Tertullian, of Carthage, was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria,
and so nearly of the same age, that doubts have existed, which of the
two should take priority in point of time. There is a very wide
difference in the character and tone of their works, as there was in the
frame and constitution of their minds. The lenient and liberal views of
the erudite and accomplished master of the school of Alexandria, stand
out in prominent and broad contrast with the harsh and austere doctrines
of Tertullian.
Tertullian fell into errors of a very serious kind by joining himself to
the heretic Montanus; still on his {128} mind is discoverable the
working of that spirit which animated the early converts of
Christianity; and his whole soul seems to have been filled with a desire
to promote the practical influence of the Gospel.
Jerome, the oracle on such subjects, from whom the Roman Catholic Church
is unwilling to allow any appeal, expressly tells us that Cyprian[47],
who called Tertullian the Master, never passed a single day without
studying his works; and that after Tertullian had remained a presbyter
of the Church to middle age, he was driven, by the envy and revilings of
the members of the Roman Church, to fall from its unity, and espouse
Montanism. Bellarmin calls him a heretic, and says he is the first
heretic who denied that the saints went at once and forthwith to glory.
[Hieron. edit. 1684. tom. i. p. 183.]
[Footnote 47: The words of Jerome, who refers to the
circumstance more than once, are very striking: "I saw one
Paulus, who said that he had seen the secretary (notarium) of
Cyprian at Rome, who used to tell him that Cyprian never passed
a single day without reading Tertullian; and that he often said
to him, 'Give me the Master,' meaning Tertullian."--Hieron. vol.
iv. part ii. p. 115.]
A decided line of distinction is drawn by Roman Catholic writers between
the works of Tertullian written before he espoused the errors of
Montanus, and his works written after that unhappy step. The former they
hold in great estimation, the latter are by many considered of far less
authority. I do not see how such a distinction ought to affect his
testimony on the historical point immediately before us. If indeed he
had held the doctrine of the invocation of saints whilst he continued in
the full communion of the Church, and rejected it afterwards, no honest
and sensible writer would quote his later opinions against the practice.
But we are only seeking in his works for evidence of the {129} matter of
fact,--Is there any proof in the works of Tertullian that the invocation
of saints formed a part of the doctrine and practice of the Catholic
Church in his time[48]? His works will be found in the note, arranged
under those two heads, as nearly as I can ascertain the preponderating
sentiments of critics[49].
[Footnote 48: The reader, who may be induced to consult the work
of the present Bishop of Lincoln, entitled, "The Ecclesiastical
History of the second and third Centuries, illustrated from the
writings of Tertullian," will there find, in the examination and
application of Tertullian's remains, the union of sound
judgment, diligence in research, clearness of perception,
acuteness in discovery, and great erudition mingled with
charity.]
[Footnote 49: Works of Tertullian before he became a
Montanist:--
Adversus Judæos.
The Tract ad Martyres.
The two Books ad Nationes.
The Apology, and the Tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum.
The Tract de Testimonio Animæ.
The Tracts de Patientia, de Oratione, de Baptismo, de
Poenitentia.
The two books ad Uxorem.
Works written after he espoused Montanism:--
The Tracts de Spectaculis and de Idololatria, though others say
these should be ranked among the first class.
The Tracts de Corona, and de Fuga in persecutione, Scorpiace,
and ad Scapulam.
The Tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis, de Monogamia, de
Pudicitia, de Jejuniis, de Virginibus Velandis, de Pallio, the
five books against Marcion, the Tracts adversus Valentinianos,
de Carne Christi, de Resurrectione Carnis, adversus Hermogenem,
de Anima, adversus Praxeam, de Cultu Foeminarum.]
I will detain you only by a very few quotations from this father.
In his Apology, sect. 30, we read this very remarkable passage, "We
invoke the eternal God, the true God, the living God, for the safety of
the emperor.... {130} Thither (heavenward) looking up, with hands
extended, because they are innocent; with our head bare, because we are
not ashamed; in fine, without a prompter, because it is from the heart;
we Christians pray for all rulers a long life, a secure government, a
safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, a good people, a quiet
world.... For these things I cannot ask in prayer from any other except
Him from whom I know that I shall obtain; because both He is the one who
alone grants, and I am the one whom it behoveth to obtain by
prayer;--his servant, who looks to him alone, who for the sake of his
religion am put to death, who offer to him a rich and a greater victim,
which He has commanded; prayer from a chaste frame, from a harmless
soul, from a holy spirit.... So, let hoofs dig into us, thus stretched
forward to God, let crosses suspend us, let fires embrace us, let swords
sever our necks from the body, let beasts rush upon us,--the very frame
of mind of a praying Christian is prepared for every torment. This do,
ye good presidents; tear ye away the soul that is praying for the
emperor." [Page 27.]
In the opening of his reflections on the Lord's Prayer, he says,--
"Let us consider therefore, beloved, in the first place, the heavenly
wisdom in the precept of praying in secret, by which he required, in a
man, faith to believe that both the sight and the hearing of the
Omnipotent God is present under our roofs and in our secret places; and
desired the lowliness of faith, that to Him alone, whom he believed to
hear and to see every where, he would offer his worship." [Page 129.]
The only other reference which I will make, is to {131} the solemn
declaration of Tertullian's Creed; the last clause of which, though in
perfect accordance with the sentiments of his contemporaries, seems to
have been regarded with hostile eyes by modern writers of the Church of
Rome, because it decidedly bids us look to the day of judgment for the
saints being taken to the enjoyment of heaven; and consequently implies
that they cannot be properly invoked now.
"To profess now what we defend: By the rule of our faith we believe that
God is altogether one, and no other than the Creator of the world, who
produced all things out of nothing by his Word first of all sent down.
That that Word, called his Son, was variously seen by the patriarchs in
the name of God; was always heard in the prophets; at length, borne by
the spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made
flesh in her womb, was born of her, and was Jesus Christ. Afterwards He
preached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; wrought
miracles, was crucified, rose again the third day, and, being taken up
into heaven, sat on the right hand of the Father; and He sent in his own
stead the power of the Holy Ghost, to guide believers; that He shall
come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of eternal life and
the heavenly promises, and to condemn the impious to eternal fire,
making a reviving of both classes with the restoration of the body." [De
Præscriptione Hæreticorum, § 13. p. 206.]
* * * * *
Some notice must here be taken of METHODIUS, a pious Christian, of the
third century. A work (Methodius, Gl. Combes. Paris, 1644) {132}
formerly attributed to him has been quoted in proof of the early
invocation of saints; but the work, among many others, has been long ago
allowed by the best Roman Catholic critics to be the production of a
later age. (Fabricius, vol. vii. p. 268, and vol. x. p. 241.) Many
homilies, purporting to have been delivered on the festival of our
Lord's presentation in the temple, at so early a period, must be
received as the works of a later age, because that feast began to be
observed in the Church so late as the fifteenth year of Justinian, in
the sixth century. Evidently, moreover, the theological language of the
homily is of a period long subsequent to the date assigned to Methodius.
In speaking of our blessed Saviour, for example, he employs expressions
to guard against the Arian heresy, and makes extracts apparently from
the Nicene creed, "God of himself, and not by grace," "Very God of very
God, very light of very light, who for us men and our salvation, &c."
The general opinion indeed seems to be that this, and many other
writings formerly ascribed to the first Methodius, were written by
persons of a subsequent age, who either were of the same name or assumed
his. Even were the work genuine, it would afford just as strong a
demonstration that Methodius believed that the city of Jerusalem could
hear his salutation, as that the saints could hear his prayer; for he
addresses the same "Hail" to Mary, Symeon, and the Holy City alike,
calling it the "earthly heaven." [Greek: Chairois hae polis, ho epigeios
ouranos.] {133}
* * * * *