VI.Тертуллиан

The characteristic features of Tertullian's personality are known. An extremely harsh critic of philosophy, who himself, however, often, although not always successfully, used its means, fiery in character, unrestrained and careless in expressions, prone to exaggeration and paradoxes, a prolific and eloquent writer, varied in the choice of subjects for his creations, Tertullian represents in them a rich source for many theological sciences. His creations are also very important in a dogmatic sense, since he rendered considerable services to dogma. – Regarding in particular the doctrine of the sacraments, then in this respect his creations occupy a very prominent place among the creations of other church fathers of the period under consideration. If he had left behind only one essay on baptism, extremely remarkable in dogmatic terms, then even then he would have the right to such a place; but many of his works have come down to us, in which numerous and important data for the teaching of other sacraments are scattered. The circumstances of the time, namely the fight against paganism and false gnosis, prompted Tertullian to reveal the doctrine of the sacraments, on the one hand, in comparison of the Christian sacraments with the pagan mysteries and in general with the religious rites of paganism, on the other, in contrast to the false spiritualism of the Gnostics. In the first case, he revealed the doctrine of the institution of God and the nature of the Christian sacraments, mainly the first three; in the latter he defended the idea of ​​the necessity of material elements and again in the same first three sacraments. Finally, having become a Montanist, he wrote several essays with the aim of refuting Orthodox views on repentance, marriage and the priesthood, through which he made it possible to become familiar with the general church views of that time on these sacraments, since in his non-Montanist writings, he talks about these sacred rites primarily not from the dogmatic side, but from other sides. I. On baptism and confirmation. Of all Tertullian's discussions related to the doctrine of the sacraments, the most remarkable is undoubtedly his treatise on baptism, set out in a separate work. Tertullian's book on baptism is dogmatically a monument of paramount importance. In addition to the fact that this is a very detailed discussion, in which almost all questions about baptism are touched upon, and hitherto form the content of the treatise on this sacrament in dogmatists, here, in the book on baptism, Tertullian raised the question of the relationship of grace to the sensory sign - water - as clearly and decisively as this was not done by anyone in the period under review, neither before him nor after him; and in solving the question, a generalization was made regarding the action of grace in general through material things. The following circumstance prompted Tertullian to pose this question. Directing his work against a certain Quintilla, who rejected baptism with water 553 due, one might think, to the dualistic views on matter that distinguished the Cainite sect, to which this woman belonged, 554 Tertullian naturally had to pay special attention to the material element in baptism, as the most natural and completely worthy instrument of grace, through which the latter can and does act on a person in baptism. The reason for the error of people who reject water in baptism lies, according to Tertullian, in the fact that they cannot reconcile two things: on the one hand, the simplicity of the divine deeds seen in the act, on the other, the greatness of the action that constitutes the fruit of the act 555. The simpler baptism is performed in comparison with the pomp of pagan mysteries, the less pure in appearance a person comes out when immersed in water and washed with the utterance of a few words, the more incredible the eternal acquisition through what is received seems more incredible. Unhappy unbelievers thus reject the properties of God: simplicity and omnipotence. But the more difficult it is to believe, the more you need to believe. The works of God cannot but arouse surprise: but while we are surprised because we believe; the unbeliever marvels at the simple as if it were empty, at the great as if it were powerless. “If God is both wise and omnipotent, which even those who flee from Him do not deny, then it is true that He is contrary to His wisdom and power, that is, unreasonable and powerless. He arranged (for Himself) the instrument of his action” 556. But “why is this particular matter worthy of performing duties of such great importance?” 557. Why not some other one? The reason lies in the antiquity of its origin. This is the first element in time (antiqua substantia); hence its dignity, precisely the fact that it was worthy to be the “seat of the Spirit of God”, preferred over other elements 558. When everything was still unsettled, moisture alone, matter always perfect, simple in itself, pure, represented a worthy chariot for the Spirit of God, and thus its simplicity and purity is the second reason for its preference over other elements. In the structure of various parts of the universe, we see one or another participation of water. For example, water is commanded to remove the souls of the living. So, the first moisture carried away the living for life, so that they would not be surprised that the waters can animate, revive in baptism 559. Tertullian is afraid to continue his discussion on the meaning of water, lest someone think that he praises simple water more than he gives reasons for baptism, although, according to him, he could, continuing his speech in the same direction, show even more that there should be no doubt that God made the same matter an accessory to his sacraments, which he put into the composition of all his creations 560. But enough said. The spirit hovering over the waters prefigured baptism: “the holy was hovering, as it were, over the holy, or otherwise, what was carried borrowed holiness from what hovered over the first. Since it is necessary that every subject matter perceive the quality of that which aspires from above, especially the corporeal one, perceive the spiritual as that which, by the subtlety of its substance, conveniently penetrates and inhabits. Thus the sanctified nature of water itself received the power to sanctify” 561. This does not mean that we are baptized with the same water that was at creation; the genus of water is one, but the species are different; but what is attributed to the genus is also attributed to the species; and therefore it makes no difference to be baptized in this or that water. “So all waters, from ancient prerogatives of origin, receive, at the invocation of God, the sacrament of consecration. For the Spirit immediately descends from heaven and is present above the waters, sanctifying them with Himself, and thus what is sanctified absorbs into itself the power to sanctify” 562. In baptism, not only the body is cleansed, but also the soul: since both parts of a person are guilty of crime, the spirit as dominant, the flesh as serving the spirit. “Therefore, when water receives in some way healing power through the entry of an angel into it, the spirit is washed bodily by the water, and the flesh is spiritually cleansed by these same waters 563. The pagans also attribute the same effect to their idols, but at the same time they deceive themselves, since their water is devoid of power (viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur); they use the font for initiation into the mysteries (et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur) of Isis and Mithra; even the gods themselves are glorified by ablutions: villages, houses, temples and entire cities are washed with water; They immerse themselves in the games of Apollo and the Eleusinians, doing this in order to be reborn and avoid punishment for their crimes. The murderer of the ancients also cleansed himself from the crime with cleansing water. In this case, the devil, when he performs baptism on his slaves, imitates the things of God (diaboli res Dei aemulantis), but of course does not achieve the goal, that is, purification. However, even without any sacrament (sine ullo sacramento) unclean spirits will sit upon the waters; There are plenty of examples of that. This is said because if an evil spirit uses the element of water to destroy people, then how can one not believe that the angel of God is present at the waters to save people? The type in this case was the angel who descended into the pool of Bethesda; it was an image of physical healing that proclaimed spiritual healing 564. “When the grace of God increased, more was given to both the waters and the Angel; what previously healed bodily infirmities now heals souls” 565. Baptism “destroys death through the washing away of crimes. Once the guilt is eliminated, the punishment is removed. In this way, man is restored to God in His likeness..., the image is posited in the features (in effigie Divine), and the likeness in eternity. Man perceives again that Spirit of God, which he lost through crime” 566. However, Tertullian immediately makes a reservation: “It is not that we receive the Holy Spirit in water; but, having been purified in the water under the inspiration of an angel, we prepare ourselves for the Holy Spirit. Spirit" 567. But here Tertullian begins to speak, obviously, about another action, although closely related to baptism, both in time and in name, but constituting something completely separate from the act of immersion or baptism in a close sense. The essence of everything that Tertullian said about baptism with water can be expressed in the following brief provisions: 1) water was chosen by God, on the one hand, as unreasonable and weak, and on the other, as the most ancient and pure instrument, through which God has always revealed the wonders of his wisdom and omnipotence in the creation of the world and man, and through which He wants to manifest the same properties in the recreation of man. 2) Water, sanctified by its use in the hands of God, receives a special influx of the Holy Spirit at baptism; this influx consists in the fact that the Holy Spirit floats over the waters, and the waters, like matter, are under the influence of the subtle, spiritual power of the Holy Spirit that conveniently penetrates into it. Spirit, as a result of this they themselves receive the power to sanctify. 3) The fruits of immersing a person in such water consist in cleansing him, both in soul and body, in particular (negatively) in the destruction of death, guilt and punishment for crimes, (positively) in the restoration of the likeness of God in man. 4) In water, however, a person does not yet receive the Spirit itself, which he lost through crime, but receives It in another action, which Tertullian discusses further. “Just as John was once the forerunner of the Lord, preparing the way for Him, so the angel of baptism (i.e., the grace of water), as a minister, equalizes, through the washing away of crimes, the path of the holy one who has to descend from above. Spirit - through the washing required by faith, sealed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Spirit" 568. “After leaving the font, we are anointed with the blessed unction, according to the ancient order (benedicta unctione de pristina disciplina), according to which it was the custom to anoint for the priesthood with oil from the horn.” Thus is Aaron anointed; so Christ was anointed “with the Spirit from God the Father” 569. “So in us, the anointing, although it occurs bodily, has a spiritual fruit, just as (quomodo), just as the act of baptism itself is bodily, since we are immersed in water, but the effect is spiritual, since we are freed from sins. Then a hand is laid, calling and attracting the saint through blessing. Spirit. In truth, if a person, by the power of his mind, can introduce air into water and, having made one whole from both, can animate this latter, through the adaptation of his hands from above, with another sound of such purity: then is it really impossible for God to sing, with the help of holy hands, a high spiritual song on his organ? 570 And this action has types in the Old Testament. “Just as after the waters of the flood, by which ancient wickedness was purified, so to speak, after the baptism of the world, a dove, released from the ark and returning with an olive branch, announced, like a herald, the quenching of heavenly wrath, so, similarly, is the spiritual effect on the earth; that is, the dove of St. flies onto our flesh, rising from the font after ancient crimes. Spirit, bringing the peace of God, being sent from heaven, where the Church is represented by the ark" 571. – So the second act of baptism is the most important and completely independent act. The importance of anointing with oil together with the laying on of hands, in comparison with immersion in water, is clearly seen from the fact that, according to Tertullian, the latter prepares for the former; “The angel of baptism, through the washing away of crimes, smoothes the way for the Spirit who has to descend from above.” The relationship between these acts is the same as between John the Baptist and Christ the Savior; immersion in water is John, and anointing is Christ himself; immersion in water washes away crimes, anointing with the laying on of hands bestows the Holy Spirit himself. Already from this we can see the independence of the act of anointing; but Tertullian directly singles out the act of immersion in water or the act of baptism itself and in this sense contrasts this ankh with the act of anointing, although he sees in both acts something essentially completely similar to each other. Thus, in the act of anointing, what happens is the same as in the act of baptism itself, or more precisely, immersion. In both acts it is necessary to distinguish: carnale et spiritale, carnalis actus et spiritualalis effectus. Such a comparison of one act with another gives us every right to think that Tertullian represented the relationship between grace and the material element in confirmation in the same way as in baptism, although he did not express this directly and did not develop it in as much detail as when he talked about water and spoke about the grace it absorbs. Likewise, in explaining why the visible side of this sacred rite consists of anointing, Tertullian limits himself to making only a slight allusion to the “olive branch of the dove” that returned to the ark after the washing of the earth by the flood. He did not clarify either one or the other in detail, probably because he considered the answer to the first question (about the relationship of grace to the material element in anointing) to be too clear and obvious, and he did not insist on clarifying the second in the confidence that the one who accepts the water will also accept the anointing, without needing to defend the suitability of the latter to be the organ of St. Spirit. True, in Tertullian, together with anointing, power brings down St. The Spirit is apparently attributed to the laying on of hands; but, as can be seen from the comparison of a man with an ancient musical, water instrument, he attributed to the laying on of hands not the bringing down of St. Spirit, but something else. Man, in his view, is an organ; in this organ there are water and the Spirit, that is, the grace of baptism and the Spirit of God resting on top of it in the anointing oil with which it has just been anointed. It is necessary for the Spirit of God to penetrate deeper into this organ and take effect along with the waters of baptism. so that man, like an instrument, produces sounds of heavenly harmony. The laying on of hands in this way has the meaning of introducing St. Spirit, into the depths of human being. That is why, one might think, Tertullian does not compare the laying on of hands with baptism or immersion in water, as equal to equal, which he does, however, as we have seen, with regard to anointing. It is obvious that he considers the act of laying on of hands to be an additional act to the anointing. From all that has been said, the following undoubted consequences follow: 1) Tertullian looked at both baptism and anointing, after immersion in water, as sacred rites in which grace descends on material elements and is perceived by man in these very elements, 2) he saw baptism and anointing as separate, independent acts. But 3) dividing them essentially, he did not separate them in a formal sense (in this work, at least), but called them with one name common to both of them, baplismum or lavacrum, although, as we will see, in some places he used the expression lavacri sacramenta, and in others, as we will now see, he even more clearly separated confirmation from baptism, placing it right next to baptism and the Eucharist. We consider it necessary to cite the latter kind of passage in addition to what we find regarding the first two sacraments in the book “On Baptism.” In one of this kind of places, discussing the Church, Tertullian cites the Roman Church as an example of fidelity to the apostolic faith and giving and says that it “unites the law and the prophets with the Gospel and Apostolic writings and from there drinks faith, which it seals with water, invests with the Holy Spirit, and nourishes with the Eucharist” 572. Discussing in the same work about how “the devil imitates the very things of the sacraments of Christ in the idolatrous mysteries,” he says that “and he (the devil) immerses some who seem to be believers and his faithful, promises the atonement of sins with the font; At the same time, I also remembered Mithras - he imprints his warriors on their foreheads in them (the mysteries of Mithras); solemnly performs the offering of bread and introduces the image of the resurrection and promises to bestow the crown under the sword” 573. The following image of expression is also remarkable: si christianus est, qui acceplam a Deo Patre substantiam utique baptismatis utique Spiritus sancti et exinde spei aeternae evangatus est 574. No less remarkable is the classical passage in which Tertullian, proving the resurrection of the body, writes: “the flesh is washed so that the soul may be cleansed from vice; the flesh is anointed so that the soul may be sanctified; the flesh is sealed so that the soul is protected; the flesh is overshadowed by the laying on of hands, so that the soul also may be enlightened by the Spirit; the flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul also may be satisfied with God” 575. Finally, attention is drawn to the place in the work against Marcian, in which, refuting this heretic, Tertullian writes: Christ “does not reject the water of the Creator with which he washes his own, nor the oil with which he anoints his own, nor the mixture of milk and honey with which he makes his own babies, nor the bread with which he represents his own body, needing for his own sacraments the insignificant things of the Creator” 576 . In all these passages Tertullian makes it clear that "the endowment of the Spirit, the sealing, the anointing, the oil" are all distinct from "the water, the font, the baptism, the washing." In addition, all three sacraments are compared here: baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. Although in the last of these places the eating of milk and honey by the newly baptized is also introduced into the list of the most important sacred rites, there is no doubt about the meaning of only a rite additional to baptism, since not a word is said about it in the work on baptism, as an action that is obviously unimportant, having only a symbolic meaning - an action 577 mentioned here solely for the purpose of showing that material things are not excluded from use in general (one or the other is another question) at performing even the three most important sacred rites, one after the other: baptism, confirmation and Eucharist. As for Tertullian’s inclusion of martyrdom (as well as other subjects) among the sacraments, the reasons for this will be clarified below (in the treatise on the use of the word sacramentum). II. About the Eucharist. Judging by the way Tertullian looked at the water of baptism and the anointing oil, it is natural to expect that he should have considered both bread and wine not as simple symbols depicting only the body and blood of Christ, but as matter on which the grace of Christ descends and changes it in one way or another. It is natural to make such a conclusion: 1) because Tertullian very often, as we have seen, places baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist in an inextricable connection with each other, and considers the Eucharist the highest, final act of all three acts. And if it is the highest act, then it cannot be that it contains and is given to a person less than in lower acts. 2) Speaking about the water of baptism itself, he expresses himself in places in a general form, talks generally about matter as an instrument that God, in order to show his omnipotence and wisdom, uses as the bearer of his grace, makes the sensory element, weak and unreasonable, an instrument of his action, further - that God uses the same matter that he put into the composition of all his creations in his sacraments for the purpose of so that the same elements are the sources of both earthly and heavenly life; finally, that “every subject matter” receives into itself a spiritual substance, which, due to its subtlety, easily penetrates into it and dwells in it. All this leads to the assumption that when speaking about matter as an instrument or carrier of grace, Tertullian meant not only the water of baptism and not only the oil of anointing, but also some other material elements. But all these are still just assumptions that require factual confirmation. – Tertullian’s works contain many passages related to the Eucharist. He often touched upon this mystery in his reasoning, but nowhere did he discuss it in detail. It depends on this and other reasons that the passages of Tertullian’s works relating to the Eucharist, being taken fragmentarily, without connection with one another, and separately from his teaching on baptism and confirmation, allow, to a greater or lesser extent, the possibility of their different interpretations. That is why all Christian denominations: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed see Tertullian as an exponent of their views on the Eucharist. Postponing our judgment on this controversial issue until we examine all the passages related here, we will cite the passages themselves, and first of all those that express faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements, and then those that at first glance appear symbolic. Armed against the makers of idols, Tertullian, despite the apologies of this kind of Christians, cannot understand how such a person can remain faithful to the oath he took in baptism 578. He is ready, in his words, to speak all day long, mourning the Christian idol-maker who dares to approach the Eucharist, who “dares from the enemy’s workshop to go to the house of God, to raise to God the Father the hands that gave birth to idols... to stretch out to the body of the Lord those hands that make bodies for demons (daemoniis sogroga conferant). But the total is not enough. Not only do they accept what they defile (quod contaminant), but they themselves even pass on to others what they defile (quod contaminaverunt). Makers of idols are considered to be among the rank of church ministers. O atrocity! The Jews laid hands on Jesus Christ only twice, but these people attack His body every day (isti quotidie corpus Ejus lacessunt). O hands that must be cut off! Let them see then whether it is said only figuratively (per similitudinem): if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off (Matthew 5:20). What hands more deserve to be cut off than those with which the body of the Lord is scandalized (Domini corpus scandalizatur) 579? Here the bodies of demons are contrasted with the body of Christ. Since, according to Tertullian, idols are not only images of demon gods, but are also their abode, a dwelling, in a sense similar to how your bodies are the dwellings of our souls, then we must assume that Tertullian also represented the Eucharistic body as a dwelling in which Christ himself dwells. Only with such an idea is possible the horror that he felt at the thought of the touch of the Eucharistic body of Christ by the makers of idols and all his powerful reasoning about the desecration of the body of Christ at the hands of the makers of idols - reasoning that he is ready to continue all day (tota die). Only by believing in the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist could he consider the torment that the Jews once subjected the Lord to be unambiguous, with the idol-makers accepting His Eucharistic body into the hands, and could he decide to insist on the direct application of the Savior’s words about cutting off the tempting hand to these persons. No matter how much Tertullian loved strong, oratorical turns of speech and devices, no matter how prone he was to exaggeration and no matter how severe his character, it is impossible to explain the above passage solely by the personality traits of the writer. From the lips of a pure symbolist, no matter how much he loves oratorical turns of phrase, exaggeration and strong expressions, such words would not pour out, full not of momentary (tota die) animation, but of a deep and living consciousness of the great insult inflicted on the great shrine and energetic protest against the desecration of the most sacred beliefs 580. It is not surprising, therefore, that those who consider Tertullian a symbolist do not like to dwell on this point, but prefer to pay attention to other, less decisive places. Such, for example, is the following passage where Tertullian discusses the opinion of those who think that the Eucharist should not be celebrated on days of standing, “since standing should end upon receiving the body of the Lord.” According to Tertullian, it is possible to combine both: “by receiving the body of the Lord and preserving it, both are saved: both the acceptance and the fulfillment of the duty” 581. The expression “body of the Lord” is too general to allow any judgment to be made regarding Tertullian’s view of the Eucharist. Other of these indecisive passages either do not directly relate to the Eucharist 582, or represent figurative speech, albeit very remarkable 583. In comparison with the latter kind of passages, the well-known passage in the essay on the resurrection of the flesh receives special significance, in which Tertullian speaks of feeding not the soul, but precisely our flesh with the flesh of the Lord and, what is especially remarkable, he says this among detailed discussions about the important significance of the body in the composition of man and about the mutual relations between soul and body. God, Tertullian argues, could not put into an unworthy vessel the shadow of his soul, the breath of his spirit, the creation of his lips, when man sets his jewels not in iron or copper, but in precious metals; the body is a completely worthy room for the soul. Moreover, there is also the question that there is a vessel in a person and what is contained in the vessel. “God placed, or better to say, introduced and mixed the soul into the flesh, using such a (method of) placement that it is not known what to wear, whether the body is the soul or the soul is the body, whether the flesh appears in the soul or the soul in the flesh. However, it is better to think that the soul is introduced and dominates (into the body and over the body), as being closest to God 584. But through this the flesh does not lose its dignity; on the contrary, containing close to God, and representing the possessions of the ruling soul, it still rises in its glory. Moreover, the soul depends very much on the flesh; The soul uses everything in the world through the body, since everything is perceived through the sensory organs and therefore everything that is created in the field of arts, sciences, social and state life - all this is accomplished through the flesh. Even the life of the soul depends on the body; to be separated from the body by the soul means not to live. So, “in truth, if everything is subject to the soul through the flesh, then everything is subject to the flesh through which you use what is necessary. Thus the flesh, since it is the performer and servant of the soul, is its accomplice and co-heir. And if (she is a partner and co-heir) of the temporal, then why (she is not a partner and co-heir) also of the eternal” 585. This is relative to the general form of human life. As for the Christian form of life, here are “the advantages of this substance with God” 586. “If it is given that absolutely no soul can receive salvation unless it believes in the flesh, then the flesh even becomes the basis of salvation. Finally, when the soul enters into communion with God, the same (flesh) strives so that the soul can enter into communion. Namely, the flesh is washed so that the soul can be cleansed from vice; the flesh is anointed so that the soul may be sanctified; the flesh is sealed so that the soul is protected; the flesh is overshadowed by the laying on of hands, so that the soul also may be enlightened by the Spirit; the flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, so that the soul may be satisfied with God. Consequently, those who were united by (total) labor 587 cannot be shared in reward. At the end of this reasoning, Tertullian speaks of the importance of the human body for the soul, as a necessary medium through which only gifts of grace can be imparted to the soul. This basic idea allows us to draw the following conclusions from his words. If the body is a necessary conductor of the sanctification of the soul, then it cannot be that it, having absolutely equal significance with the soul, does not itself directly and before the soul not receive sanctification from the water of baptism and from the Eucharistic body and blood, but receive this sanctification only through the medium of the soul 588. Tertullian's task was to reveal a thought completely opposite to the last assumption. According to him, the soul is sanctified through the body, and not the body through the soul. And if the body itself directly, and moreover, the first, receives sanctification from partaking of the body of Christ, and the soul then uses this benefit through the body, then the body and blood in the Eucharist are not just symbols, when looking at which with carnal eyes, or about tasting which with the lips, the soul is mentally saturated with God, since in order to give sanctification to the body, the elements must themselves contain the power to sanctify it, and therefore must represent something holy in themselves to yourself. It would be a different matter if Tertullian had argued that through the soul the body is also sanctified; Simple symbols can also have a beneficial effect on the soul, inducing changes in its mood through a simple psychological process. Finally, because in the above words about the Eucharist it is impossible to see the expression of a view of this sacrament only as a symbol, because in this case we would have to draw a similar conclusion about the water of baptism, since it is said here in exactly the same way as about the Eucharist. In all the places we have cited so far, Tertullian is the exponent of the truly Orthodox view of the Eucharist. But he has many passages in which he seems at first glance to be a pure symbolist and which were recently very carefully studied by one German scientist Leimbach 589 - mainly from the philological side. Refuting Marcion’s dualistic view, which divided God into higher and lower, Tertullian, turning to Marcion, says: “Turn to yourself, consider man both inside and outside. You will love this creation of our God, which was loved by your Lord, the highest God, for whose sake He labored to descend from the third heaven into these poor elements (elementa), for whose sake He was even nailed to the cross in this small church of the Creator. However, even to this day, He does not reject either the water of the Creator, with which He washes His own, with the oil with which He anoints His own, nor the combination of milk and honey, through which (compounds) He makes His own babies, nor the bread with which He represents the body itself, needing for His own sacraments the insignificant things of the Creator” 590 . We consider it quite thoroughly proven by Leimbach that Tertullian in all his works uses repraesentaro much more often to denote a true, actual presence than to express the idea of an absent one, or to denote the presence of something only in thought and in the imagination, that in particular in the books against Marcion this word is used exclusively in the first sense 591 and that it seems incredible to assume that Tertullian, using the said word in all places of the work in one sense, used it only in this place in a completely different meaning 592; – Considering all this to be proven and having its own significance in relation to the proper explanation of this passage, let us, for our part, pay attention to the flow of thoughts and the property of the turn of phrase in the given words. God loved, says Tertullian, these poor elements, so that He Himself descended from heaven into them. Moreover, He does not disdain them even after departing to the Father; does not reject water, oil, milk and honey, or bread. He uses the former as instruments of his gifts, and the latter as an instrument no longer of gifts, but as an organ of the presence of Himself, His own body. The difference in the turn of phrase in the last words compared with the previous ones (he did not say pascit suos, but ipsum corpus repraesentat) depended, one might think, on the fact that the author wanted to strengthen the idea of ​​​​the meaning of the Eucharistic bread, in comparison with other elements, and to compare the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread with His descent from heaven into the earthly body and with the crucifixion on the cross, in the earthly church of the body. He probably also uses the word ipsum to reinforce the idea of ​​the meaning of bread. On these grounds, it seems to us, we can translate the above expressions as follows: “he does not reject bread, through which he makes even his own body truly present.” Another passage says even less about Tertullian’s symbolism. Explaining the fourth request of the Lord's Prayer, Tertullian writes: “The wisdom of God has excellently arranged the order of prayer so that after the heavenly, it also gives place to the request for the necessary, earthly... However, the words: give us our daily bread today, we will better understand spiritually. Because Christ is our bread, because Christ is life, and life is bread. I, He says, am the bread of life (John 6:35) and a little higher: bread is the word of the living God coming down from heaven. Further, also because His body is in pane censetur. This is My body. So, asking for daily bread, we demand constant abiding in Christ and inseparability from His body" 593. Leaving aside the use of the word censeri - since it turns out that Tertullian used this word in a wide variety of senses, among other things, in the meaning of being, existing, being, and since no single meaning was his most favorite 594 - let us turn to the analysis of this place. In the above words, Tertullian tries to prove why the petition for daily bread is better understood spiritually, that is, not in the sense of ordinary bread that makes up our food. He gives two proofs: 1) Christ is our bread, which in turn is supported by passages from St. Scriptures 2) tumn quod et corpus Ejus in pane censetur. These evidences together constitute a disclosure of the content of the spiritual meaning contained in the petition. In accordance with the double spiritual meaning contained in the prayer for daily bread, two thoughts are expressed at the conclusion of the speech: 1) perpetuitatem postalamus in Christo 2) et individuitatem a corpore Ejus. This is relative to the general train of thought. In particular, the first proof of the possibility of understanding the petition for bread in a spiritual sense is revealed as follows. Christ is the bread. How? Christ is our life; we live by Him. And what we live on is usually called bread. Therefore, Christ is bread. In other words, the concept of life is inextricably linked with the concept of Christ, and with the concept of life is the concept of bread that supports life. “Christ is our bread, since Christ is life, and life is bread.” The syllogism here is correct and completely complete. Then, in confirmation of the main concepts included in this syllogism (bread and life), citing the words of Scripture, he moves on to a new thought (tum quod et), but again to prove his first, main position about the possibility of connecting the highest meaning with the request for daily bread” 595. Tertullian wants to say the following with this new thought of his. We can ask not only that Christ be our entire spiritual food, that we always spiritually live in Christ (perpetuitatem in Christo), but - since “His body is in bread”, in that bread of which it is said: this is my body, therefore, in the Eucharistic bread - then we can ask for the communion of His Eucharistic body, for an inseparable union with His body in the Eucharist (individuitatem a corpore Ejus). Thus, with the request for daily bread we can connect a higher meaning than is usually connected: namely, we can understand the request for nourishment by Christ the Savior in general and in particular with His body in the Eucharist; wherein Christ is in the first case separate from us, and in the latter one inseparable from us. – If we have correctly raised Tertullian’s train of thought, then on the basis of the words individuitatem a corpore Ejus, we have the right to understand the words: corpus Ejus in pane censetur, as expressing the idea of ​​​​the actual presence of the true body of Christ in the Eucharistic bread. One can individually unite with the body of Christ only when it is truly present in the Eucharistic bread; union with a mental body, or mental union with the body of the Lord existing in heaven, cannot in any way be called an inseparable, “individual” union. Moreover, Tertullian spoke above about mental connection. Thus, this passage not only does not speak in favor of Tertullian symbolism, but, on the contrary, testifies to Tertullian’s conviction in the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharistic bread. A particular difficulty for interpretation, but at the same time - belonging to the explanation - and an important proof of Tertullian’s Orthodoxy in this regard, are those places in which the words figura and figurare are found in application to the Eucharist. According to Leimbach's research, these expressions in the works of Tertullian 596 are used in two main meanings: in the meaning of form and in the meaning of image. In the meaning of form, figura is used: 1) as σχῆμα and μορφὴ, - as a real form, so that, for example, it is said about Christ that He appeared in the form of a man 597, that flesh is nothing more than matter that has taken on suas figuras 598, that in the womb of the Virgin Mary the flesh of Christ was formed (figurata). 599 that God figuravit the first people from the earth 600, 2) as a form of manifestation of the spirit and 3) as a clay form. Further, figura, as an image, is used in the meaning of: 1) τύπος - prototype, 2) dark prophetic prediction, 3) metaphor, 4) generally improper expression. In accordance with these two kinds of meanings, figurare is used either in the sense of formare, i.e. to give forms, this or that, or in the sense of hiding (obscuring), making a prototype, mysteriously predicting. The very passages of this kind relating to the Eucharist are the following. Looking for types of the cross in the Old Testament. Tertullian refers, among other things, to the prophecy of Jeremiah (11:19) and on this occasion, turning to the Jews, says: “God already through Jeremiah mysteriously makes it known (insinuat) about this tree that you intended to say (about it): go, let us throw the tree into his bread and wipe him out from the land of the living, and his name will be remembered no more. The tree seemed to be thrown into his body. For this is how Christ revealed it, calling bread his body - Christ, whose body is the prophet on the contrary in pane figuravit" 601. A passage in another work is almost literally similar to these words, reading like this: “Jeremiah also mysteriously gives you (Marcion) an understanding of this tree, predicting to the Jews who have to say: go, let us throw the tree into his bread, as if into a body. For this is how God revealed it in our Gospel, calling bread his body so that you would already understand from this that he is corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, He whose body is the prophet on the contrary in panem figuravit, since the Lord himself had to interpret this sacrament afterwards” 602. - In the third place, proving against Marcion that if Christ had been the highest God in comparison with the Creator, the Old Testament God, then He (Christ) would not have paid attention to the prototypes and prophecies of the latter and would not have fulfilled them. Meanwhile, the Passover lamb, which the Savior wished to eat with his disciples, proves the opposite. So, having confessed that He desired to eat the Passover with desire, taking and dividing the bread to the disciples as His own - for it is unworthy of God to desire something that belongs to others - He made it His body, through what He said: This is My body, i.e. figura of my body. The figure would not exist if there were no true body. An empty thing, that is, a ghost, cannot receive figures. Or, if Christ formed a body for himself from bread because he did not have a true body, then, therefore, He had to give the bread for us. He did for the insignificance of Marcion that the bread was crucified on the cross. And why (in this case) does he call bread his body, and not the melon, which Marcion has instead of a heart - Marcion, who does not understand the veterem istam figuram of the body of Christ, when Christ speaks through Jeremiah: They have conceived a plan against Me, saying: Come, let us throw wood into His bread, that is, the cross into His body? So the ancient explainer, calling bread his body, sufficiently clarified what He wanted bread to mean 603.” The first place is quite clear. God mysteriously makes it known (insinuat) through Jeremiah what the Jews will do to Christ. Accordingly, the prophet does not speak directly, but hides his thought about the body of Christ, which will be crucified on the cross, under the image of bread (in pane figuravit). Christ exposes this image of its secrecy, calling the bread of the prophet Jeremiah his body. Here there is only one difficult question: what is considered the subject and what is the predicate in the expression: panem corpus suum appellans; but this or any other decision is not of particular importance 604, since this place does not have a direct relationship to the Eucharist. – The second place, which is almost a literal repetition of the first, however represents a very significant addition: corporis sui figuram pani dedisse and has the following meaning. The prophet, obeying the mysterious inspiration of God, hid the body under the cover of bread. Christ in the Gospel revealed what was under this covering, namely, He gave bread to be the covering of His body. In essence, both the prophet and Christ, as well as in general the lower, according to Marcion, Old Testament God and the higher, New Testament God agree with each other, which is what Tertullian wanted to prove. Both Gods use bread as a cover for the body, or in other words, hide the body in bread, with the only difference that the prophet does not say what is in the bread, but Christ indicates that the body is in the bread. The prophet has one concept of bread, although he meant the body by it; Christ has two concepts: bread and body, bread as a covering, and body as the contents under this covering. But how to represent the existence of the body in the Eucharistic bread, whether it is only mentally imaginable, or the existence of an actual, real body - the answer to this question is given to us by the third of the passages we cited. It casts a special light on the expression corporis sui figuram pani dedisse and gives us the right to understand the word figuram in the meaning of more than just a covering. – In this third place, Tertullian tries to prove not only his previous idea about the unity of the Creator of the world and Christ, but also a new one - about the existence of a true, and not a ghostly body in the Person of the Savior. Having proved the first, in the reasoning preceding this place 605, he dwells in the words cited on the proof of the latter. Christ the Savior, having taken bread at the Last Supper as his own and not someone else’s creation, “made it his body (corpus suum illum fecit), through the fact that he said: this is my body, that is, the figure of my body (figura corporis mei).” And a figure is something real. A figure, as something not ideal, but real, cannot be related to anything imaginary, unreal: a figure cannot be the figure of a ghost, or otherwise, a ghost cannot receive a figure. Consequently, if there is a form as something real, then there must also exist that which gives existence to this real form, fills the latter with real content. Marcion considers the Eucharistic bread a symbol, that is, something imaginary, a sign of the imaginary, never-existent body of Christ, thinking that the bread that the Savior held in His hands was His only body, so it turns out that the bread was also crucified on the cross. Tertullian wants to say that the Eucharistic body is not an image, but something real, testifying to the existence of another real, which is in close relationship with it. Thus, according to Tertullian, Marcion was doubly mistaken both regarding the Eucharistic body and regarding the body in the Person of the Savior, falsely concluding from the unreality of the first to the unreality of the second, whereas one must conclude from the reality of one (Eucharistic) to the reality of the other (in the Person of Christ). What in the words: “I made him my body, through the fact that I said: this is my body, that is, the figure of my body” Tertullian means by “figure” something real in itself, and not just a sign or symbol of the real body of Christ - this is clear from another place in which he directly says what meaning in his language the word figura has when it is opposed to phantasma. - Condemning Marcion for the fact that the latter asserted that in Christ there was only phantasma carnis, that the Savior was only effigie servi, non veritate, only similitudine hominis, non in homine, only figura inventus homo, non substantia, i. e. non carne and that Marcion opposed figure to substance, Tertullian makes the following general remark on his own regarding what a figure is in relation to substance: quasi non et figura et similitudo et effigies substantiae quoque accedant 606. Thus, if in the words: “id est figura corporis mei; vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest,” to understand the expression figura as something imaginary, and not real, as a symbol only, a mental image of a body, even a real one, then the figura will be nothing more than phantasma, i.e. the figure will not be something substantial, real. But such a method of understanding will then no longer be Tertullian’s, but Marcion’s, and therefore those who consider Tertullian, on the basis of the passage being analyzed, as a symbolist, impose on him Marcion’s view of the Eucharist, which he refuted. The continuation of the passage under discussion about the Passover lamb further confirms the correctness of our conclusions. Immediately after the above words about this lamb (in the third of the above passages), Tertullian writes: “So through the mention of the cup, establishing the covenant sealed with his blood, He established the substance of his body. For there can be no blood in any body other than the flesh... So, the proof of the body is made solid by the testimony of the flesh, and the proof of the flesh by the testimony of the blood. And so that you know that the ancient figure (figuram) of blood in wine, then (in this) Isaiah will help: who is this that comes from Edom.... (Is. 53:1). Even more clearly (foreshadowed) by the book. Genesis... will wash his clothes in wine and his clothing in the blood of grapes (Gen. 49:11), with the words clothing and clothing indicating the body, and with the word wine - the blood. So, now his blood is in vino consecravit (contained in wine) the same who then wine in sanguine figuravit (concealed in blood, as in an image)” 608. Continuing in this place to prove - from the Eucharist - the existence of true flesh and blood in Christ, Tertullian points out here, among other things, the difference that, with significant agreement between the two covenants, is, however, between them. In the Old Testament, simple wine is called blood: there blood is an improper name for wine. In the new one, it’s the other way around – wine is an improper name used to designate blood. There, in the blood, as in an image, the wine was hidden, but here, on the contrary, in the wine, as in an image, the blood was hidden. There the wine appeared in the form of blood (in the wine were clothes, in the blood the grapes were a robe), here the blood appeared in the form of wine. There the wine is the content of the blood, here the blood is the real content of the wine. That we have the right to understand the expression in this way: in vino consecravit, the proof is provided by Leimbach’s examples of Tertullian’s use of the word consecrare in the meaning of placing, hiding 609. Thus, the above passage is one of the most remarkable of this kind of passages in Tertullian, testifying decisively not in favor of his symbolism, but, on the contrary, in favor of his belief in the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. We do not cite another similar passage (where the word consecrare appears in the appendix to the Eucharist), as it is too general 610. So, upon a more careful study of Tertullian’s works, it turns out that, 1) distinguished in many cases by the extreme clarity of his expressions about the Eucharist, Tertullian, however, was not a symbolist in his views on this sacrament, but 2) on the contrary, even in those places of his writings on the basis of which he is usually accused of symbolism, he expressed faith in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic elements. IV. About repentance. Tertullian devoted a lot of his attention to repentance; even dedicated a separate essay to him; but he touched little on the essential aspects of the dogmatic teaching about him. He wrote an essay on repentance, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the wrong views on the power and saving power of baptism, which can supposedly atone for sins even without proper repentance on the part of the recipient of the sacrament, and on the other hand, the doubt of some in the possibility of receiving forgiveness of sins committed after baptism, false shame, and sometimes negligence, which kept some from bringing repentance after baptism 611. All this prompted him to divide his treatise into two parts, to talk about repentance before baptism and about repentance after baptism, and to reveal mainly what is required in repentance on the part of a person, or the subjective side of the sacrament. After some preliminary remarks about repentance in general, the author discusses what constitutes the subject of repentance, the establishment of repentance by God himself, and the need to constantly repent for someone who has once repented. The subject of repentance should be both deeds of the spirit and deeds of the flesh, and not only every deed, but also every thought, even if due to the circumstances it does not turn into deeds, and at the same time it perfectly clarifies the meaning of the human will 612. God Himself commanded to atone for sins through repentance, and therefore we must obey, not because repentance is something good, but because He commanded, and not only commanded, but also exhorts us to do so 613. But we just need to remember that as soon as repentance is indicated to us and has already been accomplished, repeating sins at this time means leaving God and going over to the side of the devil, as if - which is scary to even say - comparing both, preferring the devil to the Lord. What has been said about the need to constantly repent for someone who has once accepted repentance applies to all those who have dedicated themselves to God, but especially to those who convert to Christianity 614. Converts already rely too much on the forgiveness of all sins in baptism, which is true (indubitatae veniae delictorum), but does not eliminate repentance as the price by which forgiveness of sins in baptism is purchased. Repentance must precede forgiveness; it takes place not when God forgives, but when He still threatens, when He has not yet granted forgiveness 615. This is not said to deny the reality of the forgiveness of sins through baptismal immersion, but to show that one must strive to achieve this forgiveness 616. If someone approaches unworthily, he will not receive forgiveness, although there are people who think that God must necessarily give even to the unworthy what he promised, and therefore they turn God’s freedom into slavery 617. The font is the seal of faith, and this faith begins with the faith of repentance. The first bath of the listener is pure fear, then when a person feels the Lord, then sound faith, consciousness, which includes repentance. If we cease to sin only after baptism (ab aquis), and not before baptism, then we are clothed with innocence by necessity, and not voluntarily 618. Thus, Tertullian excellently reveals the meaning of faith combined with repentance as necessary conditions for the salvation of baptism for those who receive this sacrament. Next, Tertullian moves on to the second and last hope, to the second repentance, that is, to repentance after baptism. Anticipating the machinations of the devil, who is trying in every possible way to seduce a person. “God, both after closing the doors of forgiveness and closing the lock of ablution, allowed something else to be opened. He placed a second repentance in the vestibule, which would open the entrance for those who knock, but only once, since this is already the second time, but no more, for it is in vain. Isn’t this alone enough (repentance)? You have what you do not deserve, for you have lost what you received. If the Lord’s condescension is applied to you, by which you restore what you have lost, then be grateful for the repeated benefit, but not the continued one: for it is a greater thing to restore than to give (majus est enim restituere, quam dare), since it is more a pity to lose than not to learn at all.” There is no need to fall into despair when secondary repentance awaits; there is no need to be ashamed; The disease has recurred, and the medicine must be repeated. “You will be grateful to the Lord when you do not refuse what the Lord offers you... You have someone to satisfy and you have someone willing (to accept satisfaction)” 619. For those who doubt the possibility of atonement for sins, Tertullian refers to St. Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, where God calls sinners to repentance. “As much as confession of sins makes it easier, concealment aggravates it. Confession is the adviser of satisfaction, concealment is the adviser of perseverance 620. So, as for this second and single repentance (hujus poenitentiae secundae et unius), insofar as it is a work done in depth (in arcto), its proof is combined with great difficulty, so that not only consciousness (of sins) is revealed, but that it is accomplished in some act (aliquo etiam actu administretur). This act, which is more and more often expressed by the Greek word exomologesis, is an act in which we confess our sin to the Lord, not because He does not know, but because through confession (of sins) repentance is born (poenitentia), and through repentance God is propitiated. So, exomologesis is an institution aimed at prostrating and humiliating a person.” Further, listing what this act consists of, namely, that it consists in ashes and sackcloth, in contrition of the soul, in feeding not the body but the soul by fasting, in sighing, in crying day and night, he notes that it also consists in falling to the elders 621, kneeling before the beloved of God and in making intercessory requests to all the brothers 622. All this, to the extent that it humiliates a person in appearance, covers the body with impurities, accuses it, to the same extent it lifts it up, cleanses it, and resolves it. The less a person spares himself, the more God spares him. There is no need to be ashamed of the brothers; brothers are not strangers to you; but most importantly, you need to imagine that they constitute the Church, “and the Church is Christ, and therefore, when you stretch out (your hands) to the knees of the brethren, you beg Christ, just as when they cry for you, Christ suffers, Christ begs the Father for you.” “Is it really better for a convicted person to hide than to be publicly released” 623? Let the careless sinner, who turns away from repentance, take as a model for himself, even if he remembers the fire of Gehenna, the pagan seekers of places. “So, if you know that against Gehenna, after the first barrier of the Lord’s washing, there is still help in exomology, then why do you abandon salvation”? “Will a sinner, knowing that the Lord has established exomology for the restoration of his exomology, avoid it”? Pharaoh died because he “rejected repentance and the method of doing it – exomologesis. But why talk more about these two, as it were, boards of human salvation” 624. Despite the fact that Tertullian expounds the doctrine of repentance from the subjective side, that is, from the side of what is required of a person under it, one cannot help but see both in the general direction of reasoning and in the most honest thoughts found in the work, Tertullian’s deep conviction in the extraordinary importance of repentance. Repentance for a Christian sinner has the same meaning and the same consequences as baptism for one converting from paganism - this is the main idea that runs through the entire second part of the work, revealing the doctrine of the second repentance, or repentance in the proper sense. In particular, just as God himself established baptism, so repentance was also established by God. Both institutions originate from Christ the Savior. Further, both of them are related and even identical in fruits. In repentance, the Lord repeats his good deed; by his condescension, He restores what was lost, that is, He again gives the same thing that He gave in Baptism: forgiveness of sins and St. Spirit (since by baptism Tertullian, as we have seen, meant both sacraments). But how does this act of secondary rebirth occur, what does a person do on his part? He will have to recognize his sin, deeply and sincerely repent of it and confess himself to God as a sinner (conscientia et confessio). This internal act, however, is not enough; The Lord also established an external act (institutam a Domino exomologesin). This act is not only an external expression of internal repentance, it is not only a form; it does not receive meaning only from what is in a person’s heart, but it itself gives something to a person. Since this external act is performed in the Church, and Christ dwells in the Church, then a person, performing this act in the Church, approaches Christ, touches Him, and Christ prays to the Father for the forgiveness of the sinner. Tertullian, preoccupied with the idea of ​​inducing the sinner to endure difficult feats of public repentance, does not say when and how Christ the Savior, having propitiated the sinner, again sends down upon him the gifts of the Holy Spirit that he had lost. Spirit, but does not do this without a doubt, because every believer knew this and no one doubted the meaning of this final act (priestly resolution), and some did not quite understand and were vividly aware of the effectiveness and significance of only those preparatory acts for the final resolution, which Tertullian called exomologesis 625, just as everyone believed in the meaning and power of baptism, but did not sufficiently understand the full importance of preparation for the forgiveness of sins in baptism through sincere repentance and constant repentant mood of the catechumens before baptism. In all likelihood, Tertullian placed exomologesis to absolutio in the same relationship as repentance before baptism to immersion. If, exalting the importance of repentance before baptism, he made a reservation, since he had a special motivation for this (precisely the views of Quintilla, who thought that one could be saved even without water and immersion), if he noticed that he did not deny the power of water in itself, then when depicting the meaning of exomologesis, he did not make a similar reservation in favor of hierarchical resolution, because he had no reason to do so. To draw such a parallel between repentance before baptism and baptism itself, on the one hand, and exomologesis and ultima absolutio, on the other, does not mean an extreme stretch. Tertullian himself naturally encourages this, calling repentance a repetition of baptism. The natural conclusion is that if the latter is a repetition of the first, then in both there must be the same thing in essence, that is, first a person must do on his part everything that is required of him in order to be worthy of grace, and then God grants grace on his part and, moreover, grants it in a similar act as in the first case. That Tertullian did not attribute exoraologesis to the descent of Divine grace upon man, but represented it only as a means to obtain grace, this is quite clear from his depiction of exomologesis. All actions in it are aimed exclusively at propitiating God, at beseeching Christ to grant again the lost good. Thus, the giving of a lost good must, according to Tertullian, constitute an act separate from exomologesis. The only question is in what act God imparts grace to the repentant Christian, whether externally, as in baptism, or only internally: does priestly absolution have the same meaning here as immersion in water? It is most natural and consistent with the direction of the entire essay to answer this question in the affirmative, and not in the negative. That we understood Tertullian correctly, indirect proof of this is the book De pudicitia, written by Tertullian, already a Montanist, and dealing with the question of whether a bishop can grant permission from grave sins. Armed against the Roman bishop, who considered himself to have the right to forgive sins upon repentance, both of adulterers and fornicators 626, Tertullian divides sins into two classes: light and serious 627, agrees that the bishop can resolve the first 628, but with all his characteristic harshness he attacks the right that the bishop unfairly appropriated, in his Montanistic view give permission for serious sins. Tertullian challenges the views of his opponents 629. First of all, he says, we must distinguish between discipline and apostolic authority. Discipline governs and power decides 630. Only God has the power to forgive mortal sins, but the hierarchy in persona Petri 631 can forgive non-mortal sins. Truth has this power and the Church. But, as the Comforter says, through the mouth of one of the new prophets: “The Church can forgive a crime, but I will not do this, lest they fall into other sins” 632. The Apostles, that is, the Orthodox, thus abuse the right of the Church 633. If (Tertullian addresses the Roman bishop) you, on the basis of what was said to Peter (Matthew 16:18–19), “imagine that the power of loosing and binding has passed to you, then you are perverting and changing the intention of the Lord, which relates personally (personaliter), to Peter.” Personally, Peter was told: on you I will build My Church; I will give you the keys, but not the Church; what you will allow or bind, and not what you will resolve and bind. Events have shown this. In him (Peter), that is, through him, the Church was built. He was the first to preach about Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22). He was the first to open the entrance to the kingdom of heaven in the baptism of Christ; he bound Ananias with the bonds of death and freed the weak from illness with his feet. But the power to loosen and bind the grave sins of believers did not at all come from Peter. If God commanded him to allow his brother to sin against him seventy times seventy times (Matt. 18:22), then this is only regarding sins against neighbors; through this it was already predetermined that sins against God should not be forgiven 634. As for the Church, it can give permission for grave sins, but what kind of Church? Not the Church of spiritual people, but the Church of spiritual people 635, apostles and new prophets, and this is because “the Church is actually and mainly the Spirit, in which the Trinity of the one Divinity Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Therefore, the Church gives permission for sins, but the Church of the Spirit is according to the spiritual person, and not the Church, as a body of bishops, for the right and decision belong to the Lord, and not to the slave, to God himself, and not to the priest.” 636. Thus challenging the views of the Orthodox, he makes it clear what they are. He tries to prove that the visible hierarchy, which originates in succession from Peter, as the Orthodox think, does not have the grace-filled authority to absolve mortal sins. These powers are possessed only by the Montanist hierarchy, borrowing them not from Peter, but from the Spirit of the Comforter; but she also does not use this right, in order to avoid harm to sinners. As for the ordinary hierarchy, which originates from Peter, all its powers are powers of a disciplinary nature and are limited to those cases when there is no need for special grace, special power, when it is enough to teach and enlighten a sinner. Thus, without denying the special grace-filled powers of certain persons to absolve sinners from grave sins, Tertullian differs with the Orthodox only: 1) who these persons are and 2) whether they should exercise their rights. The result of all this is that according to Orthodox teaching, which Tertullian himself undoubtedly adhered to when he wrote an essay on repentance, the bishop has the gracious authority to absolve all sins and manifests this power in practice, and if he does, then of course in the well-known act of the last episcopal permission of the penitents. So: 1) exomologesis is not identical with resolution from sins; it only prepares the sinner for the final act, which thus constitutes a separate act. 2) According to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the hierarchy equally belongs to both the discipline and the truly divine, which it received by succession from the apostle. Peter, the power to forgive sins. IV. About the priesthood. In Tertullian's writings, written before his transition to Montanism, he does not deal much with the doctrine of hierarchy. It would seem most appropriate for him to deal with this subject in an essay directed against the Gnostic heretics, namely in De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos. But, while in this work he is engaged in revealing the view of faith and knowledge, scripture and tradition, and clarifying the meaning of the Church, Tertullian takes the Church as the custodian of true teaching, tradition, and, moreover, primarily in its entirety, without decomposing the concept of it into its component parts. This kind of research was necessary for him to successfully fight against false gnosis, which did not recognize the authority not only of the hierarchy, but even of the Church in general, which did not value the benefits that the Church gave in its unchanging apostolic tradition. It is understandable, therefore, why Tertullian touched upon hierarchy only in passing and, moreover, in the most immediate way, as a teacher. Having thus no special motivation to touch upon all the grace-filled powers of the hierarchy, and especially its powers in relation to the distribution of gifts of grace, he naturally had no need to talk about the method of acquiring these powers, or about initiation, as a mysterious sacred rite that imparts special grace to the one being ordained. However, he has passages that more or less attract attention in this respect. Thus, in his essay against heretics, not content with generally proving the origin of all churches from the apostles 637, Tertullian dwells in particular on the idea of ​​succession of bishops. “However, he says, if any (of these sects) dare to raise themselves to the apostolic age, so that they seem to have been betrayed by the Apostles, on the basis that they were in the time of the Apostles, then we can say to this: let them show the beginning of their churches, clarify the order of their bishops, by succession coming from the beginning, so that the first bishop has as his culprit and predecessor one of the Apostles, or men of the apostles, constantly who were with the Apostles. For this is how the apostolic churches present their qualifications, as for example the church of Smyrna says that Polycarp was put in place by John, the Roman church declares that Clement was dedicated by Peter; why do other churches indicate which offspring of the apostolic seed they have, which persons appointed by the Apostles to the episcopacy 638. This place, without clearly speaking about the bestowal of grace in the sacrament of episcopal consecration, leads, however, to the assumption of this: namely, the idea of succession of one bishop through another from any Apostle or apostolic man, the idea of not replacing only one with another, but also the gift of being one to another (auctorem), the idea of ​​transferring the apostolic seed through the very decree into a bishop (apostoliсi seminis traduces), and the general idea that in elevation to the episcopal rank, what is of particular importance is not the choice of the community of believers (which was in use in the time of Tertullian), but some act of transferring from one person to another the property received from the Apostles. True, in this entire work we are talking primarily about teaching, and not about the grace of sacred rites; for all that, this place forces the dogmatist to pay attention to itself. In another work, Tertullian deals primarily with the right of the hierarchy to perform the sacrament of baptism. The bishop himself has the right (jus) to baptize, then the presbyters and deacons, but not without episcopal authority, for the sake of church honor, that is, without rejecting and humiliating the episcopal rank; and when there are neither presbyters nor deacons, then laymen can also baptize, without, however, appropriating for themselves what is given to the bishop 639. But here Tertullian, although he highly valued (until he became a Montanist) the bishopric, was least comfortable talking about the gracious powers of the hierarchy in the administration of the sacraments, since he concerned a sacrament that allows the extension of the authority to perform it to the laity. It is clear, therefore, why Tertullian here uses such expressions as jus, propter ecclesiae honorem, and not potestas, as in the Montanistic work we have already cited, where disciplina and potestas are distinguished. The expression potestas would be inappropriate here, since it expresses the exclusively belonging to the hierarchy, the God-given right to do what others cannot do, whereas, on the contrary, the word jus is quite appropriate here. Expressed in his language, we can say that the concept of jus, as well as disciplina, belongs to the ministerium, while the concept of potestas belongs to the imperium 640. - The remaining places in which Tertullian touches on the hierarchy are of a similar kind, i.e., he speaks of the hierarchy as the guardian of church discipline, and not from the point of view of the grace-filled powers that belong to it alone through the act of laying on hands. So, in Tertullian there are no clear indications of the importance of the act of placing in hierarchical degrees, although from the concept he reveals about the succession of episcopacy from the Apostles and from the indication of the grace-filled powers that, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, hierarchical persons possess 641, one can draw the conclusion that both could not be accomplished without a special act of consecration and that this act was considered very important. So he denounces the heretics that they have no thoughtfulness and seriousness in raising to hierarchical degrees (ordinationеs), there are no permanent hierarchical persons and even no hierarchy at all 642, and meanwhile, if you listen to them, then everything in the Orthodox Church is bad, including the priesthood and ministries (lot sacerd - tia, lot ministeria 643). We do not cite passages from the Montanist works of Tertullian, in which he attributes exclusively disciplinary significance to the hierarchy and allows the possibility of a layman performing all the duties of the hierarchy (in the absence of the latter, even the Eucharist) 644, which is natural on the part of a Montanist, who placed the prophets of Montanism above the hierarchy. V. About Marriage. Tertullian paid a lot of attention to marriage; He devoted several works (as many as three) 645 to discussions about it, including one he wrote before switching to Montanism; He also touched on marriage in other works, written, however, after he deviated from Orthodoxy. The motivation for discussing marriage was: the desire to discourage his readers from entering into a second marriage, as well as the desire to show the importance and superiority of church marriage over marriages in heretical societies. Of particular importance is the essay “To His Wife,” written by Tertullian, who was still Orthodox. Here, admonishing his wife not to enter into a second marriage after his death, he first stipulates that he does not deny that marriage is blessed by the Lord and is necessary for the continuation of the human race 646, that Christ did not come at all to destroy marriage; This can only be said by heretics who deny the existence of one flesh from two, and of God, who united man and woman in marriage 647; but that he only advises against entering into a second marriage, citing numerous reasons for this, and among other things, that God Himself puts an end to marriage with the death of one spouse; “Why restore what God has put an end to?” A second marriage is dangerous for faith and holiness; proof of which is that a bigamist is not consecrated as a bishop and a widow who has had two husbands is not accepted into the clergy 648 . However, if someone is not able to endure the feat of widowhood, then let him enter into a second marriage, only in no other way than in the Lord. This, Tertullian notes, is not advice, but a positive command. O Lord, this means marrying a Christian 649. Let them not think that it is possible to marry a pagan on the grounds that a marriage concluded before either spouse converted to Christianity is considered valid and sanctifying to the spouses. “Whoever is sanctified before marriage cannot sanctify someone else’s flesh with which he is united... The grace of God sanctifies only what it finds.” Whoever is sanctified after marriage (in paganism), the sanctifying power of God’s grace extends to him (in baptism), but the sanctification received in baptism does not extend to those who marry after baptism. Meanwhile, “what (the grace of God) could not sanctify is unclean,” and those united in this way are fornicators, desecrating their body, which is the church of God, since they are not able to present “the marriage contract before the Lord’s tribunal” 650. If such unions are dangerous for the flesh, then they are no less dangerous for the soul 651. In order to show what it means further to enter into marriage in the Lord and together to encourage his readers to enter into it from church theology, in conclusion he draws the following picture of a church wedding. “Where can I get the strength to describe the happiness of that marriage that the Church concludes, the offering seals, the theology seals, the angels testify, the Father affirms” 652? The most important of the passages cited is the one that says that in order to cement a marriage, the outpouring of God's grace on those getting married is necessary. For pagan spouses, when both or one of them converts to Christianity, the act of outpouring grace that sanctifies their marriage coincides with the act of baptism; This one act is enough to sanctify a person in everything and in everything: grace sanctifies everything that it finds. For a Christian, the grace of baptism alone is not enough to sanctify the marriage union. When the grace of God was poured out on him in baptism, it did not find this union; she sanctified what she found (an existing marriage, even with a pagan), and did not sanctify what did not exist and what could happen in the future, and therefore a new outpouring of grace is needed on those getting married who belong to the Christian Church 653. This important dogmatic thought, in conjunction with the majestic image of a church wedding, leads to the conviction that Tertullian allowed for a special outpouring of grace, sanctifying the marriage union, and placed this outpouring in a certain relationship to the church wedding, but in what exactly, he did not find out, i.e. he did not show how and when the grace of God is given to those getting married, whether in connection with the rite During weddings, God directly sends down his grace on them, or in the priestly blessing itself, through the priest, it is sent down by God. We do not consider it possible to cite passages from the Montanistic writings of Tertullian, although many do this, being attracted by the numerous passages in which the name sacramentum 654 is attached to marriage. We do not do this because although Tertullian the Montanist still had some respect for marriage, expressed in the recognition of its permissibility and sealing by God himself 655, but, as a Montanist, he already too humiliates not only the second, but also the first marriage. Analyzing marriage, he considers it essentially fornication 656; and therefore it would be strange to assume that he had faith in the sending of grace for such an essentially unclean deed. And if he calls marriage a sacrament and, therefore, recognizes some religious element in it, it is solely because he sees in marriage a symbol of the union of Christ with the Church 657. On this basis, we consider the passages that are remarkable at first glance and contain denunciations of the Gnostics that marriages do not constitute a sacrament for them, while among Christians they represent a great sacrament 658, to have no dogmatic importance. Regarding the permission of marriage or divine institution, Tertullian spent a lot of time clarifying the idea of ​​how this permission should be understood. Permission is not law; it is indulgence equal to non-prohibition, especially as regards second marriage 659. The purpose of marriage is believed by Tertullian to be the denial of marriage, virginity, namely, or the removal of Christian spouses from carnal relations, with common consent, or voluntary widowhood. The will of God consists solely in the sanctification of Christians through virginity 660. That is why the Montanist Tertullian openly admitted that strictly speaking, he does not recognize the first marriage, that is, he denies marriage altogether 661. So, Tertullian speaks quite clearly: about 1) the need for the special grace of God to cement a marriage. 2) This grace sanctifies the marriage union, just as the grace of baptism sanctifies a person in certain relationships. The grace of baptism, received upon marriage, sanctifies the marriage union, but it cannot give sanctification to a future marriage; for the latter a new message of grace is needed. 3) But Tertullian does not clearly say that grace is given to those getting married in the hierarchical blessing of marriage, although he depicts this blessing in very majestic terms. 4) This attitude towards marriage in the mouth of no less a rigorist than Origen is of particular importance. VI. The scope of the concept of sacramentum in Tertullian. 662 Tertullian is rightly considered the creator of the Latin theological language, not only in the sense that he was the first to introduce new words into use (such as trioitas), but also in the sense that he adapted those already in use in pagan society to express Christian concepts, thus investing in them a new meaning. The latter was exactly what happened with the word sacramentum. Having found this word in the Latin language with the meaning of oath, oath and other legal meanings, he, one might say, gave a new existence to this expression, beginning to use it in a wide variety of senses, all uncommon in classical antiquity. In the range of objects he designates through sacramentum, Tertullian introduces all revealed teaching in its whole and parts, the entire Christian religion, faith that assimilates Christ’s teaching, more specifically some of the most incomprehensible points of Christian teaching, confession of faith with some other rites at baptism, also prototypes, predictions and symbols of the Old Testament, finally, liturgical actions and, in particular, the Christian sacraments in the strict sense of the word 663. Tertullian liked to give the name sacramentum to renunciation of the devil, union with Christ and the symbol of faith. As for the renunciation of the devil, listing what exactly Christians renounced in baptism, he calls all these things in sacramenti testatione ejeratae 664; Arming himself then in another work against the makers of idols, he says that if there is no positive law prohibiting the making of idols, then de ipso sacramento nostro iu interpretamur nobis adversas esse fidei ejusmodi artes 665. He calls union with Christ sactamenti verba 666. He often compares it with the oath or oath that soldiers give to their military leader 667, and in this sense it is expressed that the Christian’s acceptance of the duties of a warrior is subvertit totam substantiam sacramenti 668, and that for a Christian in general non convenit sacramento divino et humano, signo Christi et signo diaboli, castris lucis et castris tenebrarum: non potest una anima duobus deberi, Deo et Caesari 669 . Although in all those places where we are talking about union with Christ, one can understand in particular the symbol of faith, since in the time of Tertullian it was included, and, moreover, mainly, as part of the question in combination with Christ, nevertheless, sometimes the word sacramentum is used by him to call one symbol of faith. Proving that God's mercy extends only to those who do not believe in Christ, Tertullian argues that it does not extend, regarding grave sins, to those who called on God and uttered the creed - non qui jam Deum norint et sacramentum dedicerint fidei 670. Close to this use is the use of sacramentum in the meaning of faith or belief with or without the addition of regula (regula sacramenti). So some thought that baptism was not necessary, because Abraham nullius aquae, nisi fidei sacramento Deo placuit 671. Heretics cannot prove their apostolic origin ob diversitatem sacramenti (their beliefs) nullo modo apostolici 672. Proving the unity of faith in the Apostolic Church and the Church of his time, Tertullian notes that from Christ to Marcion alium Deum in regula sacramenti istius (in the rule of faith) non fuisse, quam Creatoris 673. The same Marcion denounces the error that a discipulatu Lucae coepit religionis chrislianae sacramentum (Christian doctrine) 674. Proving the trinity of persons, he says that the truth is in the Father, the Son and the Holy. Spirit, secundum Christianum sacramentum (i.e. according to the beliefs of Christians, or the creed) 675. It is already clear from the previous examples that sacramentum is used not only in the sense of subjective faith (the beliefs of Christians), but also in the sense of objective faith, as the totality of truths contained in the rule of faith. But even more clearly in this last sense, that is, in the sense of objective faith or the totality of revealed truths that constitute the essence of religion, and therefore in the sense of both Old Testament and New Testament religion, sacramentum is used in the following places. Trying to show the deep antiquity of the Old Testament, from which paganism drew much, Tertullian says that in the books of the prophets “it seems that the treasure of the entire Jewish, and from it even our religion, is combined” 676. Convincing pagans to accept the Christian religion, he calls it sacramenti nostri ordinem 677. Pointing to the unity of the Church and the unanimity of its members, despite the many churches, the reason for this fact is found in the tradition of the Apostles of the same faith of Christ 678. It proves against the Gnostics that Christ spoke one thing to everyone, and did not hide his teaching and the Apostles did not hide Christ’s teaching 679. For the entire Christian religion, the agreement of the Apostles among themselves is important 680. It is not surprising after this that the word sacramentum is also used by Tertullian to refer to some particular points of Christian doctrine, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity 681, which, however, was probably meant to indicate through such a name the mystery of these points of doctrine (sacramentum = μυστήριον). For both of these reasons, Tertullian very often in his writings used sacramentum in the meaning of a type (prototype), figure, symbol, i.e. he called prototypes and symbols with this name, both because they constituted, on the one hand, an object of belief, and on the other, objects closely related to the objects of faith, and because they represent truth hidden under the veil of secrecy. In the above meaning, sacramentum is often used in books against Marcion, where it is proven that the Old Testament God is not different from the New Testament, but is one and the same, that if the New Testament God was different from the Old Testament, then Christ would not have taken prototypes from a God alien to himself and interpreted them and would not have fulfilled them 682. But since there is only one God, the Old Testament prototypes also belong to him. “If it was the same (God), writes Gertullian, then He could not remain hidden, much less some of His prototypes. But the Creator is as well known as his prototypes, clearly collected from Israel, but covered in darkness regarding their meaning, in which the wisdom of God was hidden” 683. Marriage, both in the Old Testament and in the new, was a type of the union of Christ with the Church. Both here and there are prototypes of the same God, and the apostle did not say at all with the purpose of separating one and another prototype: this mystery is great 684. Christ himself explained the prototype of the Eucharist, which is found in Jeremiah 685. Sometimes in this case Tertullian connects sacramentum with figura 686 or imago 687 or allegoria 688, as with concepts that are very closely related to sacramentum and are often expressed in one last word. In the work Adv. Judaeos gives Old Testament types (sacramenta) of the cross of Christ. The tree on which Christ suffered was foreshadowed by the tree with which Moses sweetened the waters 689. A similar transformation took place in the miracle of Elisha, so that nothing could be clearer than such a prototype 690. The tree of the cross was represented by the firewood that Isaac carried on his shoulders. These were types of what was to come to pass in the time of Christ 691. Also in other works. An ancient type of the laying on of hands after baptism was Jacob laying hands on his grandchildren 692 . According to the Gnostic view, the five virgins in the parable of the virgins depicted the five bodily senses, and the other five intellectual powers, which were thus symbols of Gnostic ideas 693. The one true God is God, both the first in his types and the clearest in his prophecies 694. As for liturgical actions in general, Tertullian attached to them the name sacramentum for the following reasons. Either because he saw in them something more than seemed at first glance, something mysterious, hidden, having a higher meaning and significance, or because he contrasted the Christian sacraments with non-Christian, pagan ones, which were called μυστήρια, which he translated through sacramenta 695. In any case, one thing is certain that, with such a wide use of the word sacramentum, it did not have in Tertullian the conventional meaning and meaning that is now associated with it. It often denoted all liturgical actions 696. Therefore, it would be strange to be tempted by the fact that Tertullian places next to baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist the eating of milk and honey, calling all this sacraments 697, or classifies among the things of the divine sacraments not only baptism, the seal on the forehead, the offering of bread, the installation of the high priest, but also martyrdom and virginity 698. To be tempted by all this, as Protestants have been tempted hitherto, means either not knowing or not paying attention to Tertullian’s use of the word sacramentum. He obviously takes the whole sacrament as a whole, with the most important and less important actions, and denotes all this with the word sacramentum, just as everything that was part of the pagan mysteries was called μυστήρια, although there, of course, one was of lesser importance, another of greater importance. It is understandable, then, why he places milk and honey along with other essential things that God needs for his own sacraments. Further, if we assume that Tertullian did not try to strictly distinguish between the most important acts on the part of God and on the part of man - what God does for man, in objective liturgical acts, and what man does for his part, also in subjective liturgical acts (which, as we see, was not strictly shared by the fathers of the entire period under consideration), then it will be clear to us why the most important sacred rites, called by him sacramenta, he includes martyrdom and virginity. The fathers usually placed martyrdom in close relation to the Eucharist and did this for many reasons, which we clarified when presenting Origen’s teaching on the Eucharist; Tertullian also puts it in the closest relation to this sacrament. For him, virginity is closely related to the priesthood, which is quite understandable from a defender of monogamy. Both martyrdom and virginity can represent things through which the sacraments of God are performed (res sacramentorum et res, quibus Christi sacramenta administrantur). There is nothing to talk about martyrdom (the blood of martyrs); virginity can prepare through the body a church for the saint. The Spirit, which Tertullian often liked to talk about 699. It is remarkable, however, that Tertullian distinguishes res sacramentorum from instrumenta divinarum rerum et sanctorum christianorum; by the latter he probably means vasa and other similar things (instrumenta et vasa). In particular, Tertullian uses the word “sacramenta” to designate either several sacraments together or some of them separately. – He used the word sacramenta: baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, sometimes using, however, sacramentum (in the singular), in attention probably to the close connection of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, according to the time of their performance, when accepting new members into the Church of Christ 700. This serves, by the way, as proof that he contrasted this entire act of accepting members into the Church of Christ, consisting of several separate acts, with a similar polysyllabic pagan act. – Separately, he calls the sacraments: baptism, the Eucharist and marriage, and, moreover, literally as we call them now, i.e. sacramentum baptismatis 701, sacramentum eucharistiae 702. Marriage is called a great sacrament 703. There is also the expression the sacrament of anointing, but in relation to Christ 704. General result of the study. 1) Like the Eastern fathers, Tertullian contrasted the Christian sacraments with the pagan mysteries, but, 2) what none of the previous fathers did, the first paid special attention to the relationship of grace in the sacraments to material elements, and posed the question as it should be posed. Unfortunately, having expressed the general position, he limited himself to directly applying it to baptism alone. 3) He revealed the doctrine of baptism as comprehensively as anyone in the entire period under review. 4) He spoke extremely clearly about the independence and importance of confirmation, equal to baptism, as well as about the special sensory sign inherent in the last sacrament. Tertullian mentioned oil in confirmation more often than other fathers of the period under review, although he did not define the relationship of grace to this sensory sign as clearly as the relationship of water in baptism. 5) He did not take a step forward in revealing the doctrine of the Eucharist. However, although he was not distinguished in this regard by the clarity of his expressions, he undoubtedly shared the general church teaching about this sacrament. 6) He very thoroughly revealed the meaning of confession and preparatory actions for remission of sins (exomologesis) on the part of the penitent, but did not stop attention on the act of remission of sins itself. 7) The same must be said about the act of consecration, although he talked a lot about the succession of the episcopate from the Apostles and about hierarchical powers. 8) Very remarkable are his discussions about the need for special grace for the sanctification of marriage - grace similar to that received in baptism: although in this case he did not clearly indicate the relationship between grace and the visible sacred act of blessing marriage in the church, or the act of wedding, which, however, he testifies in very clear terms. 9) The first introduced the word sacramentum into use in the Western Church, instead of the Greek μυστήριον, and used the former in the same senses in which the Eastern fathers used the latter. The word sacramentum was applied to many liturgical actions, including the sacraments: baptism together with confirmation (sometimes calling them lavacri sacramenta), the Eucharist and marriage. He distinguished res sacramentorum from instrumenta sacramentorum. De bapt. With. 13. Baptismus dob est necessarius, quibas fides satis est, nam et Abrabam nullius aquae, nisi fidei sacramento Deo placnit. Ibid. With. 1. Nuper convesata istic quaedam de Caiana haeresi. De bart. With. 2. Nihil est, quod tam obduret mentes hominum, quam simplicitas divinorum operum, quae in actu videtur et magnificentia, quae in effectu repromittitur. Ibid. Si Deus et sapiens et potens... merito in adversariis sapientiae potentiaeque, id est in stultitia et impossibilitate materias operationis sui instituit. Cap. 3. Quid utique ista materia tantae dignationis meruit officium? Ibid. Habes homo, imprimis aetatem venerari aquarum, quod antiqua substantia; dehinc dignationem, quod divini Spiritus sedes, gratior scilicet caeteris túnc elementis. Ibid. Primus liquor, quod viveret, edidit, ne mirum sit, ia baptismo, si aquae animare noverunt. Ibid. Non esse dubitandum, si materiam, quam in omnibus rebus et operibus suis Deus disposuit, etiam in sacramentis propriis parere fecit; si quae vitam governor et in coelesti procurant. Cap. 4. Sanctum autem utique super sanctum ferebatur, aut ab eo, quod superferebatur, id, quod ferebat, sanctificatem mutuabatur. Quoniam subjecta quaeque materia ejus, quae desuper imminet, qualitatem rapiat, necesse est, maxime corporalis spiritalem et penetrare et insidere facilem per substantiae suae subtilitatem. Ita de sancto sanctificata natura aquarum et ipsa sanctificare concepit. Ibid. Igitur omnes aquae de prinstina originis praerogativa, sacramentum sanctificationis consequantur invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de coelis et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso et ita sanctificata vim sanctificandi combibunt. Ibid. Igitur medicatis quodammodo aquis per Angeli interventum et spiritus in aquis corporaliter diluitur et caro in eisdem spiritaliter mundatur. Ibid. Proficiente itaque in hominibus gratia Dei, plus aquis et Angelo accessit; Qui vitia corporis remediabant, nunc spiritum medentur. Cap. 6. Non quod in aquis Spiritur sanctum consequamur; sed in aqua emundati sub Angelo Spiritui sancto praepara mur. Cap. 6. Ita et Angelus arbiter superventuro Spiritui sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum. By Angel one can hardly understand here the performer of baptism or the priest, as the author of the notes in Migne thinks, since everywhere in the previous places and in particular in the previous expression (in aqua sub Angelo) the grace of St. is understood. Spirit. Cap. 7. Unde Christus dicitur a chrismate, quod est unctio, quae Domino nomen accomodavit facta spiritualis, quia Spiritu unctus est a Deo Patre. Comp. Adv. Prax. c. 28. Ibid. Sic et in nobis carnaliter currit unctio, sed spiritaliter proficit, quomodo et ipsius baptismi carnalis actus, quod in aqua mergimur, spiritalis effectus, quod delictis liberamur. Cap.8. Dehinc manus imponitur, per benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiritum sanctum. Ibid... Eadem dispositione spiritalis effectus, id est carni nostrae, emergenti de lavacro post vetera delicta, columba sancti Spiritus advolat, pacem Dei afferens, emissa de coelis, uhi Ecclesia est arca figurata. After this, he returns to water again and then treats of John’s baptism, which “did not give anything heavenly, but only prepared for heavenly things,” which, being a human act, being a baptism of repentance, a human act, did not give either remission of sins or St. Spirit; for no one can bestow all this except Bora alone (p. 10). Further he says that I. Christ himself did not baptize, but His disciples baptized and baptized with John’s baptism; they could not baptize others yet, since “the font could not have effectiveness through suffering and resurrection” (p. 11; nes instructa efficatia lavacri per passionem et resurrectionem); in the Old Testament we were saved by faith alone (c. 13: per fidem nudam); finally resolves some other issues concerning baptism. De praescr. With. 36 rub. 50. Legem et prophetes cum evangelicis et apastolicis litteris et inde potat fidem; eam aqua signat, sancto Spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, ad martyrium exhortatur et ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit. De praescr. With. 40. See analysis of this passage below. De pudicit. With. 9. See below for the context of this passage. De resurr. carn. With. 8. Although the laying on of hands is here mentioned as a fourth act; but we already know how, according to Tertullian, it refers to anointing. Adv. Mags. 1. I p. 14. See the analysis of this passage below (about the Euchar.). It is remarkable that Tertullian does not speak here about some other actions, for example, about the renunciation of Satan and union with Christ, which he often mentions in other places. See below. De idol. With. 6. A Christian swore in baptism not to worship idols anymore, and yet he serves the devil with both his hands and soul, sacrificing to him with his mind and then his face. In parallel with this place, one can put an indication of the custom of handling bread and cup carefully so as not to drop anything; see De cor. With. 3: Calicis aut panis etiam nostri anxie patimur. These words stand in the following context. Defending the importance of tradition, Tertullian points to the way of performing baptism (to the denial of Satan, to threefold immersion and answers more detailed than Christ commanded, to eating milk and honey, to abstaining from the usual bath for a week after baptism), then to the celebration of the Eucharist before dawn, by the hands of the primate, - performing it for the dead, to celebrate the memory of martyrs, to the prohibition of fasting and praying on one's knees on Sunday and - from Easter to Pentecost, finally: Calicis aut panis etiam nostri etc. Even if “etiam nostri” is taken as an indication (as in Min’s note) that we are talking about an ordinary meal here, then even in this case the above passage attracts attention. If such reverence is given to that which only reminds of the Eucharist, then, of course, that which is reminded is something worthy in itself of the deepest reverence. Eg. Adv. Marc. 1. V c. 8 p.m. 489. Proinde panis et calicis sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis. This place represents a general theme, more specifically revealed in books III and IV. the same essay. With the most detailed disclosure, it acquires (as we will see later) significant significance for the doctrine of the Eucharist, but taken fragmentarily, without connection with the explanations of this thought, it loses all significance for our purpose. De pudicit. With. 9 p.m. 997–998. Tertullian here wants to interpret the parables of the one lost sheep and the one coin (Luke 15:4–8). Armed against the Orthodox view that these parables refer to both a Christian sinner and a person who has not yet known God, to a pagan, and defending his Montanistic view that these parables refer only to a pagan, Tertullian says that if we relate them to a Christian, who “having gone away from the Father for a long time, living in a pagan way, squandered the essence received from God the Father as baptism, and the Holy Spirit, and then eternal life (substantiam utique baptismi, utique Spiritus. s., et exinde spei aeternae), then “in truth the “tota substantia sacramenti” would be destroyed through that, in this case “and the apostate would receive his former clothes, the robe of the Holy Spirit. and again the ring, the seal of baptism (signaculum lavacri) and again Christ would be slain for him (rursus illi mactabitur Christus).” No, this parable only applies to the pagan. Only he “remembers God the Father, returns to being satisfied, receives his former clothes again, i.e. the condition that Adam lost through crime also receives the ring for the first time when the one asked seals the agreement of faith and thus then feeds on the fatness of the Lord’s body, i.e. Eucharist (opimatate Dominici corporis vescitur, eucharistia scilicet).” De resurrect. carn. With. 7 rub. 805. Collocavit autem, an potius inseruit et immiscuit carni, tanta quidem consecratione, ut incertum haberi possit, utrumne caro animam, an carnem anima circumferat; utrumne animae caro, an anima appareat carni etc. See rel. words consecratione into the tract. about evhar. Ibid. ita caro… consors et cohaeredes invenitur. St temporalium, cur non aeternorum? Ibid. c. 8 p.m. 806. Et haec quidem velut de publica forma humanae conditionis in suffragium carni procuraverit. Videamus nunc de propria etiam christiani nominis forma, quanta huic substantiae, frivolae ac sordidae, apud Deum praerogativa sit. Ibid. Scilicet caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur; caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur; caro signatur, ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima Spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima Deo saginetur etc. For this very purpose, the particle et was added, i.e. to show that by receiving the body and blood of Christ, not only the flesh is sanctified, but also the soul through the medium of the body. In the mentioned brochure (see the literature of the work), he limited himself to analyzing exclusively only this kind of places (six), without touching on the ones we mentioned above. We allow ourselves to take advantage of this wonderful essay, namely its philological part. This side of the writing is excellent; We mean a study of the use of expressions in Tertullian’s works: repraesentare, censeri, figura, consecrare. Good and exegetical, but not everywhere. In places the author suffers from excessive subtlety and confusion of analysis and exaggerations in favor of the Lutheran doctrine of Impanation. Adv. Marc. 1. I c. 14. Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit, nec oleum, quo suos ungit, nec mellis et lactis societatem, qua suos infantat, nec panem ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, etiam in sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. As a remarkable feature of Tertullian’s use, which was generally distinguished by a very peculiar way of using Latin words, Leimbach points out that the syllable “re” in Tertullian in the word repraesentare in almost all places, except six, loses all meaning. In the said work, according to Leimbach's count, this word is used 14 times, and in all of Tertullian's works 31 times. De orat c. 6. Sed quam eleganter divina sapientia ordinem instruxit, ut post coelestia... terrenis quoque necessitatibus petitioni locum faceret... Quamquam: panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie spiritualiter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est, quia vita Christus et vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis vitae. Et paulo supra: panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de coelis. Tum quod et corpus Ejus in pane consetur. Hoc est corpus meum. Ita petendo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore Ejus. According to Leimbach, Tertullian uses this word in eight different meanings. Censeri = l) occurs, 2) to be deducible, 3) to consist of something, 4) to be considered, to be subsumed under rubrics, 5) to be defined, subsumed under a concept, 6) to be connected to a concept, 7) to be, 8) to be and exist. See Leimbach for the use of censeo and censeri in classical language. According to Leimbach, the words: Christas enim panis noster do not constitute the first member of the syllogism, but a general position proven in the subsequent syllogism, the first premise of which is the words: quia vita Christos et vitae, (arbitrarily changed by him in the case, vm. vita) panis; He considers the words of Scripture to be further premises. Therefore, Leimbach sees, in the first half of this passage, the following syllogism. Christ is the bread of life, and the word of the living God is bread; therefore, Christ, as the Word of the living God, is bread. Thus, we receive life through the bread of life, the word of God (or teaching). - In further words: “tum quod et corpus Ejus in pane censetur.” Hoc est corpus meum,” Leimbach sees evidence, although very unsuccessful, according to him, of the same position that Christ is bread. In his opinion, Tertullian wants to say here that the body of Christ fits the concept of bread, or otherwise, the body of Christ is bread. Why? Because the Eucharistic bread is His body. Tertullian here, according to him, is weak in proof, falling into a logical circle; since to the question: “why is the body of Christ bread,” he answers: “because bread is the body.” From this, however, according to Leimbach, it does not at all follow that Tertullian did not believe in what he weakly proved. – We completely disagree with the venerable German scientist regarding the analysis of this place. Leimbach collected 121 passages of this kind from various works of Tertullian. De patient. With. 3 r. 1254. Qui Christus in hominis figura proposuerat latere. Comp. Adv. Marc. 1. IV p. 21 p.m. 411: etsi non semine, tamen ex lege substantiae corporalis, ex feminae humoris: non caro habitus ante formam: non pecus dictus post figuram. De carn. Chr. With. 9 p.m. 771. Quid caro, quam terra conversa in figuras suas. Apog. c. 21 p.m. 399. Iste igitur Dei radius… delapsus in Virginem, quamquam et utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo Deo mistus. Adv. Judaeos c. 2 p.m. 600. Nec Deum offendissent, ut patrem, qui de limo terrae, quasi ex utero matris figuraverat. See also De coron. c. 5 p.m. 82: Puto autem naturae Dominus Deus noster est, qui figuravit hominem. Adv. Jud. With. 10 rub. 629. Sic enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans, cujus retro corpus in pane prophetes figuravit. Adv. Marc. 1. II c. 19 p.m. 348. Sic enim Deus in evangelio quoque vestro revelavit, panem corpus sui figuram pani dedisse, cujus retro corpus in panem prophetes figuravit, ipso Domino hoc sacramentum interpetaturo. Ibid. 1. IV p. 40 rub. 460–461. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Eigura autem non fuisset; nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus suum finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi?... Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerat significasse, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. Whether to translate this passage as Leimbach translated it (“calling my body bread,” since he put it in connection with the words of Jeremiah) or as we (“calling bread my body,” since we see here an indication of these words, i.e., bread is My body), this place does not benefit from one translation or another in relation to the certainty of its meaning. It contains a far from revealed allusion to the Eucharist. This passage is preceded by the following reasoning, which we will convey, trying to preserve, as far as possible, the authentic expressions of the author when presenting the train of thought. Christ knew when He needed to suffer. The law secretly foretold His suffering (cujus passionem lex figurat). Of the many Jewish holidays, He chose the Passover holiday as a day of suffering. Moses, having said: the Passover belongs to the Lord, through this he foretold the sacrament (sacramentum, that is, mysteriously predicted). That is why the Lord expressed a strong desire to eat Passover with his disciples. O destroyer of the law, who wanted to preserve it even in relation to the Passover lamb! Was it true that He enjoyed Jewish mutton, Tertullian ironically remarks? Being a lamb who does not open his mouth to the shearer, did he not himself want to fulfill the type of his saving blood (figuram sanguinis)? He, however, could have been devoted through someone else. Further, it indicates the fulfillment of prophecies about the betrayal of Christ by Judas, for money and about the fate of this money, although the Savior could have been betrayed without any mediation of a traitor and without any money. Adv. Marc. 1. V s. 20 rub. 522. Plane de substantia Christi putant et hic Marcionitae suffragari Apostolum sibi, quod phantasma carnis in Cristo, cum dicit, quod in effigie Dei constitutus, non rapinam axistimavit pariari Deo, sed exhausit semetipsum accepta effigie servi – non veritate, et similitudine hominis non in homine, et figura inventus homo, non substantia, i. e. non carne: quasi non et figura et similitudo et effigies substantiae quoque accedant. We agree with Leimbach that in this place Tertullian strikes not only Marcion, but also the symbolists who understand figuram as Marcion understood it, but we cannot understand how, according to the German scientist, here the Roman Catholic teaching about the subsistence of bread in the Eucharist is also defeated. If Leimbach had said that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not follow from this passage, then we would agree with him; but not to confirm anything and to directly deny or strike, as he put it, are two completely different things. Adv. Marc. 1. IV p. 40 rub. 461–462. Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum substantiam corporis confirmavit. Nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi carnis... Itaque consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, probatio carnis de testimonio sanguinis. Ut autem et sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit. Proving that Tertullian only partially followed the classical usage in the use of the word consecrare, he retained only two of the four meanings: 1) ex profano sacrum ac reriligiosum facere, diis dicare aliquid, 2) inter deos referre, deum facere aliquid; but for that he gave this word a new meaning - Leimbach cites the following passages as proof of his last position. Jam omnibus plures christiani, qui apud Deum de utroque deducimur, et esse principale in anima et certo in corpore recessu consecratum (De anima p. 15 p. 670–671). Sed etsi in cerebro, vel in medio superciliorum discrimine, nel ubiubi philosophis placet, principalitas sensuum consecrata est, quod Hegemonicon appellatur, caro erit omne animae cogitatorium (De resur. carn. c. 15 p. 804). In both of these places we are talking about where the principale is located, and the concept of being in a place is expressed through the word consecrari. – It is remarkable how, regarding the study of the use of this word, Leimbach exposes the courage of German scientists. Thus, Rückert, for example, argues that the word consecrare is rarely used in Tertullian; Meanwhile, it turns out that Leimbach in only two works of Tertullian (Apolog. et Ad nationes) counted up to forty cases of the use of this word. De anima c. 17 p.m. 676. Here Tertullian attacks Plato and the Academicians for being too skeptical of the evidence of the senses, and asserts the truth that the senses should not be questioned, that doubt in this case leads to a wavering of faith in Christ in general and in the reliability of the evidence of His senses in particular. If we allow doubt about the reliability of the testimony of the senses, then, perhaps, it will turn out that Christ was deceived when he saw Satan fall from heaven, or heard the voice of the Father testifying about Him, or when he touched Peter’s mother-in-law, aum alium postea unguenti sensuit spiritum, quod in sepuituram suam acceptavit, alium postea vini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam cosecravit. De poenit. With. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Ibid. With. 3. 4. Omnibus ergo delictis sev carne, sev spiritu, sev facto, sev voluntate commissi, qui poenam per judicium destinavit, idem et veniam per poenitentiam spopondit. Ibid. Tunc opinor emendatos liquebit cum absolvimur? Nullo pacto. Sed cum pendente venia, poena prospicitur, cum adhuc liberari non meremur, ut possimus mereri, cum Deus comminatur, non cum ignoscit... Peccator ante veniam deferre se debet. Ibid. Neque ego renuo divinum beneficium, i. e. abolutionem delictorum inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse; sed ut eo pervenire contingat elaborandum est. Ibid. Quidem autem sic opiuantur, quasi Deus necesse habeat praestare etiam indignis, quod spopondit et libertatem Ejus faciunt servitutem. Ibid. Caeterum, si ab aquis peccare desistimus, necessitate, non sponte innocentiam induimus. Ibid. With. 9. Presbyteris advolti et caris Dei adgeniculari, omnibus fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere. Here, resbyteris advolti cannot in any way be understood as the final resolution. The penitent, as is known (Apostle Lent), every time at a certain time during the liturgy they prostrated themselves before the one performing the liturgy; a prayer was read over them; hands were laid on them, and they were sent out of the church. Ibid. With. 10. In uno et altero Ecclesia est, Ecclesia vero Christus. Ergo cum te ad fratrum genna protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras. Aeque illi cum super te lacrymas agunt, Christus patitur, Christus Patren deprecatur. Ibid. An melius est damnatum latere, quam palam absolvi? Miserum est sic ad Exomologesin pervenire. By absolvi, of course (see Min’s note), this is not the last permission, but those laying on of hands that we talked about above, and which, combined with a well-known ceremony that was difficult for pride, could deter many from public repentance. But the last resolution, although it did not contain anything difficult in itself, might not seem particularly attractive to people subject to false shame, since in order to achieve it, it was necessary to go through a series of what Tertullian calls exomologesis. Is this why he added: miserum est sic ad Exomologesin pervenire? However, whether we understand it this way or differently, in any case - since it is not added that permission is granted by the priests - this place does not have any special meaning for us. Ibid. With. 11–12. Igitur com scias, adversus gehennam post prima illa intinctionis Dominica munimenta, esse adhuc in exomologesi secunda subsidia, cur salutem tuam deseris?... Peccator restituendo sibi institutam a Dominico exomologesin sciens, praeteribit illum?... Quid ergo ultra de istis duabus humanae salutis quasi plancis? That Tertullian considered exomologesis only a preparatory act for the final act of forgiveness is clear from the following passage: De orat p. 7. Exomologesis est petitio veniae, quia qui petit veniam, delictum confitetur. Sic et poenitentia demonstratur acceptabilis Deo, quia vult eam, quam mortem peccatoris. So exomologesis is not an act of forgiveness, but only a request for forgiveness. De pudic. With. 1. Audio etiam edictum esse propositum et quidem peremptorium, pontifex scilicet maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum, edicit: “Ego et moechia et fornicationis delicta, poenitentia functis dimitto.” Ibid. c. 19 p.m. 1020. Sins are counted here - both light and serious. To list the easy ones, he lists the serious ones as follows: Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut grariora et exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant: homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et moechia et fornicatio et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. Ibid. c. 18 (ad fin.). Salva illa poenitentiae species post fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus et irremissibilibus a Deo solo. Mainly in Chapter 21. op. De pudicitia. Ibid. In hunc jam gradum decurram, excernens inter doctrinam Apostolorum et potestatem. Disciplina hominem gubernat, potestas adsignat, seorsum quod potestas, Spiritus autem Deus. Ibid. Quis autem poterat donare delicta? hoc solius ipsius est. Quis enim dimittit delicta, nisi solus Deus (Marc. 2:7)? et utique mortalia, quae in Ipsum fuerint admissa et in templum Ejus; nam tibi quae in te reatum habeant, etiam septuagies septies juberis indulgere in persona Petri. Ibid. Sed habet, inquis, potestatem Ecclesia delicta donandi. Hoc ego magis et agnosco et dispono, qui ipsum Paracletum in prophetis novis habeo dicentem: "Potest Ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant." Ibid. Unde hoc jus Ecclesiae usurpes. Ibid. Adeo nihil ad delicta fidelium capitalia potestas solvendi et aligandi Petro emancipata. Cui si praeceperat Dominus etiam septuagies deliquenti in eum fratri indulgere; utique nihil postea alligare, id est retinere mandasset, nisi forte ea, quae in Dominum, non in fratrem, quis admiserit; praejudicatur enim non dimittenda in Deum delicta, cum in homine admissa donantur. Ibid. Quid nunc et ad Ecclesiam et quidem tuam psychice? Secundum enim Petri personam spiritalibus potestas ista conveniet aut apostolo, aut prophetae. Ibid. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed Ecclesia Spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum; Domini enim, non famuli Ejus jus et arbitrum, Dei ipsius, non sacerodotis. Ibid. c. 32. Caeterum, si quae audent interserere se aetati apostolicae, ut ideo videantur ab Apostolis traditae, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt, possumus dicere: Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum: evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio deccurentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tanem cum Apostilis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesiae Polycarpum ab Ioanne conclocatum refert: sicut Romanorum, Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit; proinde utique et caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in episcopatum constitutos apostolici seminis traduces habeant. De bapt. c. 17. Danti quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine auctoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem... Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest, nisi episcopi jam aut presbyteri, aut diaconi vocantur, dicenter, Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo... Sed quanto magis laicis disciplina verecundiae et modestiae incumbit, cum ea majoribus competat, ne sibi assumant dicatum episcopi. De padicit. c. 21. Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus es nec imperio praesidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere etc. See De padic. c. 21 (in the treatise on the book). De rgaes. 41. Ordinationes corum tenmerariae, leves, inconstantes: nunc neophytos conlocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc apostatos nostros... Alius hodie episcopus, cras laicus: nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injugunt. Ibid. c. 29. Interea perperam evangelizabatur, perperam credebatur, tot millia millium perperam tincta, tot opera fidei perperam administrata, tot virtutes, tot charismata perperam operata, tot sacerdоtia, tot ministeria perperam functa, tot denique martyria in vacuum coronata. Here, when enumerating the most important things that happen in the Christian Church - starting with the catechumen and ending with martyrdom, namely: the catechumen of faith, baptism, virtues, gifts, priesthood, ministries or offices and martyrdom - attention is drawn to the placement of sacerdotia directly behind charismata and the distinction between ministeria and sacerdotia. Isn’t this an allusion to the gifts of grace, assimilated to the three hierarchical degrees, which is how they have always differed, in the view of the Church, from the lower ministries in the church, for example. reader, deaconesses? De exhort. cast. With. 7. Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est: Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit (Apoc. 1:6). Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit Ecclesiae auctoritas, et honor per ordinis concessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est concessus, et offers et tingis et sacerdos es tibi solus. It is expressed in a similar way in the works. De monog. c. 7. The same subject, i.e., the exhortation of the laity to monogamy, on the basis of the rights of the priesthood, in which they participate on an equal basis with priests, is also addressed in other chapters of the said work (pp. 11 et 12). Ad uxorem. Exhortatio castitatis, Do monogamia. Ibid. c. 2. Si secundum scripturam, qui in matrimonio gentili a fide deprehenduntur propterea non inquinantur, quia cum ipsis alii quoque sanctificantur: sine dubio iste, qui ante nuptias sanctificati sunt, si extraneae carni commisceantur, sanctificare eam non possunt, inqua non sunt deprehension. Dei inim gratia illud sanctificat, quod invenit. Ita quod sanctificare non potuit, immundum est, quod immundum est cum sancto non habet partem, nisi, ut de suo inquinet et occidant. Cap. 3. Aut numquid tabulas nuptiales de illo apud tribunal Domini proferant? Et matrimonium rite contractum allegabimus? Quod vetuit ipse, non adulterium est? Quotd prohibitum est, non stuprum est? extranaei hominis admissio minus templum Dei violat, minus membra Christi cum membris adulterae commiscet? Quod sciam non sumus nostri, sed pretio sumpti; et quali pretio? Sunguine Dei. Ibid. c. 9. Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat oblatio et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, Pater rato(um) habet? Not only oblatio (Evchar.), but also benedictio (act of marriage) is mentioned here. This is our conclusion and we think it is absolutely correct. Tertullian says that one cannot marry a pagan in church (rite contractum, apud tribunal Domini), since this is prohibited. So eg. Kle acts, citing in his discussion about marriage (p. 59, under the heading: the sacramentality of marriage) exclusively this kind of place (namely Adv. Mags. 1. V p. 18. Contr. Valent, p. 30). There are many such passages, especially the following definition of marriage is remarkable (De monag. p. 9): Videmus, quid sit matrimonium apud Deum et ita cognoscemus, quid sit aeque adulterium. Matrimonium est, cum Deus jungit duos in unam carnem, aut junctos depraehendes in eadem carne junctionem signavit. Adulterium est, cum quoque modo disjunctis duobus, alia caro imo aliena miscetur. Often refers to God's establishment of marriage at creation and to the words of the apostle (for example, De exhort. cast. c.5) with the aim of defending, however, not marriage in general, but monogamy (monogamy). In op. De monogamia and especially in Exhortatio castitatis he extremely exalts virginity at the expense of marriage. Thus, when analyzing the motives for marriage, it is the carnal thoughts that are inevitable when entering into marriage, and then the essence of the marital relationship, that is carried away to the point that it classifies not only the second, but also the first marriage in itself, regardless of permission, as fornication. (De Exhort. cast p. 9). Exhorting monogomy, he often refers to the words of the Apostle (Eph. 5:32). So in Exhort, cast s. 5. Secundum spiritales nuptias ecclesiae et Christi aguoscere debemus.... unius matrimonii legem tam secundum generis fundamentum, quam secundum Christi sacramentum. In Op. De monogam. (c. 5 p. 936) says that Adam the first and the second (i.e. Christ) require monogomy, the one by his bodily union, the other by his spiritual union with the Church. Monogamus (Christus) occurrit in carue, unam habens ecclesiam sponsam, secundum Adam et Evae figuram, quam Apostolus in illud magnum sacramentum interpretatur ia Christum et Ecclesiam, competisse carnali monogamiae per spiritalem. How, however, Tertullian looked at the marriage of Adam in itself, regardless of its transformative significance, this can be seen from op. De Jejun. (p. 3), where he says that Adam, in spiritual ecstasy, foresaw the spiritual union of Christ and the Church, but did not persist in the spiritual, but surrendered to the flesh, the womb, and not God. Verum et ipse tunc in psychicum reversus post extasin spiritalem, in qua magnum illud sacramentum in Christum et ecclesiam prophetaverat…. A similar passage in Op. De anima (p. 11 p. 665). These are two places in particular. One in op. Adr. Marc. 1. V s. 18 rub. 518. Proving the unity of the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament, Tertullian says that if the one and the other God were different, then Christ would compare (comparari) himself with the work of the Dimiurge, and the Church with the flesh, would not love the flesh, meanwhile He loves it, which is natural, since everyone will love, preserve, honor and crown the image of his wife (imaginem sponsae). Laborabo ergo nunc eumdem Deum probare masculi et Christi, mulieris et ecclesiae, carnis et spiritus, ipso apostolo sententiam Creatoris adhibente, imo et disserente: Propter hoc relinquiet homo patrem... Sacramentum hac magnum. Sufficit inter ista, si Creatoris magna sunt apud apostolum sacramenta, minima apud haereticos. Sed ego autem dico, inquit, in Christum et ecclesiam. Habet interpretationem, non separationem sacramenti. Ostendit figuram sacramenti ab eo praeministratam, cujos erat utique sacramentum. Quid videtur Marcioni? Creator quidem ignoto Deo figuras praeministrare non potuit, etiam quia adversario. The meaning of this passage is that, from the point of view of Marcion, it is not conceivable that God could choose as a prototype (sacramentum = figura) of his union with the Church the union of a husband and wife, created by another God, therefore, an alien figure, and therefore if, according to the Orthodox, marriage is an image of the union of Christ with the Church, then, according to Marviov, there is and cannot be any symbol or image, resemblance, resemblance. The Apostle added the last words (Ego dico in Christum...) not at all with the purpose of separating the image from the depicted (Old Testament from the New Testament), but he only interprets this image, showing that the image of the future mysterious union of Christ with the Church was predetermined by the same God (in the Old Testament), for whom he seemed to prefigure the future union of Christ with the Church. – Second place in op. Adv. Valent, p. 30. Here Tertullian denounces the Valentinians for the fact that they, following their goddess Ahamosa, for whom it was profitable to be dissolute, try, for the sake of giving honor to heavenly combinations, to delve into the sacraments and not just once, but constantly perform them through copulation with a friend, that is, with a woman. Nam et honorandorum conjugiorum supernorum gratia dicitur apud illos meditandum atque celebrandum semper sacramentum comiti, id est foemini adhaerendo; alioquin degenerem, nec legitimum veritatis, qui diversatus in mundo non amaverit foeminam, nec se ei junxerit. We have already seen a similar passage, but much more expressively (with mention of grace and the divine seed) in Irenaeus and paid due attention to it. Whereas in Irenaeus everything is focused on the concept of grace, in Tertullian, as a defender of monogamy, on the word semper; the word sacramentum, like μυστήριον (in Irenaeus), is too mutual to base anything on it. See especially Exort. cast. With. 2–5. Ibid. With. I. Voluntas Dei est sanctificatio nostra... Id bonum sanctificationem dico in species distribuit complures... Prima species virginitas a nativitate. Secunda virginitas a secanda nativitate, id est a lavacro, quae aut in matrimonio purificat ex compacto, aut in viduitate perseverat ex arbitrio. Tertius gradus superest monogamia, cum post matrimonium unum interceptum exinde sexui renuntiatur. In this treatise, as well as in a similar one - about St. Cyprians, we followed the path already paved by Grene's research (Sacramentum oder Begriff etc). This industrious Roman Catholic scholar has collected a very significant number of places related to this. Unfortunately, we almost did not have to take advantage of his analysis and view of the meaning of most places, as well as their grouping, since in most cases we disagree with the venerable author in this regard. How Tertullian came to the idea of ​​introducing all these objects into the circle of the concept of sacramentum is difficult to decide; but if guesswork is appropriate here, then we allow ourselves to make the following assumption. He probably came out initially from the classical use of the word sacramentum, and then identified sacramentum with μυστήριον and transferred to sacramentum everything that was included in the circle of objects denoted by this Greek word. Classical usage gave him the opportunity to use the word sacramentum to denote renunciation of the devil, union with Christ and a symbol of faith. He looked at these actions as if they were the formulas of an oath given to the new soldiers of Christ to their leader. Having given the name sacramentum to the act of confession of faith, he naturally could so call both fidelity to this oath (the belief of a Christian) and the objective objects of this faith that constitute the content of the sacramentum or the rules of faith, as he otherwise called the symbol of faith. And since these objects of faith can be taken either collectively or separately, the sacramentum could serve him as a means to designate either the entire revealed faith of the Old Testament and New Testament, or in parts - some of the most important objects of both (types and prophecies of the Old Testament and some individual truths of the New Testament faith). However, in the latter case, he could also come from the concept of μυστήριον, which he identified with sacramentum. Finally, comparing the most important Christian sacred rites with pagan mysteries, and calling these latter sacramenta, he adopted the same name for the Christian sacraments, with the exception of marriage, which he called in his Montanistic writings sacramentum in the sense of symbol, prototype, type. De cor. mil. With. 13. The range of things he lists includes: pompae diaboli et angelorum ejus: officia, seculi honores, solemnitates, popularitates, falsa vota etc. De idolol. c. 6. To show what exactly he means here by sacramentum, he immediately adds after the words given: quomodo enim renuntiavimus diabolo et angelis ejus, si eo facimus. Ad martyr. c. 3. Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam, quam in sacramenti verba respondimus. This use of an oath, in the sense of an ordinary military oath, is found in Tertullian in De praeseript. With. 24. Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacramentis principis sui, nisi pactus simul perire. De cor. milit. c. 11. Tertullian here asks: credimus ne humanum sacramentum divino superduci licere et in alium dominum respondere post Christum? The expression respondere clearly indicates in what sense sacramentum is used here. De pudicit. With. 18. Noverint et dodicerint, put together, indicate both the preliminary study and solemn reading of the creed by the catechumens, a few days before baptism, used in ancient times, and its recitation at baptism. The word fidei more often denotes the subject of speech. Adv. Marc. 1. IV p. 2. And before these words he proves against Marcion that the meaning of the writings of this or that apostle lies in his agreement with the writings of the other apostles and that the apostle. Paul, teacher of St. Spirit, went to Jerusalem on purpose, ut cum auctoribus contulit et convenit de regula fidei. Apol. c. 19 p.m. 386: thesaurus collocatus totius judaici sacramanti et inde etiam nostri. De praescript. c. 20 p.m. 32. Quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio. Ibid. c. 26 p.m. 38. Dominus palam edixit sine ulla significatione alicujus tecti sacramenti.... Haec apostoli aut neglexerunt aut minime intellexerunt, si non adimpleverunt abscondentes aliquid de lumine, i. e. Dei verbo et Christi sacramento. In ch. 27. these expressions are replaced by the following: vel non omnem ordinem regulae omnibus edidisse. De pudicit. c. 19. p. 1017. Totius sacramenti interest – nihil credere ab Ioanne concessum, quod a Paulo sit denegatum. Adv. Prax. c. 31 p. 196. Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum. Also in c. 2 p.m. 157: nihilominus custodiantur oeconomiae sacramentum, quae unitatem in Trinitatem disponit. Adv. Marc. 1. V s. 7. p. 487. Ecce aute et in petram offendit, caecus Marcion, de qua bibebant in solitudine partes nostri. Si enim petra illa Christus fuit, utique Creatoris, cujus et populus. Cui rei figaram extranei sacramenti (someone else's prototype) interpretatur? Ibid. c. 6 p.m. 483. Ipse si esset, latere non posset, nedum aliqua Ejus (Old Testament God) sacramenta. Creator autem tam ipse notus, quam et sacramenta Ejus, palam scilicet decurrentia apud Israel, sed de significautiis obumbrata. Ibid. c. 15 p.m. 518: interpretationem, non separationem sacramenti. Ostendit figuram sacramenti ab eo praeministratam, cujus erat utique sacramentum. Smu tract. about marriage. Ibid. 1. III p. 19 p.m. 348: ipso Domino hoc sacramentum interpretaturo. See tract above. About the Eucharist. Ibid. 1. V s. 1 p.m. 470. Finding that the prototypes of the ap. Paul's were Benjamin and Saul, and Christ's David, notes: Haec figurarum sacramenta si tibi displicent, certe Acta apostolorum hunc tibi ordinem Pauli tradiderunt, and te quoque non negandum. Ibid. I.III. c. 16. p. 343. If Joshua is called Jesus, then hanc dicimus figuram futuri fuisse.... Ideo is vir, qui in hujus sacramanti imagines parabatur, etiam nominis Dominici inavguretus est figura, Iesus cognominatus. The Spirit of the Creator spoke in Exodus. 23:20. He then called Christ an angel, and He called Joshua Jesus, in order to mysteriously predict his future name: Iesum autem ob nominis sui futuri sacramentum. Ibid. 1. V s. 4 p.m. 478. Utique manifestavit et christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahao ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum. Adv. Iudaeos c. 13. p. 635. Hoc enim lignum (cross) tunc in sacramento erat, quo Moyses aquam amaram indulcavit. Ibid. p. 636. Adhuc hujus ligni sacramentum in Regnorum legimus celebratum. Nam cum flii prophetarum etc. Quid manifestius hujus ligni sacramento? Ibid. Nes lignum sibi et Isaac filius Abrahae ad sacrificium ipse portabat.. Sed qnoniam haec fuerant sacramenta, quae temporibus Christi perficienda (= adimplenda) servabantur: et Isaac cum ligno reservatus est. De bapt. c. 8. Sed est hoc quoque de veteri sacramento, quo nepotes suos ex Ioseph, Ephraim et Munassem capitibus impositis et intermutatis manibus benedixerit. De anima, c. 18 p.m. 678: haereticarum idearum sacramenta. De resur. carn. c. 2 p.m. p. 797. In sacramentis priorem et in praedicationibus manifestationem. However, sometimes he also calls them mysteria: idolorum mysteria (De praescr. c. 40) non sacramenta (Ad. nat. 1. I c. 16). According to Tertullian, the pagans claimed that Christians have such liturgical actions, such mysteries, among which infants are killed and other outrages are committed (mysteria et christiana mysteria ibid. c. 7; several times) sacramentum infanticidii (Apolog. c. 7). In ADV. Gnost. (p. 10 p. 141) arcana illa haereticorum sacramenta. In Op. Ad. nation. (I. 1 c. 16 p. 583), to describe the ugliness of pagan cults, notes: de sacramentis nostrae religionis opinor intentatis et sunt paria vestris non sacramentis, but does not clarify what sacramenta he means. In particular, he calls blessing a great sacrament. Arguing about the fact (De test. animae. p. 2) that the pagans themselves testify to the unity of God with their exclamations, he notes that the exclamation that they often utter: “God bless you,” Christians have a great church rite and a custom used in life. Etiam quod penes Deum bonitatis et benignitatis omnis benedictio inter nos summum sit disciplinae et conversationis sacramentum. Benedicat te Deus, tam facile pronuntias, quam Christiano necesse est. De praescr. c. 40. Qui (diabolus) ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit; et si adhuc memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos; celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coronam. Quid? Quod et summum Pontificem unius nuptiis statuit, alphabet et virgines, alphabet et continentes. Caeterum, si Numae Pompilli superstitiones revolvamus, si sacerdotalia, officia, insignia, et privillegia, si sacrificalia ministeria, et instrumenta, et vesa ipsorum sacrificiorum et piaculorum et votorum, curiositates consideremus, nonne manifeste diabolus morositatem illam judaicae legis imitatus est? Qui ergo ipsas res, de quibus sacramenta Christi administrantur, tam aemulanter affectavit exprimere in negottis idololatriae, utique et idem et eodem ingenio gestiit et potuit instrumenta quoque divinarum rerum et sanctorum christianorum, sensum de sensibus, verba de verbis, parabolas de parabolis profanae et aemulae fidei attentare. In Exh. cast. (p. 7 p. 923), urging monogamy by the fact that we all have the rights of a priest and can baptize and offer the Eucharist (et offers et tingis) further notes: Omnes Deus ita vult dispositos esse, ut ubique sacramentis ejus obeundis apti sumus. Likewise in De ressur. Carn., having said (p. 8) that the flesh is washed, anointed, sealed, overshadowed, nourished by the body and blood of Christ, continues (p. 9): Quam (carnem) sacramentis suis disciplinisque vestivit... haeccine non resurgiet totiens Dei? Here the distinction between sacramentis and disciplinis is remarkable. The last expression was added, no doubt, in accordance with what was said in the previous chapter, and in the previous chapter, godly actions performed by a person, including virginity, were distinguished from the sacraments. Following the words: caro corpore et sanguine vescitur follows: Non possunt se ergo separare in mercede, quas opera conjugit. Nam et sacrificia Deo grata, confictationes dico animae, jejunia et seras et aridas escas et appen dices hujus officii sordes caro de proprio suo incommodo instaurat. Virginitas quoque et viduitas et modesta in occulto matrimonii dis simulatio, et una notitia ejus de bonis carnis adolentur. De pudicit. c. 9. p. 997. Defending the idea of ​​​​the impermissibility of resolving sinners from grave sins, he says that whoever squandered substantiam utique baptismatis, utique Spiritus s. et exinde spei aeternae, he is unworthy of forgiveness, for he is elisa est... tota substantia sacramenti (see this place above) De bapt. With. 9. Adv. Valent. With. 27. Sacramentum is also found in conjunction with other words: aquae (aquae sacramentum De bapt. p. 1), salutis (De revel. virg. p. 2), sanctificationis (De bapt. p. 4). It is also called symbolum mortis (De poenit. p. 6). De corona c. 3. Eucharistiae sacramentum et in tempore victus et omnibus mandatum a Domino etc. He also calls it panis et calicis sacramentum (Adv. Marc. 1 V. c. 8. p. 489) and simply sacramentum (De pudic. c. 15. p. 1009: et infidelis cum fideli sacramenta participat). We have already seen this. Let's give one more place. De exhort. cast s. 12. Having said that the pagans also respect monogamy (the priestess of Jupiter and the great high priest are monogamous), he remarks: eam autem Dei sacramenta satanas affectat, provocatio est nostra. Adv. Prax. c. 28. p. 192. Armed against Praxeas, who considered Jesus a man and Christ the Father, he says: Itaque Christum facis Patrem.. Unctus autem non magis nomen est, quam vestitus, quam calceatus, accidens nomini res. An tu, si ex aliquo argumento vestitus quoque vocaretur, Jesus quomodo Christus ex unctionis sacramento, aeque Jesum Filiam Dei diceres, vestitum vero Patrem crederes? Although this is said about Christ, since Christ is the model in everything for man, this place in any case attracts attention in relation to the terminology of the sacrament of confirmation. Comp. De Bapt. With. 7. You might be interested in: