you assume this right for the Church. Is it because the Lord said to Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my Church, to thee I have given the keys of the kingdom of heaven," or: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven," that you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has come down to yourself also, that is, to the whole Church akin to Peter? Who are you to alter and subvert the plain intention of the Lord when he conferred this upon Peter personally? "Upon thee," he says, "I will build my Church," and "To thee I will give the keys," not to the Church. And he said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose," not what they bind or loose.

This teaching is confirmed in the event. The Church was built up in Peter, that is, through him. He inserted the key, and you see how. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man destined for you by God," etc. He was the first, for instance, to unlock, by Christian baptism, the entrance to the kingdom of heaven where sins formerly bound are loosed and sins which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation. He bound Ananias with the bonds of death and loosed the lame man from the harm of his infirmity. In the discussion about keeping the Law, it was Peter, inspired by the Spirit, who first spoke of the calling of the Gentiles: "And now why have ye tempted the Lord, putting a yoke upon the brethren which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of Jesus we shall be saved in like manner as they." This decision both loosed those parts of the Law which were abrogated and also bound what was kept of it. So, in respect of the capital offences of Christians, the power to loose and bind was by no means made over to Peter. If the Lord had instructed him to pardon his brother until seventy times seven when he sinned against him, he would certainly have commanded him to bind, or retain, nothing afterwards, except perhaps sins committed not against a brother, but against the Lord. For the forgiving of sins committed against a man creates a presumption that sins against God are not to be remitted.

Now what of all that concerns the Church-your church, I mean, sir Psychic? For following Peter's person, that power will belong to spiritual men, apostle or prophet. For the Church itself is properly and fundamentally spirit, in which is the Trinity of one Divinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who gathers together the Church which the Lord

made to consist in three. From that beginning, the whole number of those who agree in this faith takes its being as the Church from its founder and consecrator. Therefore the Church will indeed pardon sins, but the Church which is spirit, through a spiritual man, not the Church which is a collection of bishops. Law and judgment belong to the Lord, not the servant, to God, not the priest.

On Idolatry

W

INTRODUCTION

I

HEN TERTULLIAN ADDRESSED HIS Apology FOR Christianity to the magistrates of the Roman Empire, he was concerned to prove that Christians were loyal and valuable citizens. They prayed for the Emperor and those in authority under him, for the peace and security of the State; they did not cheat their neighbours, not even the tax-collector; they took a full part in the business of everyday life. "We are not Brahmans, naked sages of India, dwellers in forests, exiles from life. We reject no fruit of God's labours. Not without your forum, your meat-market, your baths, shops, factories, inns, market-days and all kinds of business, we live together with you in this world. We go to sea with you, serve in the army with you, work in the country, buy and sell. Our crafts and our labour are at your disposal." And in a different context: "We have filled everything of yours, cities, tenements, villages, towns, exchanges, even the camp, tribes, town-councils, the palace, the senate, the law-court."

No doubt this was true enough in fact, and he had a right to state the facts against the common charge that Christians were enemies of the human race. But in writings addressed to Christians Tertullian takes a very different line. The twosidedness may be somewhat disingenuous, or it may be due to disappointment with the results of his apologetic writings. The State gave no recognition to the Church, and any idea of a Christian State was beyond his horizon. If Caesars could be Christians but that is impossible. The end of the world will come before that! So far, then, from having any expectation of permeating society with Christian institutions, he does not look for tolerance of Christian peculiarities. The Christian

must face the fact that he is going to live in a pagan society, with all its forms and institutions riddled with idolatry, and that the State or his neighbours will expect or compel him to do things which involve him in that idolatry, the worst of all sins. How can the Church live in the world?

Tertullian's answer is to urge Christians to make as clean a break as possible with the world. If the greater part of the world is not to be saved, let the faithful make sure of their own salvation. At the same time, the missionary power of the Church will be enhanced when it becomes clear that Christians possess the secret of a better life. The contrast between the Church and the world must be made to stand out with all possible sharpness. There can be no compromise with paganism in any form. So he will open the eyes of those of his brethren who have not perceived the idolatry lurking behind such apparently innocent pleasures as decking one's front door with laurels to greet the Emperor; and he will show up the pitiful attempts made by some Christians to have the best of both worlds.

That there must have been many problems is obvious. They had arisen in Corinth, and Tertullian has Paul's letters much in mind. The Epistle to Diognetus had indicated the paradoxes of Christian life in the world, without giving advice on specific issues. The Jews had their own difficulties. It is interesting to compare with Tertullian the almost contemporary tractate of the Mishnah, Abodah Zarah (Idolatry).1 Another comparison worth making is with Clement of Alexandria, who in some ways is more liberal and humanistic than Tertullian, but has his own fundamental preference for the life of contemplation over the practical life. Tertullian began with a book On the Shows, in which he argued that Christians must keep away from theatre, arena, circus, and so forth, partly because they are generally immoral, but primarily because of their connexion with idolatry. Again, in On the Soldier's Crown, he repudiated the military service which he had brought forward in the Apology, partly because of the moral issue, but essentially because the soldier cannot easily escape participation in idolatry. Another work, On Women's Dress, attacks the moral offences of vanity and luxury, but also points out the pagan associations of so many of the details of fashionable costume.

On Idolatry tackles the subject more broadly. Every Christian knows that he must not worship idols. But what does that

1 Edited with notes by W. A. L. Elmslie in Texts and Studies, VIII, 2 (Cambridge, 1911).

principle entail? Many points are clear to Tertullian. A Christian cannot serve as a magistrate, a soldier, a schoolmaster, or in any profession which involves him directly in idolatrous ceremonies. The Christian craftsman must not build temples, make images or anything else explicitly for use in the pagan cultus. The Christian business man must not sell wares, incense for example, for such a purpose. Further, the Christian must not allow the pagan to think that he admits the existence of the heathen gods, for instance by taking oaths by them; and he must avoid anything which would minister to the demonsand for Tertullian these are very real-who stand behind the idols. This excludes dabbling in magic and astrology. But Tertullian presses very hard. The craftsman and the merchant and the tradesman must take care that they do not indirectly minister to idolatry. Push this to the extreme limit, and there will be few things that they can sell. It will be practically impossible for a Christian to be a carpenter or a farmer. Tertullian does not in fact insist on the extreme logic of his position, as a number of writers have too glibly asserted of him. Often he is mocking at excuses, and has his tongue in his check. He does maintain that in the last resort one must be prepared to suffer the loss of everything for one's faith. There is more than one kind of martyrdom, and the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

The book largely speaks for itself. There may be more than one view about the practicability of its ethic and discipline. Its author does not envisage a society which, though still pagan, is prepared to make allowances for Christian difficulties. Yet this happened more and more as the third century went on. Already the pagans who tried to respect Christian consciences and yet wanted firm contracts (chap. 23) are an instance of this. The discussions about public office and military service turned on the possibility of avoiding idolatry, and evidently some thought this could be done. As the Church grew, it was to be expected that, except in the sporadic times of persecution, society would find ways for Christians to partake more fully in public and social life. With that would come dangers which Tertullian was not prepared to risk. On the other hand, if the danger of dropping Christian standards could be overcome, increasing involvement in the world might increase opportunities of converting the world. But Tertullian had no hope of baptizing the customs and institutions of the Roman world.

The problems which he forced upon his contemporaries