Man is free, and must expect after death a spiritual continuation of life with rewards and punishments. The conditions of happiness are love to God and man, and struggling against the demons, which draw away to evil through sensuality. For this purpose these sectaries prescribed abstinence from animal food, frequent fastings and washings, recommended early marriage" and voluntary poverty, but rejected all sacrifice.

While the author of the Clementines, from the position of the Elcesaite doctrine, combats parties with which the Elcesaites had never come into contact, he must necessarily go into many new developments of doctrine. How free his movements were in these may be seen from the fact that he frequently used for his purpose our four gospels unknown to the Elcesaites, with great critical and exegetical arbitrariness.22 On this very account we might indeed doubt whether he left the Elcesaite doctrine itself entirely untouched.

Although the doctrine here presented could not calculate on any general dissemination, and found several adherents only in Rome and Cyprus,23 yet many felt themselves attracted by the historical contents of the production and its refutation of the heathens and the Gnostics; and since the author knew how to account for the late appearance of his work, which pretended to proceed forth from the apostolic age, they rather thought of it

24

παραδιδόμενα κηρύσσων, μέχρις αὐτῶν ἐθνῶν τὸν ἔλεον ἐκτείνων καὶ ψυχὰς πάντων ἐλεῶν.

21 Hom. iii. 26 : (Ὁ ἀληθὴς προφήτης) γάμον νομιστεύει, ἐγκράτειαν συγχωρεῖ, εἰς ἁγνείαν πάντας ἄγει. c. 68: (Οἱ πρεσβύτηροι) νέων μὴ μόνον κατεπειγέτωσαν τοὺς γάμους, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν προβεβηκότων, μή πως ζέουσα ἡ ὄρεξις προφάσει πορνείας ἢ μοιχείας λοιμὸν προσενέγκοι τῇ ̓Εκκλησίᾳ.

22 A complete collection of the passages from the gospels in the Clementines may be found in Credner's Beiträge zur Einleit. in d. bibl. Schriften, i. 284. According to him the gospel of Peter lies at the foundation of it. But the passages characteristic of John that appear in the work can hardly be referred to another gospel; and when we take the rule of measurement from them, we cannot expect that the gospel citations generally should be made verbatim.

23 Epiphanius, haer. xxx. 18, says, that Ebionites were in Cyprus, (by this general appellation for all heretical Jewish Christians he here means this party). Origen (ap. Euseb. vi. 38,) calls the heresy of the Elcesaites νεωστὶ ἐπανισταμένην. Since no trace of it is found in the second century beyond Palestine, we may assume that it was first established in those places by the Clementines.

24 Peter entreats James, in his letter prefixed to the Clementines, to communicate his sermons (τὰς βίβλους μου τῶν κηρυγμάτων) only to faith

as the corruption of a genuine writing by heretics than of forgery. Hence, another person was soon found, probably an Alexandrian, who conceived the idea of purifying it from heretical depravations, while he altered it entirely according to the standard of orthodoxy in his day. In this way arose the production which appears under different names among the ancients,25 and which still exists, but only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, under the title Recognitiones Clementis, libb. x.26 The requirements of a much later orthodoxy gave rise to the ἐπιτομή,27

§ 59.

OPPOSITION AT ROME TO MONTANISM, AND THE ASIATIC TIME OF CELEBRATING EASTER.

About the time when the Clementines appeared, there was generally apparent at Rome a lively striving after unity by removing all elements whose tendency was to disturb it.

Montanism had not only obtained many friends in the western church, without giving rise to an external division,' but had even gained besides an important influence over the prevailing ecclesiastical principles. The bishop of Rome was already on the point of entering into ecclesiastical communion with the

ful persons under the seal of secrecy; and James guarantees the secrecy by a diaμapropia added, according to which those books should be made known only to tried brethren, after they had agreed by an oath to keep the secret. Comp. Hom. ii. 17, above note 8.

25 Περίοδοι Πέτρου or Κλήμεντος (Origenes in Genesin, tom. iii. c. 14), πpažeis Пérpov (Photius bibl. cod. 112 and 113), historia Clementis (Opus imperf. in Matth. ad 24, 24), gesta Clementis, vera disputatio Petri Ap. contra falsitatem Simonis Magi (in Codd.).

26 Schliemann's die clementin. Recognitionen, eine Ueberarbeitung der Clementinen (reprinted from Pelt's theol. Mitarbeiten, Jahrg. 4 Heft. 4.) Kiel 1843. The same author's Clementinen, S. 265 ff. According to him the composition of them took place in the period between 212 and 230. But the reasons adduced in favour of Rome, as the place of writing, cannot be regarded as decisive. The Christology of the Recognitions (Schliemann, S. 331) obviously points to Alexandria.

27 Schliemann, S. 334.

1 See above § 48, note 17-19, below note 4. 2 See above § 53, note 39.

Asiatic Montanists who had been excluded from the church of their native country, when Praxeas, a confessor, came from Asia to Rome (about 192), and so altered the disposition towards them, that all communion with them was renounced.3 Thus, then, there began in the west also a controversy concerning the distinguishing doctrines of Montanism, which was conducted with violence, especially in Africa. At the head of

3 Tertull. adv. Praxeam, c. 1. Nam idem (Praxeas) tunc episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando, et praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coëgit et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Victor is usually regarded as that Romish bishop (185-197); but Neander (Antignosticus, S. 485) and Schwegler (Montanismus, S. 250) declare themselves in favour of Eleutherus (170-185), because an incipient yielding to the Montanists does not appear like the stiff hierarchical character of Victor. That character has been inferred merely from his conduct towards the Quartodecimani. But since experience shows that those who renounce certain views, become the most violent opponents of them, Victor's violent measures against everything which appears to coincide with Montanism, may be best explained on the supposition that he was at first favourably disposed towards them. Chronology is in favour of Victor; for, by the supposition that Eleutherus was the person, there is too long an interval between the first appearance of Praxeas in Rome and of Tertullian's lib. adv. Praxeam, (composed, aceording to Nosselt, 204 or 205.)

An important particular of it is given by Tertullian, de Pudicit. c. 1: Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium: Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, edicit: ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto. cap. 5: Quid agis mollissima et humanissima disciplina? Idololatram quidem et homicidam semel damnas, moechum vero de medio excipis? comp. above § 53, note 39. According to Petavius (not. ad Epiph. haer. 59, p. 228,) it is usually assumed that that Pontifex Maximus is the Romish bishop Zephyrinus (197-217). But the appellation in question does not refer to a real, but to an usurped dignity. It points ironically to the circumstance that the bishop who had made the regulation arrogated to himself, by so doing, the prerogatives of the only high-priest, Christ. Most probably the allusion is to the bishop of Carthage. Particularly important for the history of the controversy is Tertullian. lib. de velandis virginibus. In support of his demand, virgines nostras velari oportere, ex quo transitum aetatis suae fecerint, in order to set aside the argument brought against him from custom, cap. 2, Tertullian appeals to the consuetudo of the apostolic churches in Greece, and some barbarous countries: non possumns respuere consuetudinem, quam damnare non possumus, utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum: cum quibus scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen fraternitatis. Una nobis et illis fides,

:

the Montanist party stood Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, presbyter in Carthage, and the earliest Latin ecclesiastical writer of note, a man whose modes of thought were strict and severe, of a violent character, and of a rich though somewhat too sensuous imagination. In his writings it may be seen that he developed his Montanist tendency in a way increasingly rugged, being heated more and more by controversy, (Spiritalium contra Psychicos). Hence others followed him in the same spirit, till at length in the west also, separate Montanist churches were formed. In the mean time Montanism had

unus Deus idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri sacramenta. Semel dixerim, una ecclesia sumus. Hence this book was written before the division in the church, when both contending parties still belonged to the same church. Cap. 3 describes how the controversy sprung up from a peaceful living together, and how the parties gradually became more and more embittered. Tamen tolerabilius apud nos ad usque proxime : utrique consuetudini communicabatur. Arbitrio permissa res erat, ut quaeque voluisset aut tegi aut prostituti, sicut et nubere: quod et ipsum neque cogitur, neque prohibetur. Contenta erat veritas pacisci cum con. suetudine, ut tacite sub consuetudinis nomine frueretur se vel ex parte. Sed quoniam coeperat agnitio proficere, ut per licentiam utriusque moris indicium melioris partis emergeret: statim ille adversarius bonorum multoque institutorum opus suum fecit. Ambiunt virgines hominum, adversus virgines Dei, nuda plane fronte, in temerariam audaciam excitatae, et virgines videntur.-Scandalizamur, inquiunt, quia aliae aliter incedunt: et malunt scandalizari quam provocari, etc. Soon after, a complete separation took place, adv. Praxeam, c. 1: Et nos quidem postea agnitio paracleti, atque defensio disjunxit a Psychicis.

5 Accordingly, he admits of a repentance after baptism, de poenitentia, c. 7 ss. On the contrary, in his treatise de pudicitia, c. 16, he writes: Nemo seducat seipsum, i. e. nemo praesumat vitiatim Deo redintegrari denuo posse :-delicta ista-post lavacrum irremissibilia, although in c. 1, he confesses that he had formerly been of another opinion. In like manner, he allows of flight under persecution, ad uxorem, i. cap. 3, but rejects the sentiment in his lib. de fuga in persecutione. Comp. Hieronymus in catal. c. 53, de Tertull. Hic cum usque ad mediam aetatem presbyter Ecclesiae permansisset, invidia postea et contumeliis clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae ad Montani dogma delapsus. From the historical connection already noticed, it may be seen how this change took place. Comp. J. G. Hoffmann Tertulliani, quae supersunt, omnia in Montanismo scripta videri, Vitemb. 1738, 4. Moshemii dissertt. ad hist. eccl. pertinentt. vol. i. p. 54, note. J. A. Noesselt de vera aetate ac doctrina scriptorum quae super-unt Q. Sept. Tertulliani dissertt. iii. Hal. 1757 ss. 4, (reprinted in Ejusd. tres commentationes ad hist. eccl. pertinentes, Halae 1817, 8, p. 1 ss). Neander's Antignosticus, Geist des Tertullianus, und Einleitung zu dessen Schriften. Berlin 1825, 8. 6 Augustinus, de haer. c. 86, relates, that in his time the remnant of the

been too deeply rooted in the western church; and now also the circumstance operated in its favour (comp. above) that its most zealous opponents, as Praxeas7 and the Roman presbyter Caius,8 fell into other serious errors. Thus, from this time onward, Montanism was rejected in name even in the western church. But all Montanist elements were. by no means expelled from that church. Not only do we find remaining that strictness

Tertullianists in Carthage had returned to the Catholic church. Hence they were called Montanists in Carthage also, after their leader. But they neither gave themselves this appellation, nor can it be inferred from the difference of names, as the Praedestinatus, haer. 86 does, that the followers of Tertullian had formed a peculiar sect separated from the other Montanists.

7 See below § 60.

A contemporary of Zephyrinus according to Eusebius, h. e. ii. 25. Fragments of his διάλογος πρὸς Πρόκλον (τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑπερμαXOUvTa Euseb. vi. 20,) are found in Eusebius, ii. 25, iii. 28, 31. Comp. Photii bibl. cod. 48. Routh reliqu. sacr. vol. ii. p. 1 ss. He attributed the doctrine of the millennium and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. Euseb. iii. 28, comp. Lücke's Einleit. in d. Offenb. Joh. S. 307.

9 It is a remarkable phenomenon that the Montanists, Perpetua and Felicitas, who were martyred in Carthage in 202, and their Acta composed by a Montanist (see apud Ruinart, and in Münteri primordia eccl. Afric. p. 227 ss.), were always highly valued in the African church. cf. Augustini sermo i. in natali Perpetuae et Felicitatis. The Montanist character of the memoirs is satisfactorily shown by Valesius (Acta SS. Perpet. et Felicit. Paris 1664, 8, in the preface), Sam Basnage (Annales polit. Eccl. t. ii. p. 224 ss.), and by Th. Ittig (diss. de haeresiarchis aevi apostol. et apostolico proximi. Lips. 1690, 4to. sect. ii. c. 13, § 28). Even Jos. Aug. Orsi diss. apolog. pro SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis orthodoxia adv. S. Basnagium. Florent. 1728, 4, admits the Montanist principles of the author of the Acta. Comp. particularly Act. cap. 1: Viderint, qui unam virtutem Spiritus unius Sancti pro aetatibus judicent temporum: cum majora reputanda sint novitiora quaeque, ut novissimiora secundum exuberationem gratiae in ultima saeculi spatia decreta. In novissimis enim diebus, dicit Dominus, effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem, &c. (Joel ii. 28, and Act. ii. 17). Itaque et nos, qui sicut prophetias, ita et visiones novas pariter repromissas et agnoscimus et honoramus, &c. cap. 4. Pastor (Christus)-de caseo quod mulgebat dedit mihi quasi buccellam, et ego accepi junctis manibus, et manducavi, et universi circumstantes dixerunt Amen (cf. § 48, note 22). The fact, that those Montanising martyrs should have been constantly considered as members of the Catholic church, is accounted for by supposing, that although at the time of their death the controversy between the two parties had begun, yet the separation had not taken place. But, undoubtedly, the Montanist spirit must have been fostered in the church by the high estimation in which such writings were held.