YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BY THE SAME AUTHOR. CAMBRIDGE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 4s. 6d. Post 8vo. " An interesting and amusing book. . . . The impression which the whole leaves upon us, is that the author possesses a considerable power of seizing ueri diseunt, juvenes ostentant, series docent. Carthago provincial nostra; maliil'iia- in<'v>! 1,ile'i>. 50 RHETORICAL TRAINING OP THE AFRICAN FATHERS. Apuleius and Tertullian received, and to the in¬ fluences of which, the writings of both bear ample testimony. " In the Apology of Apuleius," says a recent writer/ " we have a deliberate display of all the arts, powers, and subtleties of rhetoric : truth, though repeatedly appealed to, is virtually put out of the question; the orator plays with all the charges against him like a master of fence with a couple of raw antagonists ; after rebutting an accusation, he offers to acknowledge it and clear himself on another ground; liis opponents may take as many points as they like to make the game even; he has no ob¬ jection to plead guilty, or not guilty, his final ex¬ culpation of himself will be just as successful in either case." The familiarity displayed by Tertullian with the technicalities of the art is scarcely inferior to that of Apuleius, and it is to be noted that the same in¬ fluences are more or less conspicuous in most of the Latin fathers. Cyprian devoted many years of his life to the study of rhetoric. Arnobius and Lactan- tius were professed teachers of the art. Augustine gave instruction therein, in his native town, and at Carthage and Milan. Were the effects of such studies discernible only m such superficial traits as manner and arrangement, we should be under no necessity of treating them at any length; but no careful student of the Latin Apologists of this period can, we think, fail to per¬ ceive how much the rhetorical element enters into 1 Woodliam's Latin Apologists. ITS INFLUENCES ON THEIR WRITINGS. 51 the very spirit of their writings. The reproach which Aristophanes cast upon the Sophists of his own age, of making " the worse appear the better/' might, with some qualification, apply to not a few passages in the writings of Tertullian. We meet occasionally with a trickiness, a disingenuousness in argument, which seems strangely alien from the teachings of the New Testament. We feel how Christianity at once descends from her natural vantage ground, when she stoops to weapons such as these; when she aims not to convince, but to silence ; not to establish truth, but to vanquish an opponent; not to uphold the beauty of a sublime morality, but to accomplish feats of argumentative dexterity and prodigies of re¬ partee. But, while we cannot but admit the presence of such blemishes, we feel that it is also due to the champions of our faith to remember that they did but reproduce the characteristics of their age; and it is as affording valuable evidence to this effect that the writings of Apuleius have appeared to us to claim a passing notice. It is obvious that, when a fault becomes thus widely distributed, it lies lighter on the individual. Many a sharp criticism directed against Tertullian, many a telling quotation of some isolated passage from his pen, might have been spared us on the part of writers hostile to Christi¬ anity, had they borne more carefully in mind the characteristics of the period, the example of Apuleius, and the influences of a professional training. It must, moreover, we think, be conceded that a 52 DIFFICULTIES OF THE AFOLOGISTS. high standard of education, combined with much that was false and artificial in the prevailing literary tone, was not a favourable atmosphere for the expo¬ sition of Christian truth. Many of the difficulties which obstructed the reception of the epistles of St. Paul among the fastidious Greeks of Athens and of Corinth, existed to mar the success of the Latin Apologists at Carthage. Did these writers venture to ignore the conventional ornaments of style and modes of argumentation, and trust for an attentive hearing to the simple grandeur of the truths they maintained,—it appeared only too probable that they would command the attention of but a very limited circle, and would wholly fail to win an audience among those whom they principally sought to influence. Did they adopt a contrary policy, and deliberately seek to allure with " the enticing words of man's wisdom/'—they at once challenged com¬ parison with the most accomplished litterateurs of their day, and seemed likely to jeopardize the very cause they had at heart by resorting to weapons of which they had but an imperfect mastery. We know, indeed, on very high authority—that of Lac- tantius—that the latter was sometimes actually the case. Lactantius was, as we have just had occasion to notice, himself a rhetorician, and he had succeeded in attaining to a style on which he probably prided himself, as free from the mannerisms and uncouth- ness which characterised the productions of his brother Apologists, but which to us appears the most insipid of all styles—a nerveless, servile inn- WRITINGS OF THE AFRICAN FATHERS. 53 tation of Cicero. In adverting to the efforts of his predecessors, he plainly asserts that they had proved, for the most part, unequal to the task they had undertaken (si qui forte literatorum ad earn con- tulerunt, defensioni ejus non suffecerunt). And what other result, he asks, could be expected, when their qualifications were of so contemptible an order ?x " Quid tandem putemus eis accidere quorum sermo jejunus est et ingratus, qui neque vim persuadendi, neque sublimitatem argumentandi, neque ullam pror- sus acerbitatem ad revincendum habere potuerunt V' Even Tertullian, he says, failed to reach the requisite standard with respect to ease and elegance.2 Having premised thus much respecting influences which cannot be considered unimportant, we must now proceed to the direct consideration of the cha¬ racter and writings of the African Fathers; and it will be well here to state, once for all, that there appear to be unusually good reasons for regarding these as a true and accurate index of the prevalent 1 " It appears from Arnobius, that a crime no less heinous than that of using false concords had been laid at their doors ; he even urges that all tenses and cases are equal, and that luce paries and hie sella may be written with as much moral accuracy as licec sella and liic paries." Woodham, Latinity of the Latin Apologists, xiii. 2 " Septimius quoque Tertullianus fuit omni genere literarum peritus, sed in cloquendo parum facilis et minus comptus ct multum obscurus. Ergo ne hie quidem satis celebritatis invenit. Unus igitur et clarus exstitit Cyprianus." (Inst. I)iv. i., 2.) The criticisms of Lactantius are not, however, wholly above suspicion. His praise of Cyprian appears disproportionate, and his estimate of Tertullian harsh, and at variance with the general verdict. It has also been noticed that, in his reference to preceding Apologists, he makes 110 mention of Arnobius, who is generally believed to have been his teacher of rhetoric. 54 PROPOSED TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT. opinions and sentiments of the African Church. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine were essentially representative in their spirit, wielding an authority in matters of doctrine and discipline, which, if not altogether unquestioned, was certainly unhesitatingly accepted by the great majority of the orthodox party of their day. Neither Wycliffe, Calvin, nor Luther exercised a more potent influence over his followers in his own age. The numerous Church histories, now accessible to every reader, will render it unnecessary that we should enter into detail with respect to the political vicissitudes which more or less modified the develope- ment of this section of the early Church; Ave shall accordingly do little more than endeavour to preserve unbroken the different threads of historic narration which we have already traced out, and shall seek to determine the real place of African Christianity in relation rather to the whole stream of Christian thought, than to isolated events which have now but a minor importance. From such a point of view, we shall, we think, most effectually arrive at the real character of the African Church, by considering it, at each successive period, under three distinct relations:— (1) In relation to Church discipline and external organization. (2) In relation to the developement and enun¬ ciation of Christian doctrine. (3) In relation to the religion and philosophy of Paganism. tertullian. 55 For our principal data with respect to the life of Tertullian,, we are indebted to St. Jerome. From him we learn that Tertullian was the son of a pro¬ consular centurion, and born at Carthage; that he became a convert to Christianity, and a presbyter of the Church in his native city ; and that he continued in her communion until middle life, when he was driven u by the envy and contumelious treatment of the Roman clergy to embrace the opinions of Montanus." The assigned cause has, however, been generally discredited as, at most, only the occasion of his formal secession; for, as we shall hereafter see, the tendencies which he had previously evinced, were alone quite sufficient to account for such a step.1 From Eusebius we learn that he was profoundly versed in the Roman law, and in high repute at Rome.2 The dates of the foregoing events have been dif¬ ferently assigned, but the following have received the sanction of the best authorities. His birth, a.d. 150; his conversion to Christianity, 185; to Mon- tanism, 200; his death, from 218 to 220. The writings of Tertullian fully bear out the praise awarded him by Lactantius, as a man of varied and extensive learning. He was also well acquainted with the Greek tongue, in which some of his treatises, 1 Soo Kayo's Tertullian, pp. 33,34; Cave,Hist. Lit. i. 37; Neander, Church History, ii. 475. The last writer remarks, that Jerome was particularly prone to accuse the Roman clergy of envy towards great talents. 2 Thus, at least, we understand the words, 'Avfyp ra re &\\a evdoljos Kal twu ^aAiara enl 'Pw/ht]s \aixirpa>v. 56 TERTULLIAN. unfortunately no longer extant, were composed. u In tlie whole metliod of his argumentation and controversial tactics," says Neander, "we easily recognize the advocate of former days, who in¬ voluntarily transferred the habits of the pleader to ecclesiastical polemics, attempting to gather to¬ gether as many reasons as possible for the points he wished to establish, without any great nicety in the selection."1 From the assigned chronology it will be seen that his life was cast amid times of no ordinary trial to the Church. The Phrygian Gnosticism was exerting its greatest influence, everywhere drawing away large numbers from the Apostolic faith. With the commencement of the third century the African Christians were exposed to the full severity of the persecution under Severus. If we add to these sources of anxiety frequent controversies with the clergy of Rome, or of his own country, on specific 1 The effects of his rhetorical education are especially con¬ spicuous in Tertullian, and his writings abound in metaphors drawn from both the legal and military professions. He is also much addicted to an antithetical arrangement of his words, to effect which we notice some singularly inverted constructions ; such as, " ut nolint scire pro certo quod so nescire pro certo sciunt;" " ad lenonem potius quam ad leonem damnando " merito damnantur licet damnent;" etc. Another feature which he presents in common with most African writers of his time, is an affectation of an obsolete phraseology. Bishop Ivaye states that frequently, when compelled to refer to his dictionary for some "portentous word," he has found it had been used centuries before by Plautus. A recent editor says of Tertullian's style, " Few readers, after becoming acquainted with its peculiarities, will quit it for more polished compositions of the same date without experiencing something unpleasant in the change, and something agreeable in the return to it." — Woodham on the Latinity of the Latin Fathers, xxi. TERTULLIAU'S ArOLOGY. 57 doctrines, we have 110 difficulty in seeing that a temperament naturally dictatorial, harsh, and im¬ petuous, would be brought out into strong, and often unfavourable, relief. The Apology of Tertullian, the best known though by no means the most important of his works, marks a transition in the character of this class of Christian literature. The tone of humble expostulation and entreaty, which distinguished the Apology of Justin Martyr, is here exchanged for one of stern remon¬ strance and denunciation. The Christian advocate is no longer content to stand simply on the defensive. He assumes the aggressive, and in accents which recall to us the fervid utterances of a Jeremiah or an Hosea, inveighs against the guilt and folly of Pagan idolatry. As an illustration of the general Christi¬ anity of the age, this treatise has no small value, but contains little to illustrate the special features of African Christianity. In pursuance of the method of treatment which we have already indicated, we may observe that Tertullian's writings afford considerable evidence with reference to the discipline and organization of the early Church. In the treatise De Prcescriptione Ilereticorum, we gain a clear conception of his views 011 this subject.1 He traces the history of the Church from the time when the apostles first received the commands of their divine Master to preach the 1 Pracscriptio, in Roman Law, signified the exception taken to the plaintiff's action by the defendant, grounded on the lapse of time. To this signification we shall have occasion to refer further on. 58 HIS THEORY OP CHURCH UNITY. Gospel in every city, down to liis own day, when he could point, though with something of rhetorical exaggeration, to numerous churches founded in o o ? almost every city of the Empire. In this sketch, the doctrine of the unity of the Church is enforced with particular emphasis. From the Apostolic age to the time in which he wrote, that Church had been one and indivisible. " All these churches," he says, " constitute one Church; being joined together in the unity of faith and in the bond of peace."1 " In conformity with this view," says Bishop Kaye, " Tertullian never fails, when arguing upon any disputed point of doctrine or discipline, to appeal to the belief or practice of those Churches which had been actually founded by the Apostles, 011 the ground that in them the faith taught and the institutions established by the Apostles were still preserved. When, therefore, he says that the authority of the Church made the distinction be¬ tween the Clergy and the Laity, the expression, in his view of the subject, is manifestly equivalent to saying that the distinction may be traced to the Apostolic founders of the Church."2 For this primary distinction we may therefore claim the authority of Tertullian, resting in its turn 011 the highest authority we can desire. When he became a Montanist, it is true that he held different language. He then taught that wherever three, though laymen, were gathered together, there was 1 Adversus Iudseos, c. 7. De Corona, c. 12. 2 Kaye's Tertullian, p. 230. REJECTION OF A DISCIPLINA ARCANI. 59 a Church. But so long as ho continued in com¬ munion with the Church of Carthage, he taught, as both important and essential, the distinction between the priest and the layman. In like manner, we find him enforcing the theory of distinct orders among the clergy. Only heretics, lie asserted, disregarded or thought lightly of such distinctions. " With them," he says, " one man is a bishop to-day, another to-morrow; he who is to¬ day a deacon, will be to-morrow a reader; he who is a priest to-day, will to-morrow be a layman." We fail, however, to find in Tertullian any definite infor¬ mation respecting the duties of the episcopal office. But while he undoubtedly upheld the sacred cha¬ racter of the institutions of the Church, we find no evidence of any attempt to draw lines of separation for which 110 scriptural authority could be pleaded. This could not be said of the Churches of Alexandria and Antiocli. A distinction was there maintained, somewhat resembling that of the esoteric and exo¬ teric schools of Greek philosophers, between those who were initiated into the higher mysteries of the Christian faith, and those who formed the great body of believers. This distinction had been openly recognized by Clemens of Alexandria, who supported the doctrine of a Disciplina Arcani. In the De Prce- scriptione, Tertullian emphatically denounces any such distinction, and maintains that all who had been admitted to the rite of baptism were entitled to full indoctrination into the mysteries of the faith. The essential unity of the Church of Christ, the 60 AUTHORITY OP TRADITION. sacrecl character of the priestly office, the common ancl equal privileges of the whole body of believers,—■ such are the main features of church organization sanctioned by the writings of Tertullian. The guidance afforded by the African Church in minor details of discipline, is to be drawn from the more complete organization of a later period; it is suffi¬ cient here to note that, in its earliest stage, the authority of this ancient Christian community may be claimed for the conceptions of the English Church in our own day. Considered with reference to our second division,— the developement and enunciation of Christian doc¬ trine,—the tendencies discernible in the writings of Tertullian are of a far more important nature. In striking contrast to her great rival in the East, the Church of the West was distinguished by the earnest spirit in which, throughout the whole of her history, she strove to attain to a more determinate faith; and it was in this respect that Tertullian exercised so important an influence over the theology of his own and succeeding ages. There is no doctrine in connection with which this prevailing tendency of his mind is more clearly brought before us, than that doctrine on which all other dogmatic teaching must rest—the doctrine concerning the authority of Tradition. It is well known that a very distinguished scholar of the last century—the illustrious Lessing—rejected what had hitherto been an unchallenged tenet within the pale of the Protestant Church, and asserted that, in the AUTHORITY OP TRADITION. 61 earliest times of Christianity, a regula ficlei had been regarded as a source of knowledge. His dictum gave rise to a controversy which has continued to our own time. It is manifest that, whatever the Apostles them¬ selves taught3 whether orally or by written commu¬ nication, would, at the time, carry precisely the same weight of authority. The Epistles of the New Testament were originally regarded as nothing more than subsidiary to the spoken word. It was not until the ministry of the twelve was ended, that the leaders of the Church became fully alive to the in¬ security attendant upon doctrinal instruction de¬ pending solely 011 the memory, transmitted from one member of the Church to another in a form liable to material modification by a series of almost imperceptible variations, and inevitably subject to take something of shape and colour from the mental bias of each on whom that transmission successively devolved. It was then that the apostolic writings were collected and formally recognized as embodying the essential faith of the Christian religion. In addition to those writings, a Confession of Faith, called Kavcbv rfi$ ekkA?;crLas, kclvuv rijs ttkttIus, irapa- bocTLs a-nOdTokuoj, or recjula Jidci, was drawn up. It was regarded as a succinct embodiment of the oral teaching of the Apostles, and commanded, as such, an universal assent.1 In the different controversies 1 Tertullian was so imperfectly informed respecting the origin of tho Apostles' Creed, as to state that it was the result of deli¬ berate conference b.tv.v'ii St. Paul and (he lw.lv.• Apostles. 62 AFFINITIES OF GNOSTICISM AND TRADITION. which arose out of the Gnostic heresies, appeal was frequently made to this, as the recognized confession of all Christian churches and communities. Such are the earliest instances on record of any attempt to consolidate and define the doctrines of our faith. But, notwithstanding these efforts to arrive at an universal and unvarying standard, a large amount of veneration was still felt for the traditional element in those churches founded by the Apostles themselves, — the secies apostolicce. These churches, too, would naturally be disposed to maintain the full importance of a precious legacy, once peculiarly their own; and thus these traditional sources of knowledge came to be asserted with an emphasis productive of a spirit of rivalry and dog¬ matism, which again gave birth to frequent polemics and acrimonious dissensions. It is hardly necessary to point out the strong sympathies which existed between Gnosticism and the theory of Tradition as a source of doctrine ; the dominant conception of the former being based, in most instances, on a recognition of past belief which had existed only in a traditional form. " The writers Hagenbach states, tliat it is " most probably composed of various confessions of faith used by the primitive Church in baptismal services. Though it did not proceed from the Apostles themselves, yet it substantially preserved the principles of apostolic tradition." (i. 39.) A writer in the Saturday Itcvietv traces its growth from the most rudimentary form, as found in the age of Tertullian, and observes, " even as it passed from the hands of Augustine, the Creed had not received the full shape which it at present bears. It was by those who came after him, and carried on his work in the African Church, that the final touches were imparted."—Sat. Rev., Aug. 3, 1867. VIEWS OF CLEMENT AND ORIGEN. G3 of the Alexandrian school/5 says Hagenbacli, "enter¬ tained more idealistic opinions; they saw in the unhindered and spiritual exchange of ideas the fresh and ever living source from whence we must draw the wholesome waters of sound doctrine.'"1 Among the first to develope this doctrine within the Church itself, had been Clemens of Alexandria, but his views were partially concealed by vagueness of expression and a tendency to allegorize; Ncandor, indeed, affirms that " on account of other Church parties, he had reason for not expressing, with perfect distinct¬ ness, many ideas of the Alexandrian Gnostic."3 The impulse which he communicated to the theology of the Eastern Church was developed in its com- pletest form by Origen. In the treatise ITept apyG>v, this writer thus states his views respecting the tra¬ ditional element:—" That alone is true which en¬ tirely agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles pro¬ pagated to this day in the Churches. But the Apostles, while they declared the most necessary parts of Christian faith very plainly, and in such a manner that they may be ascertained by the most superficial enquirer, left, however, the investigation of the causes or first principles of their system to those who partake of the high gifts of the Holy Spirit. Concerning other things, they have asserted indeed, that they were so and so, but they have maintained silence as to how and whence they arise; without doubt for this very purpose, that the more 1 Hist, of Christian Doctrine, i. 31. 2 Hist, of Christian Dogmas. 64 PROTEST OF IRENJEUS. industrious of their successors may have a field in which to exercise their ingenuity J'1 It was against such laxity of doctrine as tliis that Irenasus left an emphatic protest. In his treatise against Heresies, (which had been translated into Latin, and was an accepted authority in the Church of Carthage in the time of Tertullian,) he expressly combated the views of the Gnostics, and enunciated that which he held to be the true doctrine, his view beino- identical with that set forth in the 20th Article O of our own Church.3 Tertullian followed in the same track ; but he sought out of this question to arrive at a "new and ready method" of dealing with heretics which does not equally commend itself to the judgment. It is to be noticed that the controversial treatises of Tertullian were not composed until after he had separated himself from the Church of Carthage.3 So long as he fought under the banner of the orthodox faith he disdained to enter upon lengthened argu¬ ments with antagonists who, he considered, might be effectually silenced by a much more summary process. In the Latin of the law courts, the word I'rascrijjtio had, as we have already noticed, a tech- 1 There is no mention of Origen in Tertullian's writings, nor is there any evidence that they were known by reputation to each other. And yet they were exact contemporaries, and must have visited Rome at neai'ly the same period. 2 Neander, Hist. Christian Dogmas, i. 77. Irenseus, Adv. Hasr. ii. 27. Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 36. 3 Bishop Kaye, indeed, refers the treatise Adversus Judceos to an earlier date, but on this point he is at variance with Neander and ot her Gorman scholars. TERTULLIAN DE rRJESCRIl'TIONE. Go nical meaning, being applied to the exception taken by tlie defendant to the plaintiff's action 011 tlie ground that the period, within which the question at issue could be legally raised, had expired. The same principle is recognized in our own legislature, undis¬ puted possession extending over a certain number of years being recognised as constituting an indispu¬ table claim per sc. It is singularly illustrative both of Term]Han's natural temperament and also of the influence of his legal training, that he could bring himself to recognize in this principle, not only a wholesome remedy against endless litigation re¬ specting the conflicting and often imperfectly defined rights of man amid the artificial and complex pheno¬ mena of social life, but also a satisfactory solution of enquiries and difficulties in the domain of Christian truth. The sales Apostoliae, he taught, were the ecclesi.ce matrices ; from these the doctrines of the Apostles had been propagated among all other churches ; and hence these churches, taken collec¬ tively, formed an Ecclesia Apostolica, communion with which was an indispensable mark of the pro¬ fession of the true and original apostolic doctrine. Of this Church the Canon of Interpretation was the rajuht fidei made use of at baptism. This had been handed down along with the apostolic doctrine in the Church, and along with the natural interpre¬ tation of the Scriptures. "Whoever falsified this doctrine, falsified the Scriptures also. " In the sedibus Aiiostolicis," says Tertullian, "the succession of bishops who have taught the same doctrine is ¥ 66 TEKTULLIAN DE PR/E3CRIPTI0NE. traced back to the Apostles ; the heretics, on the contrary, have made their appearance later, and have falsified the truth that was previously found."1 If the Gnostics alleged that the falsification arose from a general misunderstanding of the Apostles, he re¬ joined,—How could the Holy Spirit have so greatly neglected His office as to allow the Churches to mis¬ understand the doctrine which He Himself had made known through the Apostles, and how could una¬ nimity proceed from error ? Such was the method whereby Tertullian strove to extinguish the spirit of heterodoxy in his day. That his convictions were sincere and his intentions honest, appears but imperfectly to extenuate the assertion of so essentially vicious a principle,—a principle which, if accepted, could not have failed to alienate from Christianity all generous and impartial enquiry, to dwarf and circumscribe her whole genius, and to leave a blank in the page which now recalls the noblest passages in her history. The best excuse for so arbitrary a method may perhaps be found in 1 De Praescriptione H. 27, 28. " Christian objectors did actually say, ' Our Lord commanded us to ask that we might receive, to seek that we might find, to knock that it might be opened.' What¬ ever answer Tertullian had ready for other objectors, these he could silence with a dashing peremptory interpretation of our Lord's words. Asking, seeking, and knocking, are all very well for those to whom the truth has not been made known; to us it has been made known ; therefore for us such acts are unnecessary. I find it hard to stifle my indignation at such trifling with the Divine precept. And yet this treatise, the leading maxims of which could not be sustained, as its clever author knew, without that outrage, has been a text-book among those who reverence the words of their Divine Master." Prof. Maurice, Lectures on Ecclesiastical Hist., Lect. v. HIS THEORY OF HUMAN NATURE. 67 tlie disingenuous mode of dealing with the Scrip¬ tures, to which the Gnostics unhesitatingly had recourse, whenever they found any difficulty which impeded a doctrine that they sought to establish; and the accusation implied by Tertullian, that they had, one and all, a false exegesis, was for the most part true.1 But error in one direction is but indif¬ ferently remedied by error in another; nor is an undue spirit of license best checked by simple dogmatism. It is not thus that the foundations of truth spiritual, or indeed of any other kind, are laid. The doctrine held by Tertullian concerning human nature marks an intermediate stage between the Alexandrian Fathers and Augustine. It was his belief that man originally possessed all the faculties necessary to the knowledge of God, but that they existed in a dormant undeveloped state. Their de- velopement depended on man's own free will. Man's first sin consisted in refusing to subject his own will to that of God. From this one act proceeded the schism which runs through the whole of man's nature. In Adam was contained the undeveloped germ of all mankind, and hence the corruption of the first man was transmitted to all humanity. It was thus 1 Professor Blunt speaks of tliera as " some denying one book to be canonical, aud some another ; some the Acts of the Apostles, some all the Gospels except that of St. Luke, and almost that. Some admitting the Epistles of St. Paul, antl rejecting all others ; some receiving certain amongst those Epistles only ; some again mutilating such books as they pretended to acknowledge on the whole, and dressing them to their own purposes." Church in tlce First Three Centuries, p. 1G3. G8 DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN. that Tertullian arrived at the doctrine of original sin.1 In the doctrine of a perpetual struggle between the divine and the human will there was yet pre¬ served the recognition of a divine or a godlike ele¬ ment in man. Tertullian, like Augustine, learned from the depths of his own inner experience, the opposition between nature and grace. " The corrup¬ tion of nature," he says, "is a second nature, which has its own God and father, even the author of the corruption itself; in such manner, however, that goodness still resides in the soul—that original, that godlike and genuine thing, which is its proper nature. For that which is from Grod is not so much extinguished as obscured; for it can be obscured, since it is not God; but it cannot be extinguished, since it is of God." In opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of the fundamentally different principles of human nature, according to which they maintained that a hylic or material nature could not be con¬ verted into a pneumatic or spiritual one, he advances the almighty power of grace. In his view of man before the Fall, we find him at variance with the Alexandrian school. Clemens asserted that man was not created perfect, but only with the capacity for virtue (hrm/Seios irpos ri]v kti/o-lv aperijs). In his theory respecting the sacrament of baptism, 1 ISTcander, Church Hist., ii. 381. A writer in the Revue des Deux Mmales (M. Reville) asserts that Tertullian arrived at this doctrine (qui resta longtemps etranger a l'eglise grecque) from his materialistic notion that body and soul wore conceived in the same act of generation. THE SACRAMENT OP BAPTISM. 09 however, lie held language scarcely consistent with the foregoing. Baptism presented, according to his view, two elements : the negative, whereby in the invocation of the Trinity, sin and its punishments are remitted to the individual through faith; se¬ condly, the positive, or the imparting of the Holy Spirit, whereby God enters again into union with man,—this being in special connection with the laying on of hands by the bishop. But while he attributes considerable importance to the ceremony, and the sanctifying power communicated to the water, he enforces with special emphasis the spiri¬ tual conditions essential to the efficacy of the rite.1 Against the supposition that there was aught of magical power in the rite to secure forgiveness of sin, he argues with great force. With respect to infant baptism, he holds views unfavourable to the prevailing modern practice. " Children," he says, " ought first to learn Christ before they are incor¬ porated with him. Why should the innocent age hasten to the forgiveness of sins ? How can we think of entrusting heavenly things to that age to which we cannot entrust earthly things V' He also proposes, with respect to converts, the question, " What if any should die before baptism V In this case, ho answers, faith is sufficient to salvation.3 "Thus," says Neander, "we recognize in Ter- tullian the tendency of the advancing Christian spirit, which led to the introduction of infant bap- 1 For the form to bo observed, in tho ceremony, see Bishop Kaye, pp. 434—411. 2 De (Jupt. c. 18. Neander's Church Ilist., i. 434. 70 THE LORD'S SUPPER. tism, and also that wliicli opposed it.1 In theory, the tendency in favour of it soon obtained the vic¬ tory in the Western Church ; the magical notion of baptism, and the doctrine of original sin, procured its reception in the North African Church, and it was henceforth regarded as an apostolic institution. Cyprian, in his epistle to Fidus, attests this, and his testimony is of so much greater weight because it was confirmed by a synod of sixty-six bishops." With the Christian theory of baptism, the doc¬ trine of the Lord's Supper would naturally be closely associated : among those who were disposed to at¬ tach an inherent efficacy to the sprinkling with water, there would be a corresponding and still greater disposition to attach a like importance to the ele¬ ments in the Communion.3 The controversy with the Docetas appears first to have given rise to the 1 That Tertullian's language is often contradictory, cannot be denied. Bp. Blunt has devoted several pages (see Right Use of the Early Fathers, pp. 192—195) to a statement of some of the more important contradictions. " Something of this incongruity may be assigned to the physical constitution of Tertullian, which was hot and hasty in the extreme,—he frequently laments it as a disaster." See Be Patientia, c. 1. 2 Tertullian speaks of the extreme care observed by the commu¬ nicants lest any portion of the elements should fall to the ground. He speaks of them as standing at the altar of God when they received the sacrament. Bingham observes that the kiss of peace seems always to have accompanied the celebration, which appears at this period to have been of daily observance. " Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui in Cliristo sumus et eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, intercedente aliquo graviore delicto dum abstenti (alii " absentes") et non communicantes a coelesti pane prohibemur, a Christi corpore se- paremur.— Cyprian, Be Orat. Dominica. It was the custom in the African Churches to take home the consecrated bread, and eat it early in the morning. Riddle, Christian Antiquities, p. 525. Tertull. Be Orat. c. 6. The disuse of the Sacrament commenced in the fourth century, in the Eastern Church. the lord's supper. 71 developement of divergent doctrines on this solemn question. Denying as they did the actual and bodily presence of our Lord on earth, it was evi¬ dent that they could not recognise a participation in the flesh and blood; nor again could those who denied the resurrection of the body, hold the doc¬ trine of the reception of a new and divine element into human nature. Irenagus, indeed, openly charged them with a double inconsistency in celebrating the Lord's Supper—(1) in that, while the Lord's Supper was certainly taken from the gifts of nature, they refused to acknowledge the identity of the Deity revealed in Christ with the God of nature. How illogical, he says, to consecrate bread and wine to God, if nature be not acknowledged as the work of God; and (2) the body of believers is supposed to receive at the Lord's Supper the body of Christ, and yet is not destined to eternal life ! The views of Justin appear to have been sub¬ stantially the same with those of Irenasus, viz., that by virtue of the consecration, the flesh and blood of Christ were really combined with the bread and wine. In Tertullian, the doctrine appears to have ad¬ vanced to a more spiritual conception. Occasionally, indeed, his language would lead us to infer that he regarded the bread and wine as nothing more than symbolical. Vini saporem quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit.1 Different language is used in other passages, but the symbolical idea predomi- 1 De Anima, c. 17. 72 THE LORD'S SUPPER. nates. As regards tlie efficacy of the Sacrament, however, he employs language which distinctly in¬ timates his belief in a supernatural effect trans¬ mitted through the body to the soul. Caro corpore et savjuhte Chriati vesciiur ut et ctnvnia de Deo sarjhietnr} " Taking all things into account/' says Neander, " we perceive that Tertullian, though he certainly admitted no combination of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, and regarded the bread and wine in themselves as symbols, still maintained the existence of a supernatural element in the Lord's Supper, and a supernatural connection with the body of Christ for the sanctification of the whole man." The idealization of this Sacrament was carried to its fullest extent by the Alexandrian school. Clemens endeavours to elucidate its true nature by a reference to that distinction between the vorirov and the ala- 6i]tov, which was ever present to the Platonic mind. Origen expresses himself more intelligibly. " The highest object of the Lord's Supper," he says, "is to represent spiritual communion with the Logos, and the spiritual enjoyment of it; the Logos be¬ comes the food of the soul." He regards a suscep¬ tible state of mind as a necessary condition.3 1 Do Resurrect. Carnis, c. 8. " When the different passages in which he speaks of the body and blood of Christ are compared together, it is evident that lie never thought of any corporeal presence of Christ in the Eucharist."—Eaye, p. 451. 2 See also his comments on Matt. xi. 14. THREE GRADES OF DOCTRINE. 73 In reference to tlxis Sacrament, we trace, accord¬ ingly, three grades of doctrine :— First, that which assumes a real physical presence, the repeated Incarnation of the Logos, whereby, in a supernatural manner, the body and blood of Christ become assimilated with the believer's body and prepare it for the resurrection. Second, that which inculcates a real presence, but only of a spiritual nature; the elements, according to this conception, communicate a sanctifying in¬ fluence inherent in them, but no supernatural inter¬ mingling with the body is recognised. Third, that of Origen, who regarded the rite as purely symbolical, and rejected the theory of a real presence in the elements of any kind. As the upholder of the second interpretation, Tertullian here again appears maintaining the view most in keeping with the teaching of our own Church.1 Of the doctrine of Predestination, as that term is defined in the 17th Article, we find no trace in the writings of Tertullian. The question to which the 18tli Article opens up, —Whether the heathen, who passed his life according to the light of nature, could be saved,—appears never to have occurred to Tertullian. But holding the views that he did with regard to the necessity of baptism to salvation, we can hardly doubt that his reply would have been in the negative. That he 1 Kaye, p. 3G8. Neander, Church Hist. ii. 428. 74 DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. held the doctrine of the eternity of punishment, admits of no reasonable doubt.1 He rejected, as does the 14th Article of our Church, the notion of works of supererogation. With respect to the doctrine of Purgatory, for which he has mistakenly been quoted by some as an authority, Bishop Kaye has clearly shown that he held views totally incompatible therewith. He be¬ lieved, it is true, that after death the soul, in an intermediate state, anticipated, according to its ulti¬ mate destiny, either the joys of heaven or the pains of hell; but if the latter, it was not as a purifying process, but only as a foretaste of those everlasting torments which would be finally declared to be its everlasting inheritance. We have already stated that there is no evidence that the character and writings of Origen were known to Tertullian. Divergent as were the mental tendencies of these two, they are yet occasionally to be found in striking agreement. In the third book of the Uepl apyji)v, the Alexandrian father endeavours to establish the freedom of the will. The obduracy of the impenitent, he contends, is the effect of a cul¬ pable negligence on their own part, and not of the Divine decrees.3 In another passage, he affirms 1 Blunt, Right Use of the Early Fathers, p. 165. The belief in the eternity of future punishment was by no means firmly held in the Eastern Church. " There can be no doubt," says Dean Stanley in the Edinburgh Review for July, 1867, " that Gregory of Nyssa held the opinion shared with him by Origen, and, although less distinctly, by Gregory Nazianzen, that there was a hope for the final restoration of the wicked in the other world." 2 'EoTfti 5' ert Kal rpirov yeuos toov ovofxa^ovtuv ij/vxikovs rivas, Kal origen's agreement with tertullian. 75 that the doctrine of Predestination was heretical, and denounced by the Church. In this view Ter¬ tullian appears to have concurred. In his treatise De Anima, he directs his arguments against the Valentinians, who maintained that men were of three kinds—spiritual, animal, and terrestrial; and that, as this distinction took place at their birth, it was immutable; as a thorn cannot produce figs, or a thistle grapes, so they argued an animal man can¬ not produce the works of the Spirit, or vice versa. "If this were so/' says Tertullian, " God could neither out of stones raise up sons to Abraham, nor could the generation of vipers bring forth the fruits of repentance Such is the power of Divine grace, being stronger than nature, and having subject to itself the free power of the will within us, which the Greeks call avTe^ovmov." But though from these words it is sufficiently intelligible that he did not hold the doctrine of the modern Calvinist, the pas¬ sage would also appear to indicate, especially when taken in connection with a passage in the De Corona, c. 11, that he did not believe in the self-determining power of the will, but regarded it as determined by something extraneous. We also infer that, with Tri>evfJ.a.TLKovs erepovs' ol/u.aL 8' avrbv Aeyeiv robs airb OvaAevrlpov. kal ri rovro ttpbs rtfJ-as, robs airb tt)s e'/c/cArjcrias, Karriyopovvras rSiv eicray6vrcvv (pvaets en KaratTKevTjs erafoueVas, f) e'/c Karacr/ceur/s cnroA- Avfievas; Contra Cels. v. 61. Do Principiis, ii. c. 9. sec. 5. On the question of the ultimate sanction of morality, Tertullian cannot be classed with what Dr. Whewell terms the school of Independent Moralists, but rather with Palcy and Bentham. " Audaciam existimo de bono divini praacepti disputare. Neque enim quia bonum est, idcirco auscultaro debemus, sed quia Deus prcecepit."—De L'oonit. o. 4. 76 daille's criticism. reference to the operation of the Spirit, he believed rather in grace assisting, than in grace irresistible. Nor need the fact, that Augustine, on whom Ter- tullian's genius exercised no small influence, finally adopted the latter belief, be regarded as presenting any difficulty ; for, though such was the doctrine at which he finally arrived, the former would appear to have been that which he originally inherited.1 Daille, whose whole treatment of Tertullian was conceived in a somewhat captious spirit, has quoted from the treatise Adversus Praxean, a passage (c. 9) to prove that the writer did not hold the orthodox doctrine respecting the Trinity; but no candid in¬ terpreter will be willing to set an isolated passage against the general language and prevailing senti¬ ment of an author. Writing as Tertullian did be¬ fore the great crucial question of the East had assumed a definite form, it can cause little surprise if we occasionally meet with language of an ambi¬ guous kind respecting a doctrine scarcely agitated in his day.3 Even in the age of Augustine we find that father asserting that, in his time, the African 1 " It is evident that nothing could be more remote from his intention than so to assert the freedom of man's will, as to deny the necessity or to detract from the efficacy of Divine grace, from the sole operation of which he conceived patience and the other moral virtues to take their origin."— Bp. Kaye. 2 The writer in the Revue des Deux Mondes, already referred to, following in Daille's track, says : " Tertullian en effet croit en une trinite divine bien difierente de la trinite de l'orthodoxie ulterieure Ce qui le separe foncierement du dognie devenu plus tard officiel, c'est qu'il n'admet pas la personnalite eternelle du Fils." He makes, however, no reference to passages of a totally different tenor. OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM. 77 Christians had not sufficient acquaintance with the Greek language to read and understand the treatises of the Eastern fathers on this subtle question. On the other hand, it is evident that additional weight naturally attaches to authority of so high an order, when Ave find it arrayed by implication rather than in direct controversy, by the prevailing tenor of numerous writings, not in any special polemical treatise, 011 the side of the teachings of our Church.1 In the treatise De Rcsurrectione Caniis, Tertullian maintains a doctrine essentially identical with that of our own Church. His arguments are chiefly de¬ voted to objections such as would be likely to be found in the Gnosticism both of his own and of an earlier age. " Valenturns," says Dean Milman, " appears to have been considered the most formidable of this school of Gnostics. He was twice excommunicated, 1 De Trinit. iii. c. 1. Tertullian, to illustrate his doctrine, makes use of the similes of the fountain, the stream, and the river; the root, the branch, and the fruit. " Tertius enim est spiritus a Deo et filio, sicut tertius est fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole ajicx a radio. Nihil tamen a inatrice alienatur, a qua proprietates suas ducit." (Adv. Pra.v. viii.) Among numerous other passages which bespeak the orthodox conception, we may cite the following :—" Hunc ex Deo prolatuin didicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum ex unitate substantias." (Apol. c. 21.) "Homo etsi Deus." (Be Ttexurr. Caniiis, c. 50.) "De Deo Deus." (Apol. 21.) "Jam enim Filius novum Patris nomen est." (]>e (Jra- tiune,'3.) "Persona autem Dei Ghristus Dominus." (Adr. Alurc. v. c. 11. "Non minori se tradidit omnia Filio Creator." (iv. c. 25.) "Those," says Dean Stanley, "who read the exposition of this doctrine as set forth in the original Greek, will be surprised to see liow that subtle language has veiled the harshness and roughness that appear in the English or Latin translation." 78 VALENTINUS. and twice received again into the bosom of the Church. He did not confine his dangerous opinions to the school of Alexandria; he introduced the wild oriental speculations into the more peaceful West; taught at Rome; and, a third time being expelled from the Christian society, retired to Cyprus, an island where the Jews were formerly numerous until the fatal insurrection in the time of Hadrian, and where probably the oriental philosophy might find a not unfavourable reception, on the border, as it were, of Europe and Asia." " The fundamental tenet of Orientalism, the In¬ comprehensibility of the Great Supreme, was the essential principle of the system of Valentinus, and was represented in terms pregnant with mysterious sublimity. The first Father, the Monad, was called Bytlios, the Abyss, the Depth, the Unfathomable, who dwelt alone in inscrutable and ineffable height, with his own first Conception, his Ennoia, who bore the emphatic and awful name of Silence. The first developement took place after endless ages, in which the Unfathomable dwelt in his majestic solitude, but he found not delight in his solitude. Love was his motive. Love must have an object—something to love. This developement or self-manifestation was Mind (Nous) whose appropriate consort was Aletheia or Truth. These formed the first great quaternion, the highest scale of being. From Mind and Truth, proceeded the Word and Life (Logos and Zoe); their manifestations were Man and the Church, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and so the first ogdoad VALENTINUS. 79 was complete. From the Word and Life proceeded ten more vEons ; but tliese seem, from their names, rather qualities of the Supreme. " The ./Eons dwelt alone within the sacred and in¬ violable circle of the Pleroma; they were all, in one sense, manifestations of the Deity, all purely intel¬ lectual, an universe apart. But the peace of this metaphysical hierarchy was disturbed, and here we are presented with a noble allegory, which, as it were, brings these abstract conceptions within the reach of human sympathy. The last of the do- decarcliy which sprang from Man and the Church was Sophia or Wisdom. Without intercourse with her consort Will, Wisdom was seized with an irresistible passion for that knowledge and intimate union with the Father, the Unfathomable, which was the sole privilege of the first born, Mind. She would com¬ prehend the Incomprehensible : love was the pretext, but temerity the motive. Pressing onward under this strong impulse, she would have reached the remote sanctuary, and would finally have been ab¬ sorbed into the primal essence, had she not en¬ countered Horus (the impersonated boundary be¬ tween knowledge and the Deity). At the persuasion of this "limitary cherub" (to borrow Milton's words) she acknowledged the incomprehensibility of the Father, returned in humble acquiescence to her lowlier sphere, and allayed the passion begot of Wonder. But the harmony of the intellectual world was destroyed; a redemption, a restoration, was necessary; and, (for now Yalentinus must incor- 80 VALENTINUS. porate the Christian system into his own) from the first -ZEon, the divine Mind, proceeded Christ and the Holy Ghost. Christ communicated to the listen¬ ing iEoiis the mystery of the imperishable nature of the Father, and their own procession from him ; the delighted iEons commemorated the restoration of the holy peace, by each contributing his most splendid gift to form Jesus, encircled with his choir of angels. "Valentinus did not descend immediately from his domain of metaphysical abstraction ; he inter¬ posed an intermediate sphere between that and the material world. The desire or passion of Sophia, impersonated, became an inferior Wisdom; she was jin outcast fron the Pleroma, and lay floating in the dim and formless chaos without. The Christos in mercy gave her form and substance; she preserved, as it were, some fragrance of immortality. Her passion was still strong for higher things, for the light which she could not apprehend; and she in¬ cessantly attempted to enter the forbidden circle of the Pleroma, but was again arrested by Horus, who uttered the mystic name of Jao. Sadly she returned to the floating elements of inferior beings ; she was surrendered to Passion, and with his assistance produced the material world. The tears which she shed, at the thought of her outcast condition, formed the humid element; her smiles, when she thought of the region of glory, the light; her fears and her sorrows, the grosser elements. Christ descended no more to her assistance, but sent Jesus, the DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 81 Paraclete, the Saviour, witli his angels; and, with his aid, all substance was divided into material, animal, or spiritual. The spiritual, however, alto¬ gether emanated from the light of her divine as¬ sistant j the first formation of the animal (the Psychic) was the Demiurge, the Creator, the Saviour, the Father, the King of all that was consubstantial with himself, and finally, the material, of which he was only the Demiurge or Creator. Thus were formed the seven intermediate spheres, of which the Demiurge and his assistant angels (the seven again of the Persian system,) with herself, made up a second Ogdoad,—the image and feeble reflection of the former; Wisdom representing the primal Parent; the Demiurge the divine Mind, though he was ignorant of his mother, more ignorant than Satan himself; the other sidereal angels, the rest of the /Eons. By the Demiurge the lower world was formed/' Such is a tolerably intelligible outline of the sin¬ gular system—half mysticism, half poetry—against which some of the most forcible of Tert Lillian's arguments were levelled. In asserting the scrip¬ tural doctrine of the Resurrection, he found himself' at direct variance with the leading tenet of Gnos¬ ticism. That tenet, as we have before stated, was the essential enmity of mind and matter. The Demiurge, or Creator of the material world, was at enmity with the supreme God; hence the inferiority of his work—the human body—to the soul. Matter and mind could only co-exist in a perpetual antago- G 82 DOCTRINE OP THE RESURRECTION. nism. It was thus that the Gnostics were led to deny the resurrection of the body. Tertullian im¬ pugns their doctrine. Man, he asserts, was created by God in His own image; to him it had been given to inhabit, to enjoy, to rule over, the whole creation ; that flesh can hardly be unworthy to be raised again " which its Maker clothes with His sacraments and His discipline, loving its purity, approving its morti¬ fications, and ascribing a value to its sufferings."1 But the argument on which the Gnostics appear to have laid most stress was that derived from the language of St. Paul, that " flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God/' From this they in¬ ferred that flesh and blood, the body, could not in¬ herit eternal life. Tertullian, in reply, points out that inasmuch as St. Paul rests our hope of resurrec¬ tion on Christ's resurrection, the more correct in¬ ference would lead us to conclude that we shall rise, as He did, in the flesh.3 He distinguishes also between the resurrection of the body and its ad¬ mission into the kingdom of heaven; the old body will appear on the day of judgment, but none but a glorified body, incorruptible and immortal, will in¬ herit the kingdom. The language of the Apostle 1 " Igitur ut retexain, quam Dens manibus suis ad imaginem Dei struxit—quam de suo adflatu ad similitudinem suce vivacitatis animavit—quam incolatui, fructui, dominatui totrus sua) operationis prceposuit—quam sacramentis discipliiiisque vestivit—cujus mun- ditias amat—cujus castigationes probat—cujus passiones sibi de- preciat—lia)ccine non resurget, totiens Dei ?" Do Resurr. c. 9. 2 This argument could, of course, have had but little weight with the Docetas, who denied the actual presence of our Lord in human form. DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 83 (1 Cor. xv. 37), though it implies a change in the body at the resurrection, does not imply such a change as will destroy its identity. He regards the (rwfxa \(fvxi-isest,« hj Varilinul Mai, iii. 37. Sec a series of articles by Saint Marc (iirardinin tko Revue desD' UX Moitdes, 1812, " L'Afrique sous St. Augustin." 174 AUGUSTINE. sented as pleading for that religion which liad sub¬ dued the world to her dominion, for those rites which "had repelled Hannibal from her walls and the Gauls from the Capitol." The main plea, as Dean Milman observes, is that "which a prosperous religion neither uses nor admits, but to which a falling faith always clings with desperate energy :—' Heaven is above us all; we cannot all follow the same path; there are many ways by which we arrive at the great secret. But we presume not to contend, we are humble suppli¬ ants.'' " To this document Ambrose, then Arch¬ bishop of Milan, replied. Heyne, in his Opuscula, has not hesitated to pronounce his verdict in favour of the superior arguments and more dignified tone of the Pagan apologist, while l)e Broglie speaks of the Father as tearing to fragments the arguments of the prefect dans les serves cVune logique imp it oy able.1 The criticism of the Protestant historian probably marks the just mean between that of the classicist sympathising with antique thought and fashions for ever passed away, and that of the Catholic reverently deferring to the authority of an eminent Father of the Church. " The oration," says Dean Milman, "is written with vigour, with dignity, with elo¬ quence. It is in this respect, perhaps, superior to the reply of Saint Ambrose. But in the feeble and apologetic tone, we perceive at once, that it is the artful defence of an almost hopeless cause : it is cau- 1 L'Eglise et VEmpire au 4me S'tecZe, Part iii. vol. 1, p. 67. It is certain, however, that the composition of Symmachus obtained extensive popularity ; Prndentius, forty years after, deemed it deserving of refutation in two effusions of Ins muse. AMBROSE AND SYMMACHUS. 175 tious to timidity, dexterous, elaborately conciliatory, moderate, from fear of offending rather than from tranquil dignity. Ambrose, on the other hand, writes with all the fervid and careless energy of one confident in his cause, and who knows that he is appealing to an audience already pledged by their own feelings to his side; he has not to obviate objec¬ tions, to l^econcile difficulties, to sue or to propitiate; his contemptuous and criminating language has only to inflame zeal, to quicken resentment and scorn. He is flowing down on the full tide of human pas¬ sion, and his impulse but accelerates and strengthens the rapid current."1 It is not undeserving of notice, that though the opposition in this controversy is between Christian and Pagan thought, the comments of Gibbon appear, for once, unmistakably to favour the former side. u In this controversy," he says, " Ambrose conde¬ scends to speak the language of a philosopher, and to ask, with some contempt, why it should be thought necessary to introduce an imaginary and invisible power as the cause of those victories which were sufficiently explained by the valour and discipline of the legions."2 As usually, however, with the sceptic historian, a somewhat sinister meaning will be found latent in the seeming compliment. One argument employed by Ambrose is certainly somewhat incau¬ tiously urged and insisted on. " Does not the pre¬ fect," he asks, " perceive, that in boasting the efficacy of these rites he at the same time demon- 1 Milinan, Hist, of Christianity, iii. 86. 2 Gibbon, iii. 410. 17G AUGUSTINE. strates tlieir inadequacy ? If tlie gods fought against Hannibal, liow was it that they suffered him to march as conqueror as far as the walls of the city ? And as for the Gauls, were they not on the point of penetrating into the very interior of the Capitol, had they not been betrayed by the cry of a goose ? Where then was their Juppiter? Was it he who spake by the mouth of the goose ?" It is scarcely necessary to point out that such arguments, how¬ ever appropriately they might have come from a Lucretius or a Lucian, were somewhat mis¬ placed in the mouth of a Christian bishop of the fourth century. At a period when the Church impli¬ citly accepted, as we have seen Arnobius and Lac- tantius did, the pretensions of Paganism to super¬ natural powers, and expressly included among such agencies the deities of Pagan belief,—when, more¬ over, she assumed the exertion in her own favour of the protecting guidance of a Being whose attributes, as distinguishable from those of Paganism, were very imperfectly discerned by the ordinary observer,—it was obviously only to elicit an inevitable retort, to enquire by what reasoning Paganism claimed, as marks of Divine favour, the past preservation and prosperity of the State, while she failed to account for the long array of facts of a widely differing tenour. As it was, Paganism had already offered the semblance of a reply to the question asked by Ambrose—Where were the gods in the recent defeats of the Pagan Emperors ?—in imputing the disasters of the empire to the prevalent neglect of the ancient AMBROSE AND SYMMACHUS. 177 worship. In fact, against every creed involving a belief in special providences, the objection implied in that question may be urged; and scepticism has been repeating it, under various forms, but substan¬ tially the same, from the fourth century until now. The argument, however, is deserving of attention as an illustration of that often ill-consiclered line of defence adopted by the early Fathers, which has been frequently noted to the discredit of the Patristic literature; and the whole question between Ambrose and Symmachus is interesting, as presenting perhaps the earliest instance wherein a State, professedly Christian, has been compelled to consider how far it could sanction and support a form of worship which it held erroneous. The address of Symmachus appears to have been presented about the year 384. We must now return to the commencement of the century, to trace the progress of an important movement, essentially African in its character, and with which the name of Augustine and the religious history of his times are inseparably connected. We have already briefly referred to the schism of Novatian in the time of Cyprian (see p. 125), as the result of that stern and unyielding policy upheld by a certain section of the Church, in reference to the Lapsed. In the ago subsequent to Cyprian, this spirit again found ex¬ pression in the policy advocated by the Donatists against the Traditors. During the period of persecution, among the many trials to which the Christians were exposed, none were 178 THE DCMAT1STS. more painful than the demand for the unconditional surrender of the furniture of their sacred edifices, " their chalices, their ornaments, above all, the sacred writings. The bishop and his priests were made responsible for the full and unreserved delivery of these sacred possessions. Some from timidity, others considering that by such concessions it might be prudent to aver-t more dangerous trials, and that such treasures, sacred as they were, might be replaced in a more flourishing state of the Church, complied with the demands of the magistrate; but, by their severer brethren, who, with more uncompromising courage, had refused the least departure from the tone of unqualified resistance, these men were branded with the ignominious name of Traditors. This became the strong, the impassable, line of demarcation between the contending factions. To the latest period of the conflict, the Donatists described the Catholic party by that odious appel¬ lation/'"1 In the year 311, the death of Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, rendered it necessary to elect a suc¬ cessor to that important see. The election was eagerly watched by both parties throughout the pro¬ vince, and there seems reason to believe that the consecration of Caecilian, a deacon of the Church at Carthage, by Felix, bishop of Apthunga, was car¬ ried with unseemly haste by the Catholic party. Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigra?, placed himself at the head of the malcontents; and a Council, com- 1 Milman, Hist, of Christianity, ii. 299, 300. THE DECISION OF CONSTANTINE. 179 posed exclusively of this party, assembled at Car¬ thage, and declared the election void. A rival bishop, Majorinus, was nominated; and ultimately the fierceness of the struggle rendered it necessary to refer the decision to the Emperor Constantine himself. The main argument on which the party of Donatus rested their objection to Cascilian was the fact, that he had been consecrated by a notorious Traditor; but it is to be noted that the offence of tradition was imputed with equal freedom by the Catholic party to their opponents. In the year 313, a Council was convened under the auspices of the Emperor; and Rome, for the first time, witnessed a public trial of a Christian cause before an assembly of bishops presided over by her prelate. Before this tribunal Cascilian and Donatus presented them¬ selves, each at the head of ten bishops of his party. Of the views which appear to have actuated the Emperor in his decision, Dean Milman thus speaks :— " It was a wise and temperate policy to attempt to cancel all embittering recollections of the days of trial and infirmity; to abolish all distinctions, which on one part led to pride, on the other to degrada¬ tion ; to reconcile, in those halcyon days of pros¬ perity, the whole Christian world in one harmonious confederacy. This policy was that of the Govern¬ ment. At this early period of his Christianity, if he might yet be called a Christian, Constantine was little likely to enter into the narrow and exclusive prin¬ ciples of the Donatists. As emperor, Christianity was recommended to his favour by the harmonizing 180 THE DONATISTS. and tranquillizing influence which it exercised over a large body of the people. If it broke up into hos¬ tile feuds, it lost its value as an ally, or an instru¬ ment of civil government. But it was exactly this levelling of all religious distinctions, this liberal and comprehensive spirit, that would annihilate the less important differences, which struck at the vital principle of Donatism."1 Into the details of subsequent events our space does not permit us to enter. Suffice to say, that the decision of the Council of Rome in favour of Csecilian was ratified by two subsequent Councils at Aries and at Milan. Another Donatus, however, appeared to uphold the views of the party henceforth known by his name, and the schism continued to rage with undiminished fury. At length, wearied by their obstinacy, Constantine had recourse to compulsion. " The Donatist bishops were driven into exile, their churches destroyed or sold, and the property seized for the imperial revenue. The Donatists defied the armed interference, as they had disclaimed the au¬ thority, of the Government. This first developement of the principles of Christian sectarianism was as stern, as inflexible, and as persevering, as in later times. The Donatists drew their narrow pale around their persecuted sect, and asserted themselves to be the only elect people of Christ; the only people whose clergy could claim an unbroken apostolical succession, vitiated in all other communities of Chris¬ tians by the inexpiable crime of tradition. Wherever 1 Milman, Hist, of Christianity, ii. 303. OPTATUS. 181 they obtained possession of a church, they burned the altar; or where wood was scarce, scraped off the infection of heretical communion; they melted the cups, and sold, it was said, the sanctified metal for profane, perhaps for pagan, uses ; they rebaptized all who joined their sect; they made the virgins renew their vows ; they would not even permit the bodies of the Catholics to repose in peace, lest they should pollute the common cemeteries. The impla¬ cable faction darkened into a sanguinary feud. For the first time, human blood was shed in conflicts between followers of the Prince of Peace."1 It was not until the reign of Julian that the lead¬ ers of the Donatists were permitted to return from exile, and Optatus bids them remember with a blush, that they were recalled by the same voice which bade that the Pagan temples should be reopened. They returned, breathing a spirit of uncompromising hos- i tility and revenge. " Veuistis rabid), venistis irati says the Catholic bishop, "membra Ian iantcs Ecclesice; subfiles in seductionibus, in ccedibus immanes, Jilios pads ad bella •yrovocantesIt is to this writer, bishop of Milevis, a small town of the interior, that we owe that account of the Donatists from whence all succeeding writers have derived their narrative. He is referred to by Augustine as a bishop of revered memory, and his authority ranked with that of Am¬ brose himself. His treatise was probably written about the year 370, and consequently brings us up to a period within twenty years of Augustine's con- 1 Milman, Hist, of Christianity, ii. 30G, 307. 182 OPTATTJS. version to the faith.. That he was a man of learning and ability, is sufficiently attested by the internal evi¬ dence here presented; and his defence of the Church obtained for him, after death, the honours of cano¬ nization. Some years before its publication, Par- menianus had succeeded Donatus as bishop of the church which Majorinus had erected at Carthage in opposition to Caecilian. Up to that time, the Dona- tists, with that impracticable spirit of isolation which Augustine found it so difficult to overcome, had declined all intercourse or discussion with the Ca¬ tholic party; Parmenianus, however, was induced to depart from this policy, and embodied the views of his party in writing for circulation in the provinces. It was this occasion that drew forth the reply of Optatus. The treatise, accordingly, is a refutation rather than a mere diatribe ; and, though written by a Catholic bishop, has fair claims to be considered as a correct exposition of the sentiments of the Donatists. % In the first book, Optatus examines the accusations made by his opponents, disproves them, and in many instances, retorts them upon the Donatists them¬ selves. The second is of more general interest. He here enters upon a lengthened examination of that theory of Church unity, in harmony with which they asserted that their policy was conceived. Roused by their intolerance, in claiming an exclusive possession of the truth, he asks, " Ergo ut in particula Africce, in angulo parvce regionis apud vos esse possit, apud nos in alia parte Afric non erit ?'n He insists, 1 "Even the imperceptible sect of the Rogatians," observes Gibbon, " could affirm without a blush, that when Christ should THE CIRCUMCELLIONS. 183 perhaps more emphatically and distinctly than any previous writer, on the fact that Peter was especially designated by our Lord as the head of the visible Church; and he points out that the succession had been preserved unbroken from the Apostle down to Siricius, the Roman bishop of that day. Neander notices that " elsewhere he (Optatus) finds it worthy of remark that Peter, notwithstanding he had denied Christ, yet continued to hold this relation to the rest of the apostles; so that the objective side of the unity of the Church, which was thus incapable of being invalidated by any human fault, appears in its unchangeable constancy.'''1 Optatus then proceeds to establish the claims of the Catholic party to be considered the true Church, by enumerating the distinctive marks which they possessed, but which he challenges the Donatists on their side to show. But the most striking portion of this treatise is that wherein Optatus details the excesses of the Circumcellions,—the strength and scandal of the Donatist party, as Gibbon terms them, and whose example he regards as renewed in " the persecution, the boldness, the crimes, and the enthusiasm" of the Camisards of the last century. The Circumcellions, descend to judge the earth, He would find His true religion pre¬ served only in a few nameless villages of the Cassarian Mau¬ ritania." iii. 45. 1 Neander, Church Hist., iii. 223. Optatus, bk. vii. c. 3. It is to bo noticed that the Bishop supports his statement by a false etymology, or rather a pseudology, in deriving Cephas from the Greek ice