^^ Of the four instances in which the term mor- tal is used by Tertullian the passage taken from Pvd. 21 is the only one which does not refer to St. John's expres- sion delictum ad mortem either in the text or in the imme- diate context. However, sufficient emphasis had been placed on the association of the term with the expres- sion ad mortem in a former part of Pud. It is not to be assumed that Tertullian would be obliged to repeat, after the interposition of a chapter of average length, the con- nection between the phrase and the adjective expression of the context. There is not sufficient reason to believe that this one passage, in which the Scriptural expression has been omitted, or better said, does not occur, can es- tablish the accepted usage of the term mortal. The most we can admit is that Tertullian himself is coining, in this passage, the term for future use. No doubt his writings had a wide circle of readers. The re- peated use of the term in connection with the Scriptural phrase and its detached appearance would perhaps suffice to give his large number of readers an acquaintance with the term and its concept which would make for a gen- eral acceptance of the newly appearing theological expression. While, therefore, Tertullian's use of the term in the last passage quoted might be considered as introducing mortal as the most appropriate expression and suggest- ing it to the theological thinkers of his day, there can be no conclusive evidence brought to show that the term was already established and accepted. Not only can no conclusive evidence be brought, but the indications are all the other way. The dependent use of the term in Pud. 3 and 19 would argue that the term was used merely as a substituent adjective without any further importance attached to it. Even the detached use of mortal in Pud. 21 does not make the impression of an independent term II The difference between the Oehler and the Wissowa texts, in matters of punctuation of the passage in question, is not con- sequential. 112 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" in view of the fact that its use in this chapter follows closely on the use of the term strongly stressed as depen- dent and substitutive at the end of Ptid. 19. Then too, we should not forget that Tertullian, in all probabili- ty, would have used an accepted term with much more frequency in a writing of the nature of De Pudicitia, Had delictum mortale been a well established theological expression, there is all reason to believe that Tertullian would have applied it with telling effect in other pas- sages besides those investigated above. If delictum mor- tale was an accepted term and Tertullian was giving it a different meaning we should undoubtedly find proof thereof in some passage of Pud,, especially in the out- standing parts that show the differences between him and the Psychics. Since there is not the slightest indi- cation of proof in support of the supposition that Ter- tullian was using an accepted term but with the purpose of giving it a new concept, we must return to the specu- lation made above. A consideration, perhaps worthy of more importance than the preceding argument, may be found in the fact that Tertullian is devoting his effort in the passages quoted to give a Montanistic interpretation to the Scrip- tural expression delictum ad mortem. At least he tries to turn the expression with its content and purpose in favor of the Montanistic doctrine on the irremissibility of certain sins. It is quite clear then that in the pas- sage quoted Tertullian gives the expression his own in- terpretation. What precisely the Psychic view on this matter was cannot be gathered sufficiently well from Tertullian's works. There is, however, enough contrast of doctrine mentioned to permit a deduction therefrom as to the general outlines of the Psychics* contention. At all events the term mortal, corrected or not corrected, does not play an important part, and the fact does not even come in for mention as a matter on which a change of discipline or of faith is to be registered. Since however the concept of mortal sin in the Tertullianic sense is per- haps the most salient point in the whole argument be- tween Tertullian and the Psychics, at least from the THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 113 angle, of remissibility or irremissibility of sins, it is quite evident that the use of a supposedly accepted term would enter into the discussion for a large share of explana- tion not only in the state of the question but also in the development of the argumentation. If the argument ex silentio or rather ex omissione is frequently unsatisfac- tory because of undiscovered probable explanations and untouched viewpoints it nevertheless, with strong col- lateral indications, speaks against the assumption it tries to disprove. The term mortal, as we see in the passage under con- sideration, namely Pud, 21 is modified by the clause: qvue in ipsum fuerint admissa, et in templum ems. The various readings which make the clause either relative (descriptive, definitive, restrictive, explanatory) or causal, do not affect decisively the concept (Tertullianic) of mortal. We may safely assume the Oehler and Wissowa reading as relative. If we begin with the context we find thiee classes of sin mentioned. We shall put aside for the present the question as to whether all of the classes mentioned are mortal in the Tertullianic sense. In the text itsel^ we have the two classes of sin : those against God and those against His temple. In the sentence immediately follow- ing we find the third division, namely, the sins against the neighbor. Nam tibi qime in te reatum habeant etiam septvugies septies luberis indulgere in persona Petri^^ A strict adherence to this division is not evidenced in this chapter, for toward the end of it we find the classi- fications reduced to the two: delicta in dominum and delicta in fratrem also termed delicta in deum, and de- licta in homine?^ Nor can we state that the division is edaquate in the sense that the formal objects against which the delicta in deum and the delicta iri fratrem are committed are adequately distinct. The distinction be- tween the two larger divisions of sin ( — we count the sins in deum and in templum eius under one heading as Ter- tullian himself does, though we do not understand why 12 "Pud." 21, Oehler I, p. 842, lines 5 sqq. 13 The text reading here should most probably be in hominem. The use of the ablative has no manifest purpose. ''■iiirr\T»mAT ** 114 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL the latter class is not mentioned at end of c. 21^* — ) seems here to be based entirely on the remissibility of sin. As we have seen, in describing the nature of sin ac- cording to Tertullian's view, the ultimate object against which sin is committed, is God Himself. There is no ap- parent reason to believe that Tertullian changed his viewpoint on this matter. The sins in fratrem would most probably mean the sins against charity, formally as such, though the enumeration of fraud among the ir- remissible sins, Pud, 19, here again comes forth as an objection, since fraud is against justice, formally as such, and, as stated above, is immediately against the neighbor and only mediately against God. The division therefore is not a clear-cut, distinct classification of sins and seems to take into consideration merely the element of irremis- sibility. We admit that this explanation of the distinc- tion between sins against God and sins against the neighbor might not be satisfactory, but we believe that the recourse to the basis of the distinction as being the immediateness or mediateness of the object, against which sin is committed, merely moves the difficulty further back and places it under different terms. ^^ The Tertullianic concept of the term mortal, as we have thus far found it presented, would be applicable to the sins against God and His temple. The sins against the neighbor, therefore, would not be placed under the title mortal and in this passage, accordingly, would have to be distinguished as non-mortal, provided this passage Itself does not disprove the whole fabric of the assump- tion that mortal, in the Tertullianic sense, is to be under- stood as we have tried to construe his use of the term. There is a possible interpretation of the clause: wx)r'' talia qvjae in ipsum fuerint admissa, et in templum eius, which would give ground for a serious objection to our manner of understanding Tertullian's concept of mortal. 14 Namely in the sentence: nisi forte ea quae in dominum, non in fratrem, quis admiserit, "Pud." 21, Oehler I, p. 844, lines 4, 5. 15 We have referred in the preceding chapter to Esser's at- tempt at a solution of Harnack's difficulty concerning the division of sins committed against God. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 115 Namely, if we take the clause in a restrictive sense, et utique mortalia will mean the following: and, of course, only those sins among the mortal ones which are com- mitted against God and His temple. The wording of the text itself would not justify this restrictive interpreta- tion, but in the following sentence the sins against the neighbor are so strongly set in contrast with the preced- ing that there could nevertheless some basis be found for this restriction. However, the restrictive interpreta- tion seems rather forced. Tertullian's usual clearness of expression would have suffered an exception. True, only in the light of a restrictive interpretation would the mention of fraud among the delicta exitiosa find any justification, but then that consideration looks in vain for a solution of the difficulty that, on the one hand, fraud is considered one of the crimes that receive no pardon and, on the other, — assuming that it is a delictum in fra- trem — we find it among those which we are commanded to forgive.'^ The difficulty makes itself felt as a striking inconsist- ency, an oversight, on the part of Tertullian, in reconcil- ing the gravity of a serious sin against the neighbor with his system of remissible and irremissible sin. We are not aware that there is any passage in Tertullian's works which would construct fraud as not being a sin directly against the neighbor. If there should be a diff- erent explanation of this term which would eliminate the difficulty mentioned above and thereby place fraud among the delicta in dominum we should undoubtedly gain a much clearer concept of Tertullian's system of sin classification. Until some such solution is offered, the reader of Tertullian's De Pudicitia will, we believe, be impressed with the inconsistency of his division of sin in so far as the division according to remissibility and irremissibility appears to be a forced one. The accusa- tion of insincerity and willful misleading of his readers, i6 "Pud." 21, Oehler I, p. 842, lines 5 sqq. : Nam tibi quae in te reatum habeant etiam septuagies septies iuberis indulgere in per- sona Petri. 116 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" which has been insinuated by D'Ales^*, is not removed but rather aggravated by the manipulation of concepts to serve the end of argument rather than to meet the requirements of veracity. If, then, we assume that the clause: qvxie in ipsum fuerint admissa, et in templum eiits is not restrictive in the sense just considered, but explanatory, we have an element in the Tertullianic concept of the term mortal which gives us a better insight into the extent of the matter that comes under the title of delicta ad mortem, or delicta mortalia. With reference to the first class of sin, those in dominum, we may well reckon idolatry among them.^^ Blasphemy, also, and denial of faith may be plac- ed in that class. Whether the blasphemia and negatio are to be considered as distinct species of sin is not a settled matter. Negatio seems to be another term for apostasy. ^^ Blasphemy taken in the sense of blasphemia spiritits^^ would be a more intense degree, perhaps, of negatio. Of course, if it is taken in the sense of Mark II, 7,2^ it bears a most distinct stamp of a delictum in do- minum. The sin of murder causes some difficulty as to its classification. D'Ales considers it under the heading of sins committed directly against God." Naturally enough, he finds it difficult to consider murder a delictum in deum, but sees a feebly plausible solution in the re- flection that man is the image of God and that, conse- quently, murder is directed at least against the image. But why not make a distinction between sins in fratrem and sins in templum dei? Why could murder not be con- sidered a delictum in templum dei rather than a sin in 17 "L'fidit. de Call.," pp. 198, 199. 18 D'Ales, "L'fidit. de Call." p. 209. 19 Ibid. p. 208. 20 Bingham, "Antiquities," Vol. VI, pp. 327 sqq., Oxford, 1855. 21 "Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?" 22 D'Ales, "L'fidit. de Call." p. 309. I, THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 117 fratrem? That would obviate the difficulty D'Ales pro- poses. It is true that murder is objectively considered always a delictum in fratrem but it cannot be asserted that the delicta in fratem, in the Tertullianic sense, cov- ered our present view of such sins as they are in object- ive reality. It would appear from Pud. 21 that delicta in fratrem are principally sins against charity as such, also, most probably, sins against justice as such. The impression one gains from reading the chapter mentioned is that the sins in fratrem are those that are mentioned in Matth, XVIII, 21sqq. and in Luke XVII, 4. It is not necessary to restrict the expression delicta in templum dei to the sins against chastity, although we admit that from the enumeration of the delicta exitiosia in Pud, 19 it would seem most appropriate. The ultimate reason for the malice of murder is not mentioned in any work of Tertullian, and there is no context that would give us an insight into his mind on this question. The reason given for assuming murder to be a sin against God, namely because man is the image of God, is in itself no more urgent than the reason for assuming murder to be a sin against God's temple, namely, the fact that the body has been consecrated in baptism to the Holy Spirit.^^ That sins of impurity are considered delicta in tern- plum dei is apparent from various passages of Tertul- lians* works.^* What sins of impurity are precisely to be considered as violatio templi dei is not so definite as to extent. We do not enter here in the question as to the differences between the various sins of impurity, as for instance, whether the concept of fornication in the day of Tertullian differed from the one conveyed by the pre- sent day textbook definition. We wish to give merely a 23 Compare, in reference to the latter reason, the two texts from Scripture which Tertullian has adduced as mutually inter- pretative : I "Cor." VI, 15 : Non scitis corpora vestra membra sunt Christi? quia et Christus dei templum. "John" II, 19: Evertite tem- plum hoc, et ego illud in triduo resuscitabo. — "Pud." 16, Oehler I, p. 827, lines 8 sqq- Compare also "Pud." 6, Oehler I, p. 802, line 25, p. 803, lines I sqq. — As to the meaning of templum dei as the Chris- tian community see D'Ales, op. cit., loc. cit. 24 E. g. "Pud." 6, Oehler I, p. 803, lines 3 sqq. "Pud." 16, ibid., p. 827, lines 10 sqq. "Cult. Fem." II, i, ibid. p. 714, lines 6 sqq. 118 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM '"MORTAL" general outline of the sins that would come under the heading which Tertullian termed mortalia delicta in templum dei. Adultery, fornication and several other sins of impurity come under this title.-^ Do sins of im- pure thought or desire violate the temple of God accord- ing to Tertullian's view? We are not aware that in his work De Pudicitia there is any indication of his opinion on this matter. From chapter 4 however we may de- duce with some certainty that the sins against the temple of God are to be understood as sins of deed. In this chapter he expressly takes up the question as to the gravity of sin: censum delictorum, an ea sint qicae veniam ah hominibus consequi possint.^^ No mention is made of sins other than those of deed. Even clandestine marriages are censured as subject to the danger of being judged by the same standard as moechia and fomicatior'^ He concludes his remark on the scope of adultery and fornication with classifying other frenzies of impure passions as monstrosities.^* The expression ultra jura naturae, obviously leaves room for speculation, at least if we consider it from the angle from which Tertullian could have viewed it, especially in his Montanistic period. It would seem that by the expression he meant all sins of impurity against nature, contra jura naturae, but since his Montanistic at- titude colored his views with rigorism and especially his views on matters relating to chastity, it is impossible to state exactly what crimes he included among the mon- strosities. It would be interesting to know what his views were on masturbation, but since there is nowhere in his works mention made of this sin, we can only make a probable deduction as to his opinion on it from passages dealing 25 "Apol." XI, Oehler I, p. 159, lines 10, 11: incesti in sorores et maritarum adulteri et virginum raptores et puerorum contamina- tores. 26 "Pud." 4, Oehler I, p. 797. 27 Ibid. op. cit,, p. 798. 28 Ibid. Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturae, non modo limine, verum omni ec- clesiae tecto submovemus, quia non sunt delicta, sed monstra. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM ''MORTAL" 119 either with sins against chastity in general or with sins that bear some similiarity with self-abuse, such as pederasty. Judging from the ordinary severity with which Tertullian treats all sins of impurity and the temptations that lead thereto, we would be inclined to believe that he considered self -abuse as a violation of the • temple of God which needed no special mention. If we analyze the closing sentence of chapter 4 : Reliquas autem libidinum fmixis etc. we do not believe that we would place it among the monstrosities. For can we interpret reliqvjobs libidinum furias so as to include self -abuse? If we compare other passages in which the term furia is used we find that it has an element of scandal or of sin- ning with others that aggravates its malice. Thus for instance we find the term used in Apol. 6: licet Baccho iam Italico furias vestras immoletis,^^ likewise in Apol, 37 : Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nee mortuis parcunt Chris- tianis:-^'' Then, too, the term would seem to be a mis- nomer for self abuse. Since we cannot well bring self -abuse under the sins described by Tertullian as monstrosities and find no place for it among the ordinary sins against chastity, we are brought to the probable conclusion that the sins Ter- tullian delt with especially in Pud. were sins that came under the observation of others, sins that were not strictly private. It is perhaps this reason which led Ter- tullian to omit the mention of self-abuse in Pud. Why he omitted mentioning it in other works can, as insinu- ated above, be a matter of conjecture only. Whether he comprehended it under the term mollities remains like- wise hidden to investigation. Of course the clause, si quxi alia violatio templi dei in Pvd. 19, is rather broad and includes in a general way the sins against purity. The proximity of the condi- tional clause to the mention of moechia and fornicatio in- 29 Oehler I, p. 136, lines 13, 14. — Furiae is here well translated with "orgies" in "Anf." Ill, p. 23. 30 Oehler I, p. 249, line 21. The translation in "Anf." Ill, p. 45, is not so well rendered: "with the frenzy of the Bacchanals." 120 THE TERTULLIAN TERM "MORTAL" clines us to accept the expression violatio templi dei in this passage as referring to sins of impurity, though we have our doubts about making this an exclusive interpre- tation, since violatio templi dei, as we have shown above, could include murder, and sins against the fifth com- mandent. The expression, in all probability, fluctuat- ed as to its conceptual content and must accordingly be judged principally from the context. If we are to be- lieve that the enumeration of sins in chapter 19 of Pud. (the delicta exitiosa) is an adequately complete one, then we must interpret the clause si qua alia violatio templi dei as having a definite meaning, that is, we must take it to stand for some other sin or sins besides moechia and fomicatio, Tertullian is not concerning himself in Pud, with monstra, sins, that are tdtra jura natu7ue. Thus the sin or sins comprehended by the clause in question lie between the sins citra jura naturae, namely moechia and fomicatio, and those ultra jura naturae. There is unfortunately no passage in Tertullian that would permit us to construe his view on what constitutes a sin that is not ultra naturae. A passage in Ad Nationes I,^^ c. 4: Ipsi suxim licuit in perversum demv^ tare naturam, mulieri non permisit in melius reformari, is in a context that permits of a varied interpretation and consequently cannot be adduced as decisive in the question before us. The passages from Adv. Marc. V, 15^2 : Lex naturae luxuriae est, turpiaudini quoque et im- munditiae contraria, and Libido autem n^c apud gentes matrimonio adscribitur, sed extra-ordinariis et non twl- turalibu^ et poyi^entuosis are not definite enough to give the concept required.^^ Speaking of the reverence due the naturalness of the reproductive process, Tertullian expresses himself rather unclear on the extent of natur- al law : Natura veneranda est, non erubescenda. Concu- 31 Oehler I, p. 312 lines 16, 17. 32 Oehler II, p. 319, lines 13 sqq. 33 There are various readings of this passage. Oehler's is fol- lowed by "Anf." The following reading gives the opposite sense of Oehler's : Luxuria est turpitudini quoque et immunditiae non contraria. Cf. Oehler Vol. II, p. 319 footnote. THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL" 121 bitum libido, non condicio foedavit. Excessus, non status est impvdicits, siquidem benedictus statvs apud deum; Cresdte et in multitudinem proficite. Excessus vero maledictus, ddulteria et stupra et lupanaria. In hoc itaque sollemni sexuum officio quod marem ac feminam miscet, in concubitu dico comniuni, scimu^ et animam et carnem simul fungi, animam concupiscentia, carnem opera, animam instinctu, carnem actu.^^ Here the ex- cessive is contrasted with the natural. Adultery and other sins of impurity are mentioned as excesses. Sodomy and bestiality are plainly condemned in accord- ance with Leviticus XX, 13, 15 as monstrosities and as ultra jura naturae.^^ While we cannot state with any precision the concept of Tertullian on the extent of natural law in the matter of chastity, we may conclude with plausible certainty that he considered sodomy and bestiality as against na- ture, and, most probably, such sins as mutual abuse.^^® We have attempted to give an outline of the sins in the Tertullianic sense of the term mortal. The enumera- tion must of its very nature be incomplete since the term mortal supplanting the Scriptural phrase ad mor- tem had a different concept among the Psychics than it did among the Pneumatics. Even Tertullian looked upon the term, or better said, its contents in a changing light as time passed and his opinions changed from his mod- erate Catholic interpretation of Christian morality to narrow-minded Montanism. To return briefly to the consideration of the passage 34 "Anim." 27, Oehler II, p. 600, lines 8 sqq. 35 "Adv. Marc." I, c. 29. Oehler II, p. 82, lines 20 sqq : morte punientis et incestam, sacrilegam atque monstruosam in mascu- los et in pecudes libidium insaniam. The insania incesta refers to "Lev." XX, 12, 14 et al., ibid., the insania sacrilega most probably to "Lev." XX 2-5. It would appear from this passage of Tertullian that incestuous and sacrilegious intercourse are not, in his opin- ion, against nature, if we may judge Tertullian to have used mon- strum both here and in "Pud." 5 in the same sense. There is no apparent reason to believe that the concept varied in his writings. — Cf. "De Pallio IV, Oehler I, p. 934, line i, p. 935, line 5. 36 "De Pallio" IV, Oehler I, p. 942.— "Res. Carn." c. 16. Oehler II, p. 487. ^'-ftf^/^-nm AT '^ 122 THE TERTULLIANIC TERM "MORTAL in which the explanatory clause qime in ipsum fv£rint ad- missae et in templum eiics. We have stated that it is most probably to be taken in the sense we have offered in the preceding pages. It will be seen from the consid- eration brought forth above that the clause cannot easily be accepted as a definition. It is evidently not a defini- tion in the strict sense of the term, for it does not give us any of the fundamental elements of the concept. It mentions merely the ohjecta circa quae of transgressions that are mortal, but the substance of the concept of mor- tal sin is not stated. Since the object, however, may be considered a determining factor of the gravity, there is some justification in assuming that Tertullian wished to give in a few words the outlines of what he understood to be mortally sinful. This is not improbable in view of the fact that the Scriptural phrase does not occur in the immediate context. Mere contrast to the sins men- tioned as delicta in fratrem would not require, at least in the context as it exists, the presence of a relative clause. The investigation to which we have subjected the pas- sages in which Tertullian used the term delicta mortalia has sufficiently indicated the concept he sought to convey thereby, namely a mere substitute for the concept of the Scriptural term delicta ad mortem. Of course, the con- cept receives its proper modification, a substantial one too, as to its extent, from the Montanistic attitude of Tertullian. Since the word mortal does not occur in the non-Montanistic works of Tertullian there is ground for speculative suspicion as to its sudden appearance in Pvd, Hence we should proceed cautiously in judging of its import in the time of Tertullian. Abstracting from the arguments we have offered in the various considerations of the contexts accompanying the use of the term, we believe there is considerable weight in the circumstances we have just mentioned, namely the absence of the term in Tertullian's non-Mon- tanistic works, for the opinion we have advanced. The term mortal, we repeat, was not, in our opinion, an ac- 123 cepted term of theological science in Tertullian*s tiii.e. We do not deny however that it was Tertullian's pur- pose to coin the term for the Montanistic concept which he attached to the Scriptural phrase. No doubt, he real- ized the position of leader, which he enjoyed, and saw the influence his writings would have on his own age a*id even on following generations. It need not surprise is, therefore, to find Tertullian establishing a school of t geo- logical thought and giving form and life to theological concepts. It is perhaps in this very fact that we find an explanation of Tertullian's change from the period of Catholicism through the Semi-Montanistic half-decade to the determined Montanistic position he adopted in later years. The eminence his writings gave him led him to believe that his opinions were final and his argu- ments unassailable in the field of theology.^^ 2,7 Such, at least, is the psychological solution we consider as most satisfactory in explaining the determination that we find underlying the defense of Montanism in "Fuga in Pers.," "Jej. adv. Psych.," "Pud."— "D'Ales, La Theol. de Tert.," p. 497, writes : Saint Jerome assure que Tertullian fut en butte aux mauvais procedes des clercs remains, qu'il rend plus ou moins responsables de sa chute. Nous ne pouvous pas verifier cette assertion; mais il est clair que des froissements d'amour-propre s'ajouterent aux ten- dances montanistes pour accelerer la crise, et nous constatons les ravages produits dans Tame de I'irascible apologiste. On le savait coutumier des assertions tranchantes ; desormais il s'exaspere sous la contradiction, jusqu'a enoncer les plus monstrueux paralo- gismes. Profondement aigri, bientot il retourne contre les psy- chici les memes calomnies que jadis il repoussait avec indignation. Si r aprete du caractere fut le facteur principal de cette decadence nous voyons que I'esprit en subit le contre-coup. 124 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS CHAPTER XIV. CATHOLIC CONCEPT OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS. As we have seen in the preceding pages, the expression mortal sin in Tertullianic terminology does not convey the concept which present day Catholic theology signifies thereby. Tertullian meant merely the qualification of ^ certain sins which, according to his assumption. Scrip- ture conveys in the expression delictum ad mortem. He attached to its use the meaning of irremissibility of cer- tain sins, which God alone could pardon, for which there was during this life no remission, but penance only. Catholic theology expresses by the term mortal sin the concept of an offense against God which causes the spirit- ual death of the soul. The term mortal, therefore, applies both in Tertullianic and Catholic theology to an effect of a serious sin rather than to the nature itself of the trans- gression. If we state that the Tertullianic and Catholic concepts of mortal sin differ, we do not wish to state thereby that the concepts are absolutely at variance. There are some aspects in which they are co-extensive. One of the as- pects we have just mentioned. For the sake of clearness it will be well to enter into the consideration of some of the elements of both the Tertullianic and the Catholic concept. The terminology Tertullianic and Catholic applies to an effect of the sin. Tertullian uses mortal in the literal t sense, wishing to express by the term the irremissibility of sin before physical death. Catholic theology uses mortal in a figurative sense and applies the term to the loss of sanctifying grace, the life of the soul. Tertullian has a synonym for mortal, but that again refers to an ef- fect of the sin. Tertullian calls the sins that receive no pardon exitiosa, graviora, but these terms are used in passing and in a merely explanatory sense. Catholic theology, in using a synonym for mortal, applies a term that can also refer to the nature of the transgression, CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 125 namely peccatum grave. Tertullian bases the use of his term on the Scriptural expression delictum ad mortem and makes the content and extent of the concept contin- gent upon a debatable interpretation of the Scriptural text in which the expression occurs. Catholic theology has not based the use of it on the Scriptural passage in question, or better said, it does not refer to that passage for an explanation of mortal sin, and, consequently, does not make the concept depend upon the Scriptural mean- ing of I John V, 16. Tertullian, moreover, describes by x the term mortal an effect that is not immediate, whereas Catholic theology signifies by the term a direct and imme- diate effect. The effect which Tertullian stresses is the attitude which God assumes toward the sinner in the eventuality of the sinner's petition for forgiveness, the effect stressed by mortal in the Catholic sense is the con- dition of soul into which the sinner falls hie et nunc. In- cidentally, Tertullian emphasizes by his use of the term that attitude of God towards sin in general which Catho- lic theology stresses in terming non-mortal sin venial. With all these differences there are points of similarity represented by the Tertullianic delictum mortale and Catholic theology's term peccatum mortale. Underlying both concepts we find the transgression of a grave com- mandment. As to this there can be no doubt for anyone who has only a superficial knowledge of Catholic doctrine and a mere reading acquaintance with Tertullian's work De Pudicitia. Tertullian himself applies to delictum mortale the description conveyed by the term graviora. If we admit that in chapter 19 of Pud. Tertullian refers, by the use of graviora and exitiosa, to two different classes of sin, and that only the latter are to be considered delicta mortdlia, we would have of course an argument a fortiori, since then mortal sins contain a still greater degree of gravity than those termed delicta graviora. Implicitly in the Tertullianic concept the spiritual death of the grievous offender is contained, as is evidenced by the effect of the transgression in the eyes of God. If we recall briefly the contents of a passage in Pud. 7 on the expulsion of the sinner guilty of grievous transgression 126 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS (moechia, fornicatio) from the Church, we shall find there just this element of spiritual death, upon which Tertullian lays stress in the passages concerning delicta mortalia. In Pud. 7 he speaks of the sinner who is pro- nounced dead immediately upon commission of the crime of impurity. Moechum vero et fornicatorem quis non mortuum statim admisso vronuntiavitP It is to be noted here that Tertullian strives to make the effect of mortal sin more vivid by showing its immediate result on the re- lation between the sinner and the Christian community. We are not prepared to state in what the ceremonial for- mality of expulsion from the Christian community con- sisted, but it will suffice here to know that the figurative use of the term mortuus referred to the symbolical death, which did not mean the mere separation from communion with other Christians, but also, as is clear from Tertul- lian's explanation of remission of mortal sins for the next life contingent upon a penance not practiced in vain^ in this, the separation from communion with God. In the Catholic concept of the term mortal the effect of spiritual death is fundamental. The concept of the Tertullianic term is not so extensive as is that of Catholic theology. Tertullian wishes to ap- ply mortal merely to some grievous transgressions of di- vine law, namely those for which there is no forgiveness in this life. The Catholic term mortal is co-extensive with all grievous transgression. What sins are precisely mortal in the Tertullianic sense has been considered above under the classifications of sins in deum, in fratrem, and in templum dei. The term mortal sin, as used by Tertullian and Catholic theologians, has, therefore, some points of difference and some of similarity. From the investigation into the terminology we have found that the concept of mortal sin, as taught in Catholic doctrine, cannot be gotten in its en- tirety, nor in those aspects, according to which it is con- trasted with venial sin, from Tertullian's use of the term mortal. It remains to be seen whether the Catholic con- 1 "Pud." 7, Oehler II, 805, lines 19 sqq. 2 Tud. 3. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 127 cept of grievous sin, principally in its contra-distinction of venial, finds support in Tertullian's works, or whether the non-Catholic contention can be substantiated, namely, that tradition knows of no sin that is not mortal ex na- tura sua. In dealing with the latter contention we find no explicit statement in Tertullian's work that would serve as a basis for the denial of a distinction between mortal and venial sin. (In using henceforth the term mortal we wish to express thereby the Catholic concept of grievous sin, un- less otherwise expressly stated). If Tertullian expressly taught that all sins were mortal, we should obviously find some element in the definition of sin which would offer a reason for the denial of the distinction. We recall here the passage from which we took Tertullian's definition of sin: id peccato deputandum a quo Deus arceat.^ In explanation of the definition Tertullian adds: quoniam, cum Deum grande quid bonum constet esse, utique bono nisi malum non displiceret, quod inter contraria sibi nulla amicitia est.^ No one would seriously state that the last clause of the explanatory sentence just quoted is precisely an argument that denies the distinction of gravity. For it is the mere contrast between good and evil as explanatory of the con- trast between God and sin that is mentioned, and that too, along very general lines.. The Catholic doctrine does not deny that venial sin is an evil or that it displeases God. It is obvious that sin, not the sinner, is the object of God*s hatred, that consequently there can be no friend- ship between God and sin. Friendship applies to persons primarily. Tertullian uses friendship here in a sense equivalent to compatibility. The metaphorical use of the term in an abstract axiomatic statement as the one quoted, does not contribute to precision either of thought or of expression. In the present instance it is misleading, since the expression nulla amicitia might incline the reader to believe that the sinner is meant, not the sin. On second thought, however, one will readily under^.tancl that Tertullian is dealing only with an abstract concept, 3 "Paen." Ill, 2, de Labriolle, p. lo. 4 Ibid. 128 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS not with the concrete application of the enunciated prin- ciple to actual transgressions, light or grave. Granted that in the passage quoted Tertullian considers sin in the sinner de facto and that the principle: inter controHa sibi nulla amicitia est is to be interpreted as excluding the existence of non-mortal sins, there would still remain to be demonstrated that Tertullian is here dealing with penance in general, and not with penance as applicable to the graver faults only. If Tertullian speaks here of penance as applicable to the graver sins the conclusion is not improbable that in speaking of sin as the cause or oc- casion of penance his explanatory remarks would refer to such sin as would be proportionate to the penance treated. A serious objection cannot be made on the sup- position that Tertullian is treating penance and sin in general, and that, hence, his brief digression on sin is ap- plicable to all sin. For that supposition would, as stated above, still have to be verified. We need not enter, how- ever, on these speculative questions, since the obvious reading of the text quoted may easily be interpreted as referring also to non-mortal sin. Tertullian's concept of grievous sin, as present day Catholic theologians understand the concept, may be best obtained from a study of his comparative lists of sins. In these various lists we see Tertullian predicating explicitly or implicitly a degree of gravity concerning certain sins, which will permit us a fair insight into his view on the distinction between grievous and light transgression. With the exception of the passage from Pud, 7 we have in one or more of the preceding studies become acquainted with the contents of the passages which we will quote in full. We call attention to the fact that all the passages are taken from the Montanistic work, De Pudicitia, which writing of Tertullian gives us so many angles of view into his doctrines and those of his opponents, the Psychics. Since this work was written with the express purpose of defending the Montanistic belief concerning the irremissi- bility of certain sins, it is to be expected that the degree of gravity in the classes of sins called irremissible was CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 129 not necessarily changed. The rigorism, of course, that was inherent in Montanism, would lead us to believe that all sins, no matter of what gravity, would be looked upon in a more severe light by its adherents than by the Psy- chics. The raising of certain sins to the standard of ir- remissibility would naturally raise the whole scale of sins to a higher level of gravity. We would be inclined to be- lieve this all the more since we find Tertullian condemn- ing second nuptials as illicit and sinful. Granting for the sake of illustration that entering upon a second mar- riage has the appearance of an imperf ection,we can easily see how the trend of rigorism in Tertullian's doctrine would make a sin of the imperfection. It is quite diffi- cult, however, to see why this imperfection was quite dis- proportionately branded a fault more grievous than the sins lower on the scale. The general attitude of Mon- tanistic rigorism would not explain this difficulty, al- though there is some basis for an explanation in Tertul- lian's extreme position toward things sexual, licit or il- licit. But Montanism in all its rigorism had to reckon with frailty and with laws, the importance of which could not be stressed too much for fear that the precepts con- sidered most binding would appear unnaturally severe. The Catholic concept of non-mortal sin is so logical and fits so symmetrically into the general system of Christian morality that the mind of Tertullian, Montanistic and ultra-ascetical though it was, saw no reason to expunge the distinction between grievous and non-grievous sin. The texts to be considered are as follows : Perit igitur et fidelis elapsus in spectaculum quadrigarii fiiroris et gladiatorii cruoris et scenicae foeditatis et xysticae van- itatis, aut si in lusus, in convivia saecularis sollemnitatis, in officium, in ministerium alienae idolatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis, si in verbum ancipitis negationis aut blasphemiae impegit. Ob tale quid extra gregem da- tus est, vel et ipse forte ira, tumore, aemulatione, quod denique saepe fit, dedignatione castigationis abrupit. Debet requiri atque revocari. Quod potest recuperari, non perit nisi foris perseveraverit.^ The second text to 5 "Pud." 7, Oehler I, p. 805, lines 9 sqq. 130 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS be examined is as follows : Quaedam delicta cotidianae in- cursionis, quibus omnes simus objecti. Cui enim non acci- det aut irasci inique, et ultra solis accasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut temere iurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut necessitate men- tiri? In negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur? ut si nulla sit venia istorum, ne- mini solus competat. Horum ergo erit venia per exora- torem patris Christum.^ The third text reads as follows : Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, nega- tion blasphemia, utique et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi dei. . . Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus; haec non admittet omnino qui natus ex deo fue- rit, non futurus dei filius, si admiseritJ It is the purpose of the following pages to subject these texts to a detailed investigation both as to textual and contextual content. An unbiased study of their mutually explanatory relation will, we are firmly convinced, bring to light that Tertullian cannot be quoted as supporting the denial of a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Nor are we contented with this merely negative result, but we do believe there is sufficient basis in Tertullian's writings for the positive doctrinal concept of the distinc- tion. We might add here for the sake of clearness in the status questionis the various explanations of the term mortal and venial that could be of some value in the con- struction of Tertullian's concept of grievous and non- grievous sins. The Catholic doctrine considers mortal sin ex parte substantiae actus a word, deed, or desire against the eternal law, ex parte defectus an aversion from God, the ultimate end of man, by voluntary conver- sion to a changeable good.^ Venial sin on the contrary does not destroy the principium ordinis by aversion from God, the ultimate end, and hence must be considered an 6 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 837, lines 31, 32, p. 838, lines i sqq. 7 Ibid. op. cit., loc. cit., lines 6 sqq. 8 Billot, "Disquisitio de Natura et Ratione Peccati Personalis/ p. 35, Rome, 1897. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 131 act that is not contra legem aeternam, but merely prae- ter. Principium ordinis we understand to mean sancti- fying grace either in se or in its manifestation, such as the desire to serve God out of perfect charity.^ Etymol- ogically, venial sin means merely pardonable sin. A sec- ond consideration places the term venial sin before us as meaning any sin which calls for less punishment because of mitigating circumstances. ^° Finally, venial sin of its own nature contains in itself the cause for complete for- giveness (quantum est de se habet causam veniae totalis) since it deserves temporary chastisement only and not eternal punishment. It is in this sense, principally, that venial sin is contra-distinguished to mortal sin. The three passages adduced above show at least three degrees of sin. The first passage describes that degree of gravity which attaches to those sins that place the sin- ner outside the pale of the faithful, but not forever. A Christian, who is guilty of one or more sins there men- tioned, is driven from the flock, (extra gregem datus est) . That the excommunication here described is not meta- phorical in explanation of the parable concerning the lost sheep is quite conclusively demonstrable from Tertullian's further elucidations. The separation from the flock is sometimes effected by the guilty one himself, who appar- ently does not wait for an announcement on the part of the authorities. Ipse forte ira, tumor e, aemulatione, quod denique saepe fit, dedignatione castigationis ah- rupit.^^ Such a sinner always has a chance of being re- called. He, however, who has been guilty of adultery or forni- cation can never be recalled. He perishes in the strict sense. What the strict sense of perire is may be gather- 9 Cf. Billot op. cit., p. io8: principum ordinis quod est charitas super omnia Deo adhaerens. 10 Billot op. cit., pp. 105, 106. — Sic peccata mortalia, quae ex in- firmitate sive passione fiunt, quandoque dicuntur venialia, non quidem simpliciter, sed secundum quid, et comparative ad ea quae ex certa malitia procedunt. Cf. Waldmann, "Zur theol. Begruen- dung der laesslichen Suende," II, (on doctrine of St. Thomas), "Tq." pp. 153 sqq., Tuebingen 1917/18. 11 "Pud." 7, Oehler I, p. 805. Cf. "Adv. Valentin," c. 4: de eccle- siae authenticae regula abrupit. 132 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS ed from the principle enunciated by Tertullian in the con- text: Quod potest recuperari, non perit nisi foris perse^ veraverit.^^ Remaining outside the flock for life is equivalent to "death." Perseverance in separation from the flock would have the same effect as adultery and for- nication, according to the Montanistic view. The sepa- ration of a sinner guilty of some sin mentioned in the category quoted above (Pud. 1) is merely temporary, not perpetual, as in the case of adulterers and fornicators. The same principle gives us also the broad sense of perire which Tertullian explicitly mentioned in the preceding sentence: Licet enim perisse dicatur, erit et de perditio- nis genere retractare, quia et ovis non moriendo, sed er- rando, et drachma non interiendo, sed latitando perierunt. Ita licet did perisse quod salvum estJ^ The point Tertullian wished to make is this, that at all events perire, as interpreted by the Psychics in the para- bles under discussion, is not equivalent to the perire which goes with sins of the flesh. Both kinds of sinners, the one guilty of attending the gladiatorial fights, for in- stance, and the other guilty of adultery, are said to perish, both by Tertullian and the Psychics, but the Psychics go too far, according to Tertullian, in placing the latter class on a par with the former when they permit the latter to be recalled. It is apparent then that Tertullian and the Psychics consider both kinds of sinners guilty of serious offense. That there can be no question as to the seriousness of sins mentioned in the category of Pud. 7 is quite deduci- ble from the fact that Tertullian admits that the guilt causes the sinners to perish, and forever, too, if they re- main in the state of separation. Then, too, the consider- ation, that Tertullian chose as examples to demonstrate his interpretation of the ewe and drachma parables such sins that both he and the Psychics would admit as causes of perishing, proves the contention that the sins in the category mentioned were of a grievous nature. This be- comes still more evident since Tertullian permits, appar- 12 "Pud." 7. Ibid. 13 "Pud." 7. Ibid. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS iSS ently with a purpose, his readers to conclude that the Psy- chics considered sins of the flesh equally remissible with sins of the category of Pud, 7. But can it be said definitely that Tertullian's view of the sins in this list imply substantially the doctrinal con- cept of Catholic theology concerning grievousness of sin? The prerequisites knowledge and freewill do not, as may readily be granted from a glance at the nature of some of the sins mentioned, give any cause for doubt.^* Whether the gravis materia is also present in the Tertullianic con- cept must be gathered from his discussion of the sins here mentioned. His work De Spectaculis gives us a sufficient insight into his view of the gravity of the sins he links up with the attendance at the shows. There are four kinds 14 We need not enter into a detailed discussion of all the sins mentioned in the category of "Pud." 7. The last two, however, might give rise to some doubt as to the presence of the prerequi- sites : Si in verbum ancipitis negationis aut blasphemiae impegit. Oehler calls attention to the substitution of negatonis for nego- tiationis in our present text. Latinius is to be commended for the substitution, according to Fr. Junius. Solebant infirmi amphilogiis interdum martyrium declinare. Fr. lunius, as in footnote Oehler I, page 805. The word blasphemy is but an explicitation of nega- tio. Idem ibid. The notions of voluntarium simpliciter and vol- untarium secundum quid will perhaps solve that difficulty, if we accept Oehler's text. We might add that negatio and blasphemia are to be found on the list of delicta, quae veniam non capiunt in "Pud." 19. In "Pud'. 7 however they are qualified by a term that seems to indicate a mitigating circumstance. Oehler's view of the additional aut blasphemiae, as synonymous with negatio, finds apparently no support after a comparison of the two categories. In "Pud." 19 negatio and blasphemia are not considered as synonyms, as is evi- dent from the text reading, which to our knowledge has no varia- tions that would give us reason to believe the two terms to be convertible. The mitigating term anceps belongs, in our opinion, both to negatio and blasphemia, and implies an element of involun- tariness, such as theologians are wont to express by involuntarium secundum quid. The question would be much easier to solve if the meaning of negatio and blasphemia were a definitely settled matter. From this consideration it is quite evident that Tertullian grasped and expressed the possibility of degrees of gravity even in those sins which he assigned generically to the class of irre- missibilia. Sins that belong to this class could, therefore, under certain circumstances be classified as less intense and were not ex toto genere suo irremissible. To what sins of the class the possibility of mitigating circumstances can be extended, is not of importance here. It suffices to have established the fact that knowledge and voluntariness are presupposed as prerequisites in the category under consideration. 134 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS of shows he mentions in the passage quoted; namely, quadrigarii furoris, gladiatorii cruoris, scenicae foedita- Us, xysticae vanitatis. If we turn to the chapters in De Spectacidis that deal with these various forms of pub- lic exhibitions we shall find these forms severely con- demned as unworthy of a Christian, because of themselves and the ideas of heathen worship with which they are thoroughly permeated. '^^ Even the trainer of gladiators is excluded from the Church^ ^ The artes curiositatis are essentially connected with superstition and idolatry.^^ An objection to the above interpretation of Tertullian's view on the gravity of sin mentioned in the category of Pud. 7 could be brought from the latter part of the same chapter, in which certain sins are admittedly comparable in gravity to the size and weight of the drachma. Licet esse aliqua delicta pro ipsius drachmae modulo ac ponders mediocria, quae ibidem delitescentia, mox ibidem et re- perta, statim ibidem cum gaudio emendationis transig- antur?^ Since the whole matter is one of comparison, which permits of several tenable explanations according to the viewpoints to be accommodated, a discussion of the expression pro modulo ac pondere drachmae will not lead to any definite results. One thing seems certain that the expression contains no definite proof of venial sin nor a basis for the denial thereof. Tertullian calls the sins compared with the small size and weight of the drachma delicta mediocria. Hence they are not to be considered minima. The mediocria here comprise either such sins as Tertullian has mentioned in the preceding category of the same chapter, or, and this seems very probable, sins that are, according to the supposition and trend of Ter- tullian's argument against the Psychics, grievous, but not so grievous as those which are mentioned in the category and which caused a temporary penance extra gregem. We say it seems very probable. The text strongly fa- 15 Cf. "Spec." 17, 18, 9. 16 "Idol." 9, Oehler I, p. 84.— Bingham, "Antiquities," VI, p. 402. 17 "Idol." 9. The variation in the text given by Oehler in foot- note : magicas artes in place of aliquas artes corresponds better to the idea conveyed by curiositatis. 18 "Pud." 7, Oehler I, p. 806, lines 10 sqq. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 135 vers this division, the lowest, among the grievous sins. luxta drachme quoque exemplum etiam intra domum del ecclesiam licet esse cdiqua delicta pro ipsius drachmae modulo ac pondere mediocria, quae ibidem delitescentia, mox ibidem et reperta, statim ibidem cum gaudio emen- dationis transigantur?^ Tertullian apparently does not wish to argue on the application of the two parables to those who are only temporarily lost and temporarily sub- ject to castigatio, to which some not infrequently refuse to submit. He would apply the parables for the sake of demonstrating their plausible application in a sense other than would endanger his rigorism, to those who had sin- ned grievously but not to the extent of causing them to be put outside the fold even temporarily. That there is question here of grievous sin is as we have said above the obvious conclusion from the general trend of the context and we believe from the very text itself: Statim ibidem cum gaudio emendationis transig- antur. The Psychics had evidently applied the parables in question also to those guilty of moechia and fornicatio, Tertullian makes no denial of the implication that there is question of a serious loss, e. g., in the going astray of one sheep from the fold, but he does not admit that the loss is serious enough to apply the parable to the sinners guilty of moechia and fornicatio,^^ If we grant, for the sake of clearing away further doubts concerning the content of the text quoted above on the delicta pro drachmae modulo et pondere mediocria, that Tertullian is merely adducing the words of the Psy- chics and not giving his own view, we can still adhere to the interpretation given, for Tertullian does not deny that such a class of sin exists. It is true, we cannot put much stress on such an argument ex sUentio, but it has as much value as the supposition, that he is merely quoting the Psychics. As a matter of fact, the supposed or real quo- tation, is of such a nature as to make it appear common 19 "Pud." 7, Oehler I, p. 806, lines 9 sqq. 20 "Pud." 7, Oehler I, p. 806, lines 13 sqq. Moechiae vero et fornicationis, non drachma, sed talentum, quibus exquirendis non lucernae spicule lumine, sed totius solis lancea opus est. 136 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS ground for Tertullian and the Psychics. It would suffice, for the present, to prove that the concept existed at his time, namely that there were sins which were grievous, but not to the extent of exclusion from the Church. Tertullian was quite willing to admit that there are sins of the gravity, just described, comparable to the size and weight of a drachma, but he was opposed to classify- ing moechia et fornicatio among them, as, he claimed, the Psychics did. There seems reason to believe, therefore, that Tertullian had a well developed concept of the vari- ous degrees of gravity in grievous sins. The fact that he treats the various sins in Pvd. principally from the viewpoint of remissibility evidently does not exclude the fact that he also treats the sins, even though incidentally, from the viewpoint of objective, inherent gravity. The close relation between remissibility, or re- spectively, irremissibility, and the inherent gravity of serious sins permits of reasonable exactness in deductions concerning the nature of the gravity itself, especially in view of the indications given by the texts and the con- texts. The texts that we have thus far considered in Pud. 7 would give us three classes of grievous sin. The class of most grievous delicta comprises moechia et fornicatio, also all the irrendssibilia by implication. Then, those sins which exclude for a time from the Church may be considered next in gravity of offense.-^ A still lower 21 As stated above, the anceps negatio and the anceps blasphe- mia give us reason to believe that Tertullian placed this class next to the irremissibilia,for among them he has enumerated sins which, considered in their full genus, belong to the delicta irremissibilia, but because of a mitigating circumstance drop into the next lower class of serious sins. Not only de we find proof for this in the mention of anceps negatio and blesphemia, but even sins of the flesh, typified in their fullness by moechia et fornicatio or monstra, are represented in the category by the expression: spec- tacula scenicae foeditatis. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 137 class of serious sins is to be found represented, very prob- ably, by the delicta mediocria discussed above." On this basis of a distinction between the various class- es of grievous sin we are able to build up a further consid- eration. The second passage quoted above as entering into the study of the difference between grievous and non- grievous sin is taken from Tertullian's discourse on texts from St. John, which he tries to harmonize for the pur- pose of avoiding a conflict between his rigorism and Scriptural teaching. The passage occurs in the much discussed Pud. 19. There seems to be much cause, in- deed, for discussion. For a careful reading of the chap- ter will disclose the fact that Tertullian is laboring under serious difficulties in his heavy efforts to answer the ob- jections, real or supposed, of the Psychics."^ The difficulty from St. John which leads on to the pas- sage we are to investigate is the one arising from the 22 What sins precisely belong to this last class of serious sins is not mentioned by Tertullian. That in itself would be reason enough to doubt the existence of such a class of sins in Tertul- lian's mind. But then there are no urgent grounds to assume that every class of sins had to have its corresponding enumeration somewhere in Tertullian's works. No one will assert that the enumerations are complete. They are merely exemplary. The modifying adjective aliqua shows to some extent that Tertullian did not consider their number negligible. Their number was suffi- cient to form a basis for two of the parables, sufficient in fact, to. meet the concept of remissibility, which the Psychics wished to associate with the interpretation of the parables. 23 We say real or supposed, because it is by no means a settled matter what part of the text can be quoted as originating from the pen of some Psychic apologist, or, perhaps, even from the edict of Callixtus. Still more, it is by no means established whether any part beyond a few words in "Pud." I were to be found in the original edict, in a Psychic defense thereof, or in some Psychic discourse on the penitential discipline. It may easily be supposed that Tertullian himself put up the objections to clarify his standpoint. The objections, especially those taken from St. John, spontaneously suggested themselves to the minds of at least the better educated Christians, who with their thorough knowledge of Scripture would quite probably bring forth just such difficulties as are presented by Tertullian. — Cf. Morinus, "Com- mentarius Historicus de Disciplina in Administratione Sacramenti Paenitentiae IX, cc. 19, 20, pp. 459 sqq., Venice, 1702.— Esser, "Die Busschriften Tertullians, De paenitentia und De Pudicitia und das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallistus," Programme of the Univer- sity of Bonn, 1905— Funk, "Das Indulgenzedikt des Papstes Kallis- tus.", Tq., 1906, pp. 541 sqq— Rolffs, "Das Indulgenzedikt des roemischen Bischofs Kallist/' 1893. 138 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS texts : I John I, 8 : "If we say that we have no sin, we de- ceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" ; I John III, 9, 10: "Whosoever is born of God committeth not sin; for his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is bom of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother." Tertul- lian sums up the objection by stating : luxta est igitur ut excidisse sibi dicamus loannem in primore quidem epis- tola negantem nos sine delicto esse, nunc vero praescri- bentem non delinquere omnio, et illic quidem aliquid de venia blandientem, hie vero distncte negantem filios dei quicunque deliquerint."^^ The objection here formulated is a quite natural exegetical question, and of itself looked both to Tertullian and the Psychics for a solution. It is not at all clear why Tertullian should have entered so thoroughly into the various exegetical difficulties, since the solutions he offers are, as their very explanation indi- cates, unsatisfactory, and do not appreciably strengthen the defense of his doctrine. While the lengthy excursus on the various Scriptural objections and, principally, those adduced above throws little light on the system of irremissible sins, it does incidentally give us a fair in- sight into the concept of several classes of sins, which fact favors the contention that the question of the nature and gravity of sin is closely allied with that of the remissi- bility or irremissibility of sin, and that, consequently, reasonably exact deductions concerning the nature and gravity of sin may be made from Tertullian's discussion of the latter question. The solution which Tertullian offers to the objection he 24 The variations in the readings here do not affect the sub- stance ot the text just quoted: "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 837, line^ 25 sqq. "Anf." Vol. IV, p. 96, places this passage in quotation marks. The very reading of it will show that it is just as justifiable to consider the objection as placed by Tertullian himself. luxta est igitur ut dicamus is apparently in itself a probability against the supposition that Tertullian is quoting from some Psychic doc- ument. Then too, the very objections preceding the supposed quotation are of such a nature as to incline the reader to believe that Tertullian is merely placing a series of oratorical questions which, embracing obvrous Scriptural objections, demand a reply. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TEETULLIAN'S WORKS 139 or the Psychics formulated is based on a very important distinction of sins according to their gravity, namely, the delicta cotidianae incursionis, quibus omnes simus obi- ecti and the delicta contraria istis, ut graviora et exiti- osa. For the moment we shall pass over the various con- siderations Tertullian gives these classes of sin to keep in view the general trend of his solution of the difficulty proposed. Having drawn a distinction between various sins, Ter- tullian states with satisfaction that the distinction given solves well the difficulty arising from St. John : Ita loan- nis ratio constabit diversitatis, distinctionem delictorum disponentis, cum delinquere filios dei nunc adnuit, nunc abnuit.-^ The concluding thoughts of the chapter deal with the application of the answer given to delicta non ad mortem and delicta ad mortem. Delicta non ad mor- tem would apparently be delicta cotidianae incursionis, while moechia and fornicatio alone are mentioned as con- stituting delicta ad mortem. Above he had mentioned several others among the exitiosa. They are left out of consideration in the conclusion. The reason for this pro- cedure in Tertullian's logic is a matter of conjecture. Did he wish to state that at all events moechia et fornicatio must be considered delicta ad mortem? If so, then the wording of his final sentences is not up to the standard of precision we have a right to expect from so thorough a writer. As the text lies before us, a merely cursory reading of the lines in question will incline us to believe that all the sins he mentioned as exitiosa above (homicidium, idolo- latria, etc) should have received some reference in the final remarks of the chapter.-^ Even though his main purpose in Pud, is to demonstrate the irremissibility of carnal sins, and consequently only they need be considered in his conclusion, still the quite distinctly felt omission of any reference to the other delicta exitiosa should have 25 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838, lines 11 sqq. 26 We mention exitiosa without the preceding term graviora, since we are not able to come to a conclusion as 10 whether Ter- tullian meant the two adjectives as descriptive of the same class, or whether he had two classes of sins in mind. 140 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS been avoided. In fact the impression grows that Ter- tullian himself is not sure of his ground and is groping about for an argument in his favor, that in the vagueness of the discussion he abruptly dispenses with the logical sequence of the various ideas developed in his argumen- tation and places before the Psychics a dilemma to rid himself of the burden of proving the original contention. Indeed the last sentence of the chapter in question begins with a rather sweeping statement : Ita nihil iam super est, and leaves to the reader the solution of the doubts that have arisen in his mind about the sequence of the argu- ment and the existence of other delicta exitiosa which are completely ignored. The accusation of insincerity, which D'Ales insinuates in sufficiently strong terms," is cer- tainly not weakened by a perusal of the chapter here con- sidered. The salttis, however, which Tertullian makes in his ar- gumentation does not obscure into untraceable vagueness the large outlines of the concepts we are investigating. There remains the expressly stated distinction between classes of sins that are separated by an infinite distance. There remain, too, sufficiently clear indications of the concepts which Tertullian attached to the discussion of the various classes of sin. Between the lines of the argu- ment, which he, with legal technicalism and Scriptural insight, tries to shape in his favor, we find enough ground for the assertion we have made above concerning the basis for a denial or aflSrmation of a distinction between mortal and venial sin. The passage we have quoted, which deals with delicta cotidianae incursionis, is not self explanatory. The mere wording of the passage under the obvious interpretation a Catholic reader would feel inclined to put on the text would, of course, have the appearance of prejudicial opin- ion. It is to the context, then, that we must look for a complementary exegesis of the text. One undeniable fact stands out quite eminent in the explanation which Tertullian adds to the distinction of sins in delicta coti- 27 D'Ales, "L'fedit. de Calliste, p. 198. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 141 diana and delicta exitiosa, and that fact is that the grace of God, the sonship of God, is lost only by committing the latter. We could not expect a clearer statement at the time of Tertullian as to the effect of sin, which is, beyond all doubt, mortal both according to Tertullian's terminol- ogy and concept of grievous sin. The grievous sins we have investigated above in our discussion of the category in Pud. 7, are not considered here in Pttd, 19. We would expect to see some reference to the application of the effect just mentioned, namely the loss of the sonship of God, to that class of sin for which the offender is at least temporarily separated from the sons of God as united in Christian communion. The fact that there is no reference to them does not of itself argue that only those guilty of delicta exitiosa lose the sonship of God. We have seen that Tertullian himself speaks of perishing in a broader sense when mentioning those guilty of a sin given in the category of Pud. 7. He does not deny that there is some element in common between those who are excluded temporarily and those excluded forever from the Church. The Psychics had applied, supposedly at least, the parable of the lost ewe and the lost drachma even to those guilty of moechia and fornica- tio. Tertullian was apparently not concerned about the ef- fect hie et nunc on the soul of the offender. His conten- tion was that the effect should not be removed by the Church. The lost sonship should not be restored to /those guilty of moechia and fomicatio. He admits that the Church could do so, but according to him it is not her will.^* It was therefore not sin as such which caused Tertullian to insist so strongly on his view, for, when pressed to give a satisfactory solution to the difficulty arising from the all-inclusive power given to Peter (quae- cunque), he admitted that the Paraclete (ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcopo- 2S "Pud." 21, Oehler I, pp. 842, 843. Sed habet, mquis, potesta- tem ecclesia delicta donandi. Hoc ego magis et agnosco et dis- pone, qui ipsum paracletum in prophetis novis habeo dicentem: Potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam, ne et alia delin- qiuant. 142 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS rum, Pzid. 21) could grant indulgence to all sin. The fear that forgiving such sins as moechia et fornicatio would lead to greater evils is, according to Tertullian's own words, the one reason why adulterers and fornicators are excluded forever from the Church. The loss of the sonship of God, therefore, may be defi- nitely considered as common to all who have offended to the extent of being excluded from the Church either tem- porarily or perpetually, and, in fact, as we have seen above, even those, who have failed seriously, but have not been excluded from the Church, are, as to the perditio, on a possible par with those who have been excluded tem- porarily. Tertullian in Pud. 7 gives the Psychics room to interpret the parable of the lost ewe and the lost drachma as appertaining to delicta mediocria. From these observations it will appear that Tertullian was far from denying the loss of the sonship of God in the case of those who committed delicta less grievous than the de- licta exitiosa. Hence, irremissibility and loss of God's sonship were by no means co-extensively synonymous, and hence, sins of the remissible class (Pud. 7) also caus- ed the loss of Gods sonship. It is true that in the brief space of Pud. 19, in which explicit mention is made of this one effect of grievous sin, the impression is possibly gained that Tertullian meant the loss of the sonship of God as applicable only to the delicta irremissibilia. But upon thorough inspection not even the immediate context will bear out this impression, and still less will other pas- sages, as seen above, be considered as favoring such a view. Tertullian himself is quite aware of the inade- quacy of his interpretation, in which he seeks to reconcile the concepts from St. John: we all sin, we do not sin at all, those born of God do not sin. His admission has un- consciously slipped into the text :^^ haec non admittet om- nino qui natus ex deo fuerit, non futurus dei filius, si ad- miserit.^^ . . It is evidently a matter worthy of further considera- tion that Tertullian, in giving examples to demonstrate 29 Scl. delicta exitiosa. 30 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838, lines 10, 11. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS ' 143 the solution of the Scriptural difficulty and at the same time the applicability of his doctrine, chose for the one part of the contrast sins, which he in no other part of his works mentions explicitly. These sins are the delicta cotidiana, sins which are obviously of a lighter degree than any he has named in other passages. Had he wished to bring out a list of sins in contrast to the delicta irre- missihilia in order to demonstrate the existence of sins that could be pardoned by some church authority, he needed only repeat the category with which he had al- ready acquainted his readers. The mention, merely in general, of sins remissible through the medium of the bishop^' would well have served that purpose since they are still fresh in the mind of the reader from the end of the preceding chapter. What reason could Tertullian have for choosing just the lighter forms of sin and hence omitting reference, ap- parently with a purpose, to sins of a grievous, though not of the gravest, nature? If it was merely to interpret the words of St. John that we do sin and that we do not sin, then Tertullian has uselessly, not to say illogically. adduced the concept of forgiveness through the Suppliant of the Father and the concept of denial of sin. Forgive- ness of sin, or non-forgiveness thereof , though these con- cepts constitute the underlying theme of the chapter, in fact of the whole work De Pudicitia, are not the control- ling thought in this specific passage. They are, for the time, in the background, and the sonship of God and its loss, as the principal elements in solving the Scriptural difficulty, receive the most attention. It is in conformity with these ideas, then, that Tertul- lian brings the list of delicta cotidiana. The mention of grievous sins without any reference whatever to the irre- missible sins would well have served the purpose of Ter- tullian*s explanation. For the demonstration, that the distinction between non-grievous and grievous sins would suffice to clear up the Scriptural difficulty, which had been brought more in consequence of putting Tertullian*s doc- 31 "Pud." 18. ca. fin., Oehler I, p. 834. 144 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS trine to the test than because of any inherent exegetical obscurity, could easily have been turned to Tertullian's advantage. If Tertullian*s doctrine aggravated the Scriptural difficulty in the eyes of the Psychics, then most assuredly the mere drawing of a distinction between the opposite effects, namely the continued possession of the sonship of God and the loss thereof, would have placed before them the very plausible viewpoint, according to which remissibility and irremissibility of sin did not in any way affect the act of sinning, and that hence the dif- ficulty of the Psychics in as far as it based itself upon Tertullian's doctrine was beyond the question. But, in- stead of following this line of reasoning, Tertullian sought to develop the solution of the difficulty into an argument in his favor. The success or the failure of this attempt may be measured by the conviction one has on finishing a careful reading of the intricate nineteenth chapter. Not much surprise do we experience in finding Tertul- lian summarizing his solution of the Scriptural difficulty : Ita loannis ratio constabit diversitatis, distinctionem de- lictorum disponentis, cum delinquere filios dei nunc ad- nuit nunc abnuit,^^ But his inconsistency becomes quite apparent, still more so, perhaps, his intention of forcing Scripture into his service, when he states: Prospiciebat enim clausulam litterarum suarum, et illi praestruebat hos sensus dicturus in fine manifestius. Si quis scit fro- trem suum delinquere delictum non ad moHem, postulah- it, et dabit ei vitam dominu^ qui non ad mortem delinquit. Est enim delictum ad mortem; non de eo dico, ut quis pos- tulet.^^ No effort is made to explain the spontaneous ob- jection that Tertullian, in his solution to the Scriptural difficulty, had stressed the delicta exitiosa as irremissi- bilia, while here the Scriptural text concerning the delio- turn ad mortem can on its face value be interpreted as meaning one crime only, not the seven or eight he had mentioned on the list of delicta exitiosa. The singling out of moechia et fornicatio rather increases the impres- sion of inconsistency, though it is more in harmony with 32 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838. 33 Ibid. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 145 the sense of the Scriptural reference to one delictum ad mortem. It is true, in the final sentence of the chapter he reverts to the use of the plural, delicta mortalia, irre- missibilia. But that in itself does not dispel the impress sion of inconsistency, or inaccuracy, which one gains from the shifting to and fro from the singular to the plu- ral. It is left to the reader to explain to himself, as best he can, the varying concepts of the author. Tertullian has succeeded in giving a distinction which in itself would have sufficiently met the difficulty from St. John, but we cannot help seeing, in the additional effort to establish another argument in favor of his doctrine, an inconsistency, an inaccuracy, we might term it, which is not free from the taint of the forensic art of stretching an interpretation to carry a point. The text, we believe, will bear us out on this point, likewise, a fair and unpre- judiced ,study thereof in its relation to the context and especially to the concluding lines of the chapter. The interpretation which shows that Tertullian is not merely defending his viewpoint but is also adducing the concepts of grievous sin and of non-grievous sin is quite in harmony with the scope of his purpose in that particu- lar passage. His primary aim is the solution of the Scriptural objection in question. His solution could sub- stantially be accepted by the Psychics, too, for the distinc- tion Tertullian makes between grievous and non-grievous sin is based on a doctrine that both accept. But Tertul- lian adds, in the solution, to the concept of delicta cotidi- ana the idea of remissibility to that of delicta exitiosa the idea of irremissibility. If it is a mere question of ad- ducing remissible sins, why were not those referred to that were discussed as remissible in Pud. 7? Peccata cotidiana are mentioned for the express purpose of show- ing that we do not sin to the extent of losing God's son- ship. The element of remissibility is felt to be forcedly imposed upon a concept of sin that would, of itself, solve the Scriptural difficulty. The effort of Tertullian to har- monize the system of remissible and irremissible sins with that solution of the Scriptural difficulty which most read- 146 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS ily comes forward thrusts itself upon the careful observ- er by its ill-timed intrusion and ill-fitting substance. In the objection as formulated from St. John, we find it is true, reference to pardon. In fact the objection itself was brought about by the reflection that Tertullian's doc- trine on irremissible sins would make St. John inconsist- ent. In the answer, then, to that view of the objection, we expect Tertullian to show the value of his doctrine in face of the objection. But Tertullian, vi^hile giving the very acceptable distinction between grievous and non- grievous sin, merely repeats his view on remissible and irremissible sin. The cotidiana are labeled remissible, the exitiosa irremissible. The reason why the cotidixmcL are remissible is Christ's intermediation, the reason why the exitiosa are irremissible is the absence of Christ's in- termediation. The cotidiana evidently are pardonable ; if they were not, all men would be lost. God could not be so unmerciful. The intermediation of Christ and the re- fusal thereof are obviously mere synonymic expressions for remissibility and irremissibility. They do not re- move the grounds on which the Psychics, really or sup- posedly, based their objection. The objection from St. John would, indeed, remain if the distinction between grievous and non-grievous sin were omitted. Mention of remissibility and irremissi- bility alone could not have met the Scriptural objection. Tertullian's reference to remissible sin is, therefore, un- satisfactory because he adduces the cotidiana only. Other sins that are remissible, but are indeed not among the cotidiana (Pud. 7), have been omitted, although their mention and, perhaps, a brief explanation of their rela- tion to pardon should have been made by Tertullian, if he were sincerely answering the objections of the Psy- chics. The interpretation, then, which we have given of Ter- tullian's thought in the passage referred to cannot be said to be arbitrary since it takes up the one obvious solution to the Scriptural objection which we could rightly expect of Tertullian even in the heat of his defense. Granted even that the interpretation is arbitrary in so far as it CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 147 seeks to make the question of remissibility and irremissi- bility a secondary matter, granted again, that this ques- tion should be, and is primary, there still remains the un- deniable distinction between sins, the note of God*s son- ship attached to the non-grievous, and the note of the loss of God's sonship attached to the grievous sin, at least to the ones here mentioned. It is obvious that Tertullian has not denied the existence of a distinction of sins ac- cording to the presence or absence of God's sonship. So much is beyond a doubt from the above discussion. Perhaps the only difficulty that has the appearance of seriousness to the passing reader is the one based on the passage: si nulla sit venia istorum (scl. delictorum coti- dianorum) , nemini salus competat,^^ On these words one could construct the objection that even the slightest sins of daily life are in themselves of a grievous nature. If the sins of daily life were not pardonable, all would be lost, that is, the sonship of God would not belong to any- one, which loss of God's sonship is precisely the effect that shows a delictum to be of a grievous nature, as we have seen in the preceding investigation of Tertullian's at- tempt at solving the difficulty from St. John. Before entering upon a definite reply to this objection concerning the passage si nulla sit, etc., we should state, for the sake of a fair understanding of the passage quot- ed, that the Catholic concept of venial sin can just as easily and correctly be placed on the words in question.^ The Catholic concept of the nature of venial sin is not at all incompatible with the diction here used by Tertullian. It is true, the diction of Tertullian would not give an ac- curate view of the nature of venial sin, but nevertheless it is far from condemning, or excluding, the Catholic con- cept. As a matter of fact, the obvious understanding of y the term venial sin comprises the element of pardon as the most appropriate interpretation of venial. No one will deny that, at first glance, the distinction of venial and mortal sin seems by reason of terminology inadequate. A more appropriate distinction, if we wish to indicate 34 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838. 148 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS the nature of sins according to the effect, would be griev- ous and non-grievous sin, or mortal and non-mortal sin." But since we call a grievous sin mortal from an effect, or, if we view the mortalitas as a synonym for the aversio a Deo, from a proprietas peccati mortalis, so likewise we call non-grievous sin venial from a proprietas thereof. Verum venialis nomen desumptum est ab aliqua proprie^ tate quae consequitur essentiam talis peccati, et non con- stituit earn. Non enim ideo est tale peccatum quia tran- sitoria tantum poena ei debetur, sed omnino e converso,^* We mention this merely to show that the terminology used in speaking of grievous and non-grievous sin is justi- fied by the common view taken of the distinction between those sins. A far-reaching importance attaching to the more apparent than real inadequacy of the terms is out of the question. Tertullian, then, in speaking of pardon as quite neces- sarily following sins of daily committal has not made a statement which condemns the Catholic teaching on the nature of venial sin, since amply expounded by St. Thom- as.^^ If the diction of Tertullian excluded all other inter- pretation and meant this only, that the nature of the light sins, i. e., of daily committal, depended upon their pardon and not their pardon upon their nature, then we should admit that Tertullian could be quoted against the Catholic teaching and that Baius would have found sup- port in him for the proposition which Pius V condemned : Nullum est peccatum ex natura sua veniale, sed omne peccatum meretur poenam aetemxim.^^ We cannot admit however, that just this one interpretation of Tertullian's texts on pardonable sins of daily committal is possible, since various other views of the words of Tertullian sug- gest themselves spontaneously. Is his view of daily sins one that is based on an analysis of the concept of venial sin in se, or is he epitomizing a reductio ad absurdum 35 Billot, op. cit., p. io6. 36 Ibid. 37 "De Malo," qu. 7, a. i. 38 Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion Symbolorum," No. 1020, loth edition, Freiburg i. Br. 1908. CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 149 without any further thought of the prevailing concept of light sin? Thus far we have considered the mere wording of the text. If we consider the context, the matter becomes even more easy to understand. For, as is evident from the principal argument we have constructed on the concept of the sonship of God and the loss thereof, Tertullian has placed suflficient stress on that one thought to carry in its momentum the trend of the whole solution and to override all difficulties. The minor parts of his discussion must be judged, and, if obscure, solved by this controlling thought. The concept of the relation of a sinful soul to the sonship of God remains decisive. It is with that con- cept that Tertullian tries to harmonize his view on re- missibility and irremissibility of sin. How unmindful of the inconsistency with other parts of his division of sin his method of argumentation shows him to be, has been mentioned in other pages. The question of pardon or of its denial does not change the outstanding thought in his lines of reply. The difficulty, therefore, which has been brought concerning the words si nulla sit, etc., must, if it cannot be solved in the text itself, find a solution in the accompanying context, which, as seen, favors the Catho- lic concept of a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Once we admit, as we believe a fair-minded perusal of the latter half of Pitd. 19 leads us to do, that the relation of the sinner to the sonship of God is the established so- lution of St. John's seeming contradiction, the whole con- text including the words si nulla sit, etc., unravels itself with ease. All of us are subject to sin, and that every day. Tertullian mentions the sins we are so liable to commit. And he enumerates the various conditions of life in which we are tempted: quanta tentamur. With all these temptations around us, Tertullian implies it would be foolish to suppose that there is no pardon grant- ed for transgressions in conditions so frequently and pressingly misleading to the commission of minor faults. The following observations are not advanced as an ar- gument but merely as a reflection on Tertullian's attitude toward the distinction between grievous and non-griev- 150 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS ous sin. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, consider Tertullian so narrow minded as not to have seen the embarrassment he would have to face, if he were un- derstood to say that we are continually gaining and los- ing the sonship of God, or, which is still less reasonable, that all Christians, being subject to sin daily, are practi- cally always deprived of the sonship of God. But this latter conclusion is the only one we can arrive at if we accept the interpretation of the passage si nulla sit, etc., in the sense opposed to the Catholic concept. Granted that untenable conclusion, then the whole con- text of Tertullian's solution to the difficulty from St. John becomes one unintelligible paragraph of contradictory statements. He has omitted, as the text shows, all refer- ence to the various kinds of demonstrably grievous sins mentioned in Pud. 7 or, for that matter, to the delicta le- viora mentioned at the end of Pud. 18. We do not con- sider the objection constructed on the words si nulla sit, etc., as in any way detrimental to the exposition offered, which gives the Catholic concept of venial sin, principally, because the objection cannot stand the test of contextual investigation. If we go back further to the broader lines of Tertul- lian's doctrine as proposed in Pud. we find no reason why he should have attacked the doctrine of a distinction of sins, which is based not on the degree but on the nature of the offense in se. Tertullian's purpose in writing the Pud. was, as has been frequently pointed out, and as is evident from a superficial reading of the work, the de- fense of his attitude on the irremissibility of certain sins in opposition to the doctrine of the Psychics, which had been summarized in the discipline enunciated in the ^dict of Callixtus. Tertullian is concerned, not with a thorough understanding of the nature of any offense, in so far as it is merely a transgression, but with those sins, which are in degree of guilt so great, that they are to be considered irremissible. He wants a sharp line drawn between sins, the commission of which makes possible the interpretation of St. John's statement that we all sin, CATHOIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS 151 and sins, the committal of which explains the other state- ment of St. John that we do not sin. An interdependent necessary connection between the concepts of venM and mortal on the one hand and the concepts of remissible and irremissible on the other is not evident from any passage or series of contexts in Tertullian's works. Nor do we find in his argumenta- tion any basis for the assumption that he believed, or even presupposed, an essential coherence between the two series of concepts mentioned. If the contrary could be established we should be obliged to admit that it in- fluenced the ideas in Pvd. 19, and the objection found in the words si nulla sit venia, etc., would have at least a semblance of probability. The preceding investigation has aimed at viewing the whole passage of Picd, 19, dealing with the distinction of sins, from every angle, favorable and unfavorable, to the Catholic contention that tradition upholds the dis- tinction Baius and others have denied.^^ There remains to be seen what light the passage, in several of its de- tails, throws on the interpretation offered. The lists of sins, both venial and mortal, will profitably occupy our attention, and, while they of themselves can- not, perhaps, establish the nature of the respective sin, that is, in regard to the presence or absence of God's sonship, the consideration of the two lists, in general, and of the sins thereof, separately, will, we believe, con- firm the reasonableness of our interpretation. To begin with general observations on the juxtaposi- tion of the two lists, we find the grievous sins called cov^ traria istis, i. e., delictis cotidianis. The two classes are therefore opposed to each other. This opposition can- not be said to be merely a mater of degree. The daily sins receive pardon, says Tertullian, the exitiosa do not. We all are subject to the delicta cotidiana, but one who is bom of God, as all Christians are, avoid the delicta exitiosa, A possible gradation of grievousness between these two classes seems out of question. Tertullian 39 "Cath. Encycl." Vol. XIV, article on Sin, pp. 4 sqq., O'Neil. 152 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS would not be justified in making this contrast so tangible if mortal and venial sin were alike in nature and different in degree only. If it be remembered that this distinction in the nature of sin was offered in solu- tion of St. John's apparent contradiction (that we sin and do not sin) the contrast becomes still more marked. The consideration of this opposition leads on to the question as to what Tertullian meant by the use of the term graviora in this connection. It would seem, from the general trend of Tertullian's argumentation, that his purpose is to mention only two general kinds of sins, and these with the purpose of answering the objection based on St. John's epistle. Graviora would then be merely another designation for exitiosa. Still it is not excluded that Tertullian wished to mention more than one species under the general heading of delicta con- traria istis. This acceptation would be quite admissible had he made any reference later on to the term graviora. But as we have seen above he insisted on adducing such terms and concepts that would readily lend themselves to his doctrine. Much stress cannot be placed on a distinction between graviora and exitiosa, because we have no sufficiently solid basis for the assumption in the text beyond the mere mention of the two terms. The mere use of a modifying term, as graviora seems to be of exitiosa, would hardly grant us sufficient ground upon which to construct a concept favorable to the interpretation we have placed on Tertullian's distinction between the de- licta he enumerates as non-destructive and the delicta he enumerates as destructive of the sonship of God. As- suming however, and not unreasonably, that Tertullian wished to adduce more than one species of delicta of the latter sort, we see therein a confirmation of the state- ment that Tertullian upheld the Catholic concept of a dis^ tinction between mortal and venial sin. For we would have here, in opposition to delicta cotidiana, not merely the extreme class, which, according to Tertullian, is ir- CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TEJRTULLIAN'S WORKS 153 remissible, but also a class of sins, which, while remis- sible, are still destructive of God's sonship. From the use of the comparative form graviora no serious conclusion should be drawn as to Tertullian's view on the substance of the distinction between mortal and venial sin. The rarer sins are not merely greater in degree than the delicta cotidiana. The term contraria would be adverse to that meaning of graviora and, after all, the term contraria istis is decisive here since it fits so well into the concepts of sins, destructive and non- destructive of God*s sonship, and controls the solution of the apparent contradiction: that we sin and that we do not sin. A brief inspection of the daily sins listed by Tertul- lian in this chapter will, we believe, result favorably to the Catholic concept of venial sin. The daily sins enu- merated are : irasci inique, et ultra solis occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut temere iurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut ne- cessitate mentiri.^^ Of these sins we can say without much fear of con- tradiction that two, facile maledicere, temere iurare, have reference to defective prerequisite conditions of imputability : imperfect cognition and imperfect volition Facile maledicere, most probably, means the habit of us- ing curse words without forethought. Temere iurare can easily be understood to mean the calling upon God as witness without reflecting on the necessity of such an act. From Tertullian's wording we believe we are just- fied in assuming that to curse with premeditation and to swear without sufficient cause belong to the grievous faults.*^ The qualifying terms facile and temere seem to indicate that certain sins, that are otherwise grievous, 40 "Pud." 19, Oehler I, p. 838. 41 Bingham, "Antiquities," Vol. VI, p. 356. Bingham quotes Tertullian as saying expressly : "that every rash and vain oath did not bring a man under the discipline of public penance, but was reckoned among the sins of daily incursion, for wTiich private re- pentance was appointed." This cannot be said to be an exact version of the Tertullianic passage in question. 154 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS become non-grievous through a defect in advertence or consent. It is not at all improbable that Tertullian, in using the modifying adverbs, had that species of venial |c<^ sin in mind which we may classify as veniale ex defectu though mortale per se. Not only is it not improbable that this consideration of non-grievous sin was a matter thoroughly understood by Tertullian and, perhaps by a large number of the faithful, who undoubtedly, in their interpretation of disciplinary regulations, entered upon the finer points, as seems hinted at in the nice choice of facile and temere, but, in view of Tertullian's compre- hensive grasp of the prerequisites of sin, the interpreta- tion given fits very logically into the proposed explana- tion of the whole context. Anger seems to be subdivided into three classes: un- just anger, anger beyond sunset, anger to the extent of using physical violence. That there is a just anger is implied by the expression i7^asci iniqiie. Just anger is, of course, not sinful. The enumeration of anger (ex- clusive of the sense of revenge) among the light sins by Tertullian is in accord with the traditional view. Our moral theology text books teach the same. Tertullian cannot be accused of a rigoristic view in his explanation of the sinfulness of anger since in his opinion even strik- ing another in anger is but a small sin. In the matter of anger, it is not a question of the lack of advertence and consent as is the case of facile maledicere and temere iurare. It might be argued that the use of physical vio- % lence in a fit of anger frequently occurs without full ad- vertence and deliberate consent, and that, hence, Tertul- lian probably counts anger among the grievous faults as such, but admits that the lack of prerequisites reduce it to a non-grievous fault. Abstracting from the possibili- ty that Tertullian, in the use of the expression manum immittere could easily have included those instances in which physical violence in anger occurs with full delib- eration and consent, we might call attention to the in- consistency implied by the supposition that anger could ordinarily continue tdtra solis occasum without adver- CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIANS WORKS 155 tence and consent. And Tertullian mentions this species of anger as belonging to the daily faults. Moreover Ter- tullian mentions, as the first of the daily faults and the first of the various species of anger, inique irasci. The modifying term inique does not refer to advertence or consent, as do the other modifiers considered above, namely, facile and temere, Iniqv£ irasci can have no other meaning, apparently, than that of sinful anger. ^^ If, therefore, anger is sinful, it is but one of the daily faults, which do not destroy the sonship of God. We have, then, in Tertullian's mention of anger, an example of a non-grievous sin which is such in its very nature. Catholic teaching concerning gins that are venial ex na- tura sua finds, we believe, in the analysis of this term a very probable argument in its favor. "White" lies, verecundia aut necessitate mentiri, are among the daily sins. Shame or necessity do not of themselves exclude deliberation and full consent. That Tertullian is not thinking of importantly consequential falsehoods seems evident from the term "daily". Hence, small but deliberate lies are, to all appearance, the sins he has reference to in the term vercundia aut necessitate mentiri. This consideration, again, would favor the Catholic doctrine concerning the existence of sins that are venial ex natura sv/i. The enumeration of fidem pacti destruere among the light sins causes, perhaps, some surprise.*^ We are not able to state precisely what Tertullian meant by that ex- pression. The ANF. translation "forfeiting the plighted word" comes quite close to what we would be inclined to consider as the most probable meaning. From the very supposition that among Christians this sin is of daily oc- curence, and that it is on a par with "white" lies, we do not believe that the term comprehends more than neglecting inconsequential promises. The surprise, which its enumeration among daily sins causes, does not 4a **Orat." II, Oehler I, p. 565. Si irascenrum est, non ultra solis receptum, ut Apostolus admonet. 43 Noeldechen, "Tertullian," p. 493. 156 CATHOLIC CONCEPT IN TERTULLIAN'S WORKS delete it from the list nor obscure the fact that again there is no question of imperfect prerequisites. Fidem pacti destmere must be considered non-grievous, as are the other daily sins enumerated before and after it, a sin that is non-grievous in its very nature. What sins were considered mortal (in Catholic sense) in the day of TertuUian is a matter that cannot be defi- nitely stated at the present stage of investigation, Ter- tullian himself most probably considered all sins except the cotidiana as destructive of God's sonship, even the leviora of Pud. 18. Making due allowance for the rigor- ism of TertuUian's works we would deduce from them that the following sins were most probably considered grievous by the faithful : Murder,"* idolatry, deed-sins of the flesh, blasphemy, apostasy, denial of faith, false or unnecessary deliberate oaths. We are not sure from TertuUian that we may enumerate evil thoughts and de- sires to the preceding. There are no passages in his works that would give us enough basis to form even a general estimate as to what he considered grievously wrong in commutative justice. A passage in Apol. 39 will perhaps explain why we find little or no discussion of theft or robbery :*' Itaque qui animo animaque misce- mur, nihil de rei communicatione dubitamus. Omnia in^ discreta sunt apud nos praeter uxores. Indications as to the degree of malice of other sins are so general that speculation as to what other sins were considered mortal by the faithful is fruitless at present. We might add that, in speaking of sin and assigning it a degree of gravity, TertuUian undoubtedly under- stands the individual act, not a series of acts. This is evi- dent not only from his general view on Christian per- fection but also from the many passages in which delio turn is used in preference to a term indicative of evil habit. 44 P'Alcs, "La Theol. de Tert.," p. 277 : II semble permettre aux medecins rembryotomie. — "Anim." 25: In ipso adhuc utero infans trucidatur necc^saria cruelitate infanticidii officio. 45 Oehler I, p. 262. Cf. "Adv. Marc." II, 20; IV, 24. SUMMARY 157 CHAPTER XV. SUMMARY. A comparison between the passages on grievous sin in the early writings and the treatises on the same sub- ject in the age of the Theologians will show a difference in terminology, but not in concept. The treatises teach that mortal sin is a transgression of divine law in serious matter, that the transgression, to be morally imputable, must be conscious and voluntary, implying a separation from God, hence, a conscious and voluntary preference of the created to the Creator. In a person who has been sanctified by divine grace, the transgression means the loss of this gift, the non-participation of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the loss of the sonship of God. It en- tails, furthermore, unless reconciliation takes place, the loss of eternal life. These conditions, elements, and effects of grievous sin are found substantially in the early documents. As we have seen in the study of the passages from the works of Justin, Irenaeus and Ter- tullian, moral cognition and moral volition are explain- ed and defended ex professo. Their writings teach that grievous sin is impossible where these prerequisites are wanting. Even in so early a document as the Epistle of Barnabas we find knowledge mentioned explicitly, and consent obviously implied, as prerequisites of imputa- bility. The malice of mortal sin, the separation from God, the ultimate end of man, is well given in the Shepherd's ad- aptation of the Scriptural expression "departure from the living God." Various writings describe the effects of this malice as non-participation of the Spirit of God, privation of "the hope of life", inrniediate death of the soul, rejection by God, eventually the loss of life eternal. The distinction between the frequent and the single act of sin is founded, we believe, on sufficient evidence. Expressions and passages, have been adduced which, we 158 SUMMARY believe, will solve the doubt as to whether the early Christians, by grievous sin, meant the individual trans- gression or the habit, the frequent repetition of disre- gard for divine law. The division of sins into those of thought, word, and deed is evident from many passages. Irenaeus is the first to mention the three species explicitly. The sins mentioned in the Didache as grievous seem to have been considered such in all the subsequent docu- ments. Others were added to the list in the course of time, but more by way of comprehensiveness than by way of an attempt at a reconstructed enumeration. Idolatry, heresy, apostasy, murder, sins of impurity, theft, robbery, false witnessing, these transgressions of the divine law were consistently considered grievous. A satisfactory comparison of the variations or differences in enumeration in the various documents can be attempt- ed only after the terms of morality in Scripture and their definite value in the early writings are established. In our opinion the terms mortal and capital were not standardized expressions, nor can it be demonstrated from Tertullian's work that they were used synonymous- ly. There seems to be conclusive proof that a distinction was made between mortal and venial sin even in the Pre- Tertullianic period. Passages of the Didache strongly support this contention. We are satisfied that Tertullian had a precise concept of the distinction between mortal and venial sin. His solution of the Scriptural assertions that we do sin and do not sin, by adducing the peccata cotidiana as non-de- structive of God's sonship and the peccata exitiosa as de- structive thereof, discloses his mind on this question. BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY. Adam, Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians (in Forschungen zur Christ. Literatur u.Dogmengeschichte, VI. Heft 4) Paderbom, 1907. D'Ales, La Theologie de Tertullien, Paris, 1905. D'Ales, UEdit de Calliste, Paris, 1914. Allen, The Continuity of Christian Thought, New York, 1900. Alphonsus, St., Theologia Moralis, ed. Haringer, Ratis- bonae, 1846. Ante-Nicene Fathers, The, 10 vols. (American Reprint of Edinburgh Edition) New York, 1899. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, 3 vols., 2nd ed. Freiburg i.Br. 1914. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd ed. Freiburg i. Br. 1901, (Bardenhewer-Shahan, Eng. ed. St. Louis, 1908). Bartman, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 2nd ed. Freiburg i. Br., 1911. Batiffol, Etudes d'Histoire et de Theologie Positive, Paris, 1902. Baumeister, Die Ethik des Pastor Hermae, Freiburg i. B. 1912. Biblical and Theological Studies, Faculty of Princeton Seminary. New York, 1912. BiGELMAiR, Die Beteiligung der Christen am offentlichen Leben in vorconstantinischer Zeit. Muenchen, 1902. Billot, Disquisitio de Natura et Ratione Peccati Person- alis, 2nd, ed. Rome, 1897. Bingham, Antiquities, Vols. 6, 7. Oxford, 1855. Bona VENTURE, St., Opera Omnia, Comment, in Sent. II, dist. 35, dub. 6. (vol. II). Quaracchi, 1885. BOUQUILLON, Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis, 2nd ed. Bruges, 1890. Carpenter, Phases of Early Christianity. New York, 1916. Catholic Encyclopedia, The, New York, 1912. Casey, Notes on a History of Auricular Confession, Philadelphia, 1889. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre von der Suende. (1st Part). Gottingen, 1897. Cruttwell, a Literary History of Early Christianity. 2 vols. London, 1893. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae — Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli, Presbyteri Societatis Jesu. Paris, 1892. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament. New York, 1904. 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. 10th ed. (Bannwart) Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1908. Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, Lon- don, 1870. DiGBY, Mores Catholici. New York, 1905. DoBSCHUETZ, Christian Life in the Primitive Church. (Transl. from German). New York, 1904. DOllinger, Hippolyttis and Callistus, (Transl. from Germ.). Edinburgh, 1876. Donaldson, History of Christian Literature and Doc- trine, 3 vols. London, 1866. Du Cange, Glossarium Graedtatis, 2 vols. London, 1688. Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, 3rd ed. Paris, 1902. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre For- schung seit 1880. Freiburg i. Br., 1894. Ehrhard, Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Er- for schung von 1884-1900. 1st part. Freiburg i. B. 1900. ESSER, Die Bu^sschriften Tertullians, De Paenitentia und De Pudicitia und das IndulgenzediUt des Papstes Kallistus, Programme of the University of Bonn, 1905. Expositor, The, London, 1910, 1913. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1889. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity. London, 1882. Fisher, History of Christian DoctHne. New York, 1896. Fisher, The Beginnings of Chinstianity, New York, 1890. Flemming, Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Maertyrers. Leipzig, 1892. Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur und Dogmenges- chichte. Vol. VIII, 1908. Foster, Studies in Theology — Sin. New York, 1899. Funk, KirchengeschichtUche Abhandlungen und Unter- suchungen, 2 vols. Paderbom, 1897. "FvtUKfPatres Apostolici, 2 vols. 2nd ed. Tuebingen, 1901. Gebhardt und Harnack, Texte und Unter suchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig, 1886. sqq. Goepfert, Moraltheologie, 3 vols. 7th ed. Paderborri, 1913. Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, 3rd ed., Breslau, 1897. Harnack, History of Dogma, vols. I, II. (Transl. from 3d German edition) Boston, 1896. BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 Harnack, Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebiits, (Chronologie 2) Leipzig, 1904. Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, 2 vols. New York, 1916, 1918. Herders KircherUexicon (various articles) Heron, The Church of the Sub-Apostolic Age, London, 1888. Irish Theological Quarterly, The, 1917. Journal of Theological Studies, The, vol. 4. London, 1902- 1903. Kraus, Real'Encyklopddie der Christlichen Alterthuem- er, 2 vols. Freiburg i. B. 1886. KiHN, Patrologie, vol. I, Paderbom, 1904. Klee, Histoire des Dogmes, 3 vols, (transl. from Germ.) Liege, 1850. Koch-Preuss, Handbook of Moral Theology, vol. II, St. Louis, 1919. Krueger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. (2nd ed.). Freiburg i. B. 1898. KUNZE, Die Gotteslehre des Irenaeus.. Leipzig, 1891. KURTSCHEID, Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtlichen Enturickelung, Freiburg i. B. 1912. De Labriolle, Tertullien, Paris, 1906. Lea, History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences, Philadelphia, 1896. Lehmkuhl, Theologie Moralis, 2 vols. 3rd ed. Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1886. LiNSENMANN, Lehrbuch der Moral-Theologie, Freiburg i. B. 1878. LOWRIE, The Church and its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times, Vol. I, New York, 1904. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and its Antagon- ists. (Transl. from 6th German ed.) New York, 1904. McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical Theolo- gy and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. VI, New York, 1876. MONCEAUX, Histoire Litteraire de L'Afrique Chretienne, Vol. I, Paris, 1901. MORINUS, Commentarius Historicus de Disciplina in Ad^ ministratione Sacramenti Paenitentiae, Venice, 1702. Migne, Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus, vols. I- VII, Paris, 1886. MOULTON and Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testa^ ment, 2nd ed. New York, 1900. 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY Mueller, Die ChristUche Lehre von der Siinde, 5th ed. Breslau, 1867. Mueller, Kirchengeschichte, 2 vols. Tubingen, 1905 . Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, 8th ed. London, 1891. NiRSCH, Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik, vol. I, Mainz, 1881. Noeldechen, Tertullian. Gotha, 1890. NOLDEN, Summa Theologiae M oralis, 3 vols.; 11th ed. Innsbruck, 1914. O'DONNELL, Penance in the Early Church, Dublin, 1907. Oehler, Tertulliani Opera Omnia, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1853. Otten, Manvjal of the History of Dogmas. 2 vols. St. Louis, 1918. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VII, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1897. POHLE, Lehrbuch der Dognmtik, vol. III. Paderbom, 1906. (2nded.). Prat, La Theologie de Saint Paul, Paris, 1912. Preuschen, Tertullian's Schriften de paenitentia und de pudicitia, Giessen, 1890. Preuschen, Vollstdndiges Griechisch-Deutsches Hand- worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Giessen, 1910. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance, (Trans, from 2nd German ed., 1910), St. Louis, 1913. Realencyclopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd ed. (19th vol.) Leipzig, 1907. Reifferscheid-Wissowa-Kroymann. Tertulliani Opera. vol. 20, pars I, Vienna, 1890. Resch, Das Aposteldekret, etc. in TU. vol. 13, Heft 3, N. F. Leipzig, 1905. Revue d'Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses, Paris, 1897. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques, Nos. 1-2. Paris, 1920. Revue du Clerge Francais, 1907. ROLFFS, Da^ Indulgenzedikt des roemischen Bischofs Kallist in TU, II, Leipzig, 1893. Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, The, Neiv. New York, 1908. Scheeben, Handbuch der Dogmatik, Vol. 2. Frei- burg i. B., 1878. Schenk, Zum ethischen Lehrbegriff des Hirten, Aschersleben. 1886. Schiele, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4 vols. Tubingen, 1913. BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 SCHLECHT, Doctrina XII Apostolorum-Die Apostellehre in der Liturgie der katholischen Kirche, Freiburg i. Br., 1901. SCHMITZ, Die Busshuecher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche, Mainz, 1883. SCHULZE, Die Entvnckelung der Hauptlaster-u, Haupt- tugendlehre von Gregor d. Gr. bis Petrus Lomh. u, ihr Einfluss auf die fruehdeutsche Literatur. Greif- enwald, 1914. SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte der vornicaenischen Zeit. Muenster, 1862. SCULLARD, Early Christian Ethics in the West, London, 1907. Shahan, The Beginnings of Christianity, New York, 1903. SiMAR, Dogmatik, 3rd ed. Freiburg i. B., 189. Slaten, Qioalitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and their Translation in the Revised Version. Chicago, 1918. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine PeHods, B. C. 146— A. D. 1100. New York, 1887. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, New York, 1905. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament. New York, 1903. Stevens, The Pauline Theology. New York, 1900. Strong, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. New York, 1893. Suarez, Opera Omnia, vols. 4, 9. Paris, 1856. Theologische Quartalschrift. Tuebingen, 1872, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918. Thomas, St., Summa Theologica, Prima Secundae, QQ. LXXI-LXXXIX. De Malo, QQ. I- VIII. Paris, 1856. TiXERONT, Apologetical Studies. (Transl. from French) St. Louis, 1917. TiXERONT, Histoire des Dogmes, vol. I, La theologie An- teniceenne, 10th ed. Paris, 1905. Van Ackeren, Die althochdeutschen Bezeichnungen der septem pecc. crim. u. ihrer filial. Dortmund, 1904. VOLLERT, Tertullian's dogmatische und ethische Grund- anschauung. Guetersloh, .1905. Watkins, a History of Penance, 2 vols., London 1920. Windisch, Taufe und Suende im aeltesten Christentum bis auf Origenes. Tuebingen, 1908. Zeitschrift fuer katholische Theologie. Innsbruck, 1887, 1889, 1907, 1910. ZOECKLER, Beitrag z. Dogmen-u. Sittengeschichte, Muen- chen, 1893. (Articles by Vacandard, Boudinhon, Stufler, Funk, Bruders, Fechtrup et al. in reviews mentioned). ^ UNIVERSITAS CATHOLICA AMERICAE WASHINGTON, D. C. S. FACULTAS-THEOLOGICA 1919-20 DEUS LUX MEA THESES QUAS AD DOCTORATUS GRADUM IN SACRA THEOLOGIA APUD UNIVERSITATEM CATHOLICAM AMERICAE CONSEQUENDUM PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT HUBERTUS LUDOVICUS MOTRY, S. T. L., SACERDOS DIOECESIS ALBANENSIS MORA IX A. M. DIE I lUNII A. D. MCMXX No. 15 THESES 167 THESES. I. A well defined concept of the nature and effects of grievous sin existed in early Christianity. II. The prerequisite conditions of imputability, namely, moral cognition and moral volition, were defended ex professo. III. The explicit division of sins into those of thought, word and deed dates back to St. Irenaeus. IV. Sins mentioned in the Didache as grievous were con- sistently considered such in subsequent documents. V. There is not sufficient evidence to show that "mortal" and "capital" were standardized theological terms at the time of Tertullian. VI. The various passages of his works in which the terms "mortal" and '^capital" occur do not support the conten- tion that these terms were synonymous. VII. The Tertullianic term "mortal sin" represented the following conceptual content: the restriction of the power of remitting such sin to God alone and a gravity of offense that took the offenders out of the jurisdiction and the communion of the Church for life. VIII. The Didache very probably implies a distinction be- tween grievous and non-grievous transgression. IX. In Tertullian's works we find conclusive proof that there existed in his time a precise concept of the distinc- tion between mortal and venial sin. X. Even the distinction between "peccata venialia ex 168 THESES genere suo" and "peccata venialia ex imperfectione actus" is sufficiently outlined by Tertullian. XI. Ad rationem peccati concurrunt substantia actus et de- fectus rectitudinis. XII. Privatio debitae rectitudinis actui morali inest, in quantum caret commensuratione ad regulam legis aeternae der dictamen conscientiae voluntati applicatam. XIII. Malum morale nee esse nee concipi potest abstractions facta a lege Dei et fine quem respicit lex divina. XIV. Peccatum mortale ex parte substantiae actus conveni- enter definitur: dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem aeternam. Ex parte vero defectus, aversio a Deo, fine ultimo, per voluntariam conversionem ad bonum commutabile. XV. Peccatum veniale est actio moraliter mala quae non tollit principium ordinis ad Deum, finem ultimum. XVI. Variae normae (S. Thomae, Scoti, Vasquezii) ad stabi- liendam specificam distinctionem peccatorum reipsa ab invicem non differunt. XVII. Proximo malum temporale desiderare ob bonum finem non est contra caritatem. XVIII. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum. XIX. Illicitum est sponte vocare ministrum haereticum, ut ipse moribundo solatia religionis praebeat. XX. Qui libere iurat se aliquid facturum, peculiari reli- gionis obligatione tenetur implendi quod iureiurando firmaverit. THESES 169 XXI. Nunquam licet propria auctoritate se ipsum directe occidere. XXII. Non licet aggressorem famae occidere. XXIII. There exists a moral obligation to distribute the great- er part of superflous goods or income. XXIV. Testis, qui legitime interrpgatus celat veritatem sed falsum non dicit, probabiliter ad restitutionem non tene- tur. XXV. Secretum commissum strictius obligat quam secretum naturale, atque etiam secretum promissum. XXVI. Non in unanimitate explicationum, sed potius in con- tinua attestationum catena, consistit traditio catholica; ac proinde a veritate aberrant ii qui dogmata catholica ab explicationibus theologicis eorumdem non sedulo dis- creverint. XXVII. Reiicienda est sententia iuxta quam "dogmata quae Ecclesia perhibet tanquam revelata, non sunt veritates a caelo delapsae, sed sunt interpretatio quaedam factorum religiosorum, quam humana mens laborioso conatu sibi comparavit." Ex decreto Lamentabili, No. 22. XXVIII. Quod christianae religionis dogmata aut ex philoso- phorum antiquorum placitis deprompta fuerint, aut ad instar germinis biologici profecerint, historia teste, sus- tineri nequit. XXIX. Non in concupiscentia, sed in privatione vitae super- naturalis sita est peccati originalis essentia. XXX. Conceptus naturae purae a theologis exaratus, licet speculationi potius quam historiae innitatur, medium ap- tum praebet ad doctrinam peccati originalis comparative intelligendam. 170 THESES XXXI. Spiritus Sancti inhabitatio a gratia sanctificante dia- tinguitur, quamvis nunquam separetur. XXXII. Propter hanc novam vitam animae inhaerentem, non solum filii Dei nominamur, sed et revera sumus. XXXIII. Continuam esse gratiam cum vita nostra naturali, licet ab eadem distinctam, ex concreto examine axiomatis, quod scilicet "gratia non tollit, sed perficit naturam/' luculenter demonstrari posse asserimus. XXXIV. In iis quae Sanctus Thomas contra Lombardum de natura gratiae disserentem urgebat, inveniuntur princi- pia non solum ad exortas controversias, sed ad futuras etiam dirimendas apta, quasi ipse praesagiens has quo- que prae oculis habuisset. XXXV. Admittendam esse gratiam ab actuali distinctam per modum doni permanentis, quod habeat rationem qualita- tis et habitus, non solum traditionis documentis, sed et argumentis Sancti Thomae apertissime constat. XXXVI. Prohibentur clerici per se vel per alios negotiationem aut mercaturam exercere sive in propriam sive in aliorum utilitatem. Canon 142. XXXVII. Si, non obstante praescripto can. 520, 521, aliqua reli- giosa, ad suae conscientiae tranquillitatem, confessarium adeat, ab Ordinario loci pro mulieribus approbatum, con- f essio in qualibet ecclesia vel oratiorio etiam semi-publico peracta, valida et licita est, revocato quolibet contrario privilegio ; neque Antistita id prohibere potest aut de ea re inquirere, ne indirecte quidem ; et religiosae nihil An- tistitae referre tenentur. Canon 522. XXXVIII. Religiosae omnes, cum graviter aegrotant, licet mortis periculum absit, quemlibet sacerdotem ad mulierum con- fessiones excipiendas appi-obatum, etsi non destinatum THESES 171 religiosis, arcessere possunt eique, perdurante gravi in- firmitate, quoties voluerint, confiteri, nee Antistita potest eas sive directe sive indirecte prohibere. Canon 523. XXXIX. Unicum peccatum ratione sui reservatum Sanctae Sedi est falsa delatio, qua sacerdos innocens accusatur de crimine soUicitationis apud iudices ecclesiasticos. Canon 894. XL. Scientia aut opinio nullitatis matrimonii consensum matrimonialem neccessario non excludit. Canon 1085. XLI. Sacra Scriptura non solum in rebus ad fidem per se spectantibus, sed in omnibus et singulis partibus divini- tus inspirata est. XLII. Nullum inter protocanonicos et deuterocanonicos li- bros discrimen ostendunt epistolae S. Clementis Romani atque Pastor Hermae. XLIII. The chronological data of the Old Testament are not at variance with the findings of prehistoric archaeology in regard to the first appearance of man on the earth. XLIV. An examination of the first Gospel shows that the author was a Christian of Jewish origin, and that he wrote his Gospel for readers who were converted from Judaism. XLV. The education of St. Paul before his conversion fitted him providentially for his mission of spreading the uni- versal gospel. XLVI. The miraculous element in the Gospels is so intimately woven into the narrative that one may not consistently reject the miracles as spurious and accept the sayings of Jesus as authentic. XLVII. The wonderful cures wrought by Jesus defy all at- 172 THESES tempts to explain them on the basis of hypnotism or mind-cures. XLVIII. St. Paul is a most powerful witness to the reality of Christ's bodily resurrection. XLIX. The transcendent excellence of Jesus* moral and reli- gious teaching points to the truth of His claim to be divine. L. The teaching of Jesus in regard to man's duties to God runs directly counter to the principles of religious in- difference. LI. Certum videtur omnia sacramenta a Christo imme- diate esse instituta. LII. Ad validitatem sacramenti requiritur et sufficit in ministro intentio virtualis. LIII. Sacramentorum valor non pendet a sanctitate vel fide ministri. LIV. Conversio totius substantiae panis in substantiam cor- poris Christi Domini nostri et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis eius convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica ecclesia transsubstantiatio est appellata. LV. Sacramentum poenitentiae lapsis post baptismum ad salutem est necessarium ut nondum regeneratis ipse baptismus. LVI. A comparative study of Tertullian's De Paenitentia and De Pudidtia justifies the conclusion that the edict of Callixtus is not to be considered as having brought about an innovation in the early penitential practice. LVII. The reference to one class of serious sin only in the THESES 173 edict of Callixtus finds a plausible explanation in the con- dition of the Church at the time the edict was issued. LVIII. The Galileo affair cannot be adduced as evidence of the Church's opposition to true science. LIX. The action of Henry VIII in suppressing the English monasteries, dictated as it was by cupidity, was in- jurious to the best interests of the kingdom. LX. England's breach with the Papacy was due to the divorce of Henry VIII rather than to irritation engen- dered by foreign domination. Vidit Sacra Facultas : JOANNES A. RYAN, S.T.D., p.t. Decanus. PETRUS GUILDAY, Ph.D., p.t. a Secretis. Vidit Rector Universitatis : ♦THOMAS J. SHAHAN, S.T.D., J.U.L. 174 BIOGRAPHY BIOGRAPHY. The author of this dissertation was bom August 28, 1884 in Tiffin, Ohio. He received his elementary educa- tion at St. Joseph's Parochial School of the same city, his college and seminary course at the Pontifical College, Josephinum, Columbus, Ohio, where he was ordained priest by the Rt. Rev. J. J. Hartley, 1909. For eight years he was a member of the teaching faculty of the Josephinum. From 1917 to 1920 he pursued theological studies at The Catholic University of America, Washing- ton, D. C, under the direction of Dr. John A. Ryan, Dr. Edmund T. Shanahan and Monsignor Dr. Filippo Bemardini, to all of whom he hereby expresses his sin- cere thanks. THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BF.T.OW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN , THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO Sl.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY ^OVERDUE. K tF(N) OCT 25 1932 APR 6 1934 RECCIB. AP8W15 DEC S 1938 JUL 13 199] 2;Aug'49HJ ■-•.:..,.. ^! Htu'D Lie AI)B23'65-I2f i\ RECEIVED rfHiripw" LOAN DEPT. APR 1 1 1975 '' ^ LD 21-50m-8,-32 ^ I U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES Yc 4|040 CQ07D53S33 ^52390 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY