of the λoyos, which he thus develops; this ray of God, as he had hitherto been always announced, descended into a certain virgin, and was made flesh in her body, and was born as a man united with God. "The flesh furnished with the divine nature is nourished, grows up, speaks, teaches, acts, and is Christ."

Tertullian here expresses himself as if the divine λóyos had only appeared in a human body, which he had assumed by means of the Virgin Mary; but we have seen that he expressly distinguished from the body, a rational human soul which the Aoyos appropriated, and we are not justified in maintaining that Tertullian had not yet been sensible of the need of such a definite idea. By the term caro he by no means understood merely the body, but as he himself expressly defined it, the whole man; it is only questionable how much he intended by it. If we may venture to assume that he was already an opponent of the Trichotomy in human nature, it would at once follow that he reckoned a rational human soul as an essential part of man. But it is evident that his Christian consciousness made it necessary for him to admit a peculiar combination of the Xoyos with humanity, the entrance of it into the peculiar essence of human nature, a kind of self-renunciation. Tertullian, who, as we have seen on other occasions, recognised in the Hellenic mythology a foreshadowing of the truth to be realized in Christianity, or a caricature of it, made such an application here of the myths respecting the sons of the gods. He could here find exhibited in a fantastic form, what would be historically the pure idea in Christianity. If he could not make his views out with perfect clearness, yet this lay at the foundation of what he says in his own way. So in his pre-Montanist book, De Præscriptione, there is a representation of the essential articles of faith, the regula fidei, in which he says, "that before all things the Word came forth, who is called his Son, who was variously seen by the patriarchs, and always heard in the prophets; lastly, he descended by the spirit and power of God the Father1 into the Virgin Mary, and was made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, acted as Jesus Christ; that is, the Word then descending and uniting itself to humanity, made the person of Jesus Christ, and he sent the power of the Holy Spirit, who was to occupy his place. ! He marks here the divine operation in effecting this-God the Father himself. De Prescrip. cap. xiii.

[blocks in formation]

Thus we already find here the mention of the Paraclete. Ja his book against Hermogenes, in opposition to the doctrine of a preexistent substance, he maintained the doctrine of the oopia, as the substance dwelling in God, out of which he formed all things,—the same with that idea we have mentioned of the ratio, which comprised all the divine ideas in itself, the ideal and spiritual basis of the universe. "From this," says Tertullian, "he created, since he created by it and with it... Who would not rather commend this as the fountain and origin of all things? an element of elements, not placed under him, not different in situation, not repulsive in appearance, but innate, and his own, and well adjusted, and decorous. What element would God require, his own or another's? Finally, when he perceived it (the copía,) necessary for the creation of the world, he created and begat it in himself." He here appeals to the passage in Prov. viii., the ἐκτήσατο ἐμὲ, where the Alexandrian version reads ἔκτισε. He afterwards says, that God the Father alone is without origin and unbegotten, but his wisdom was begctten and brought forth' ever since it began to exert itself in the thoughts of God for the creation of his works. We recognise here the same idea which we have developed in the quotation from the Apology. The latter is characteristic as similar, as referring to a too simple abstract conception of the Deity, the other is akin to the Neo-platonic idea of the "v. Afterwards, when opposing Hermogenes, who maintained the existence of an underived substance, he urged strongly that God the Father was alone underived, unbegotten, that the copía, inasmuch as it became the hypostatic Xóyos, had a beginning. Thus he also says in opposition to the doctrine of the preexisting Hyle maintained by Hermogenes,3 that according to the statements of revelation the copia was first of all brought forth by God, and then the Xóyos was begotten, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing has been made. We also find this subordination in the book against Marcion, when he


1 Generare and condere are here used as synonymous; at that time there was not so much care in the choice of expressions, since the word KTIČE in the Alexandrian version occasioned the use of this expression. As a proof of this we might quote some of Tertullian's own expressions. He says of oopía in his book against Hermogenes, "Genita, id est facta, quia et filios facimus, licet generemus. Nihil interest facta an nata sit abyssus;" both denote the beginning.-Adv. Hermog. cap. xxxii.

Adv. Hermog cap. xxxii.

'Cap. xlv

terins the Xoyos, as begotten' before all creation, the primus fructus Patris, and describes him as his servant, as far as he serves him as the organ for everything which through him he wished to effect. 2 Thus in the passages already quoted, he describes the Xoyos as the being to whom all the Theophanies of the Old Testament are to be referred, which were a type of his future incarnation. He says that Christ had always acted in the person of God the Father, and calls him the Word of God, which, by being allowed to proceed out of himself, became his Son.

As a Montanist Tertullian was disposed to vindicate the doctrine that he had already embraced of the una substantia in tribus, of the unitas substantia, at the same time with the oikoropía, to develop it still further, and to establish it in controversy in a dogmatic direction which stated the doctrine of the μοναρχία, to the exclusion of the οἰκονομία, which appeared irreconcilable the one with the other. There were two branches of this direction which accompanied the common conception of the doctrine of the Logos in the fathers of the church, and were opposed to it. Both directions were indeed two different forms in which the principle of Monarchianism appeared, but yet stood in more direct opposition to each other than to the doctrine of the church; since these two forms of conceiving the same general view proceeded from totally opposite interests. The adherents of the one were animated by a predominant dialectic monotheistic interest; they only wished to hold fast the unity of God; the doctrine of a divinity of Christ appeared to them quite irreconcilable with it, and Christ was not so much to their religious consciousness as to prevent their readily sacrificing that doctrine. It only seemed important to them to retain something divine in Christ, as a man especially enlightened and guided by God from his first development, on which account they called him the Son of God. In these persons the understanding was the leading faculty. On the other hand, there were persons of an entirely different mental tendency, in whom a very different interest was joined with their Monarchianism, that of practical Christianity,-the interest of Christian consciousness, wishing to have only God in Christ without any distinction. The Subordination doctrine of the church did not satisfy them on this point for the expression of their Christian. consciousness. God the Father, 1 Prolatus 2 Adv. Marc. lib. ii. cap. 4.

they thought, was the one divine subject who appeared, veiling himself with a body, in Christ. We must here take intc consideration that in the common Christian consciousness the doctrine of a rational human soul in Christ had not beer, developed; so much more easily could they admit an undivided Christ in the God veiled with a body, appearing without the intervention of anything else whatever. These persons were generally called Patripassians. They would come intc collision with the other class of Monarchians, or with the advocates of the church doctrine of subordination. Only individuals in whom Christian feeling and what was immediately practical predominated, could be satisfied with such a view. We recognise here men without education, who came forth from the midst of the laity, and the revolt of the immediate Christian consciousness of the uneducated laity against a theology pervaded by reflection and dialectic distinctions. The words of Tertullian in his work against Praxeas point to this fact, when he says, "All simple persons, I will not say ignorant and illiterate, who form always the majority of believers, (since the rule of faith brings them over from the many gods of the world to the one true God-not understanding that the unity is to be believed but in connexion with his oikoνομία,) are alarmed at the οἰκονομία ; they take for granted that the number and arrangement of the Trinity is a division of unity, though unity deriving trinity from itself is not destroyed, but administered by it." These are the same persons whom Origen describes, who knew no other God besides Christ, and would not admit any distinction in Christ. It is evident how unfounded is the opinion of those persons who would adduce the prevalence of such a view as evidence against the original existence of John's Gospel, and who suppose that the doctrine of the Logos was introduced by this Gospel as a composition of a later period. The multitude of the laity who adopted such a representation could not have occupied themselves further with the Gospel of John, nor in general with the exact study of the scriptures; at least, they gave themselves no concern about the more speculative elements of that Gospel, in consequence of their peculiar mental constitution. We see further from Tertullian's book against Praxeas, that persons of this class made use both of John's Gospel and of the Apocalypse, and explained the passages in them according to their own views.

It may be easily explained, that an individual should come

forth from the ranks of the laity as an opponent of the distinction commonly admitted in the church, between the hypostasis of the Father and of the λoys, or the Son, and yet at the same time be an advocate for the true doctrine of the divinity of Christ; and it is equally explicable that such an individual should find acceptar.ce among the laity. Such a person was Praxeas, who at the same time was engaged in controversy with Montanism in Lesser Asia. He betook himself to Rome, whether on account of other concerns, or that he was moved by a polemical interest against Montanism, in order to prevent its gaining the influential voice of the Roman church in favour of the new prophets. His influence was greatly increased by his having been led from prison as a confessor. Tertullian endeavours to depreciate the sufferings of Praxeas in the cause of Christianity; but what he says deserves little credit, proceeding, as it does, from so prejudiced an opponent. He calls Praxeas a man inflated with vanity, for boasting of his sufferings, though he had endured nothing more than a short imprisonment.' It is worthy of notice that Tertullian the Montanist generally appears as an opponent of the great reverence paid to confessors and martyrs, of which we have seen many examples; and it may agree very well with this fact, that such confessors as Praxeas raised their voice against Montanism, and by their influence damaged the cause. In Rome Praxeas met with no contradiction; whether it was, that the respect in which he was held as a confessor prevented his doctrine from being suspected or attacked, or whether he was so honoured as a defender of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, that all other points were readily overlooked; whether, appearing as a defender of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ against one class of Monarchians in Rome, such as Theodotus, he was regarded as the advocate of the true interests of Christian piety; or whether the undefined state of doctrine in the Roman church at that time, in which practical interests were objects of greater concern than exact dogmatical distinctions, rendered him assistance. As a confirmation of the last-named supposition, it may be urged that the Artemonites declared that the older Roman bishops had agreed with their doctrine and that Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, was the first who introduced an alteration in the doctrine. At all events,

1 Cap. i. "Insuper de jactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simple et breve carceris tædium."

« VorigeDoorgaan »