Crowns And Garlands

Qui tamen et viri caput est et feminae facies, vir ecclesiae Christus Iesus, quale, oro te, sertum pro utroque sexu subiit? Ex spinis, opinor, et tribulis, in figuram delictorum quae nobis protulit terra carnis, abstulit autem virtus crucis, omnem aculeum mortis in dominici capitis tolerantia obtundens, certe praeter figuram: contumelia in promptu est, et dedecoratio et turpitudo et his implexa saevitia. Quae tunc Domini tempora et foedaverunt et lancinaverunt, uti tu nunc laurea et myrto et olea et inlustriore quaque fronde et, quod magis usui est, centenariis quoque rosis de horto Midae lectis et utrisque liliis et omnibus violis coroneris, etiam gemmis forsitan et auro, ut et illam Christi coronam aemuleris, quae postea ei obvenit? Atquin et favos post fella gustauit, nec ante rex gloriae a caelestibus salutatus est quam rex Iudaeorum proscriptus in cruce, minoratus primo a patre modico quid citra angelos, et ita gloria et honore coronatus. Si ob haec caput ei tuum debes, tale, si forte, ei repende, quale suum pro tuo obtulit, aut nec floribus coroneris si spinis non potes, quia floribus non potes. Serva Deo rem suam intaminatam. Ille eam, si volet, coronabit. Immo et vult, denique invitat : Qui vicerit, inquit, dabo ei coronam vitae. Esto et tu fidelis ad mortem, decerta et tu bonum agonem, cuius coronam et apostolus repositam sibi merito confidit. Accipit et angelus victoriae coronam, procedens in candido equo ut uinceret; at alius iridis ambitu ornatur caelesti prasio. Sedent et presbyteri coronati, eodemque auro et ipse filius hominis super nubem micat. Si tales imagines in visione, quales veritates in repraesentatione? Illas aspice, illas adora. Quid caput strophiolo aut dracontario damnas, diademati destinatum? Nam reges nos Deo et Patri suo fecit Christus Iesus. Quid tibi cum flore morituro? Habes florem ex virga Iesse, super quem tota divini Spiritus gratia requievit, florem incorruptum, immarcescibilem, sempiternum. Tertullianus, De Corona Militis, Caput XIV-XV Source: Migne PL 2.97b-102a

But what sort of garland,I ask, did He who is the head of the man and the glory of the woman, 1 Jesus Christ, the husband of the Church, submit to for both sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles, a figure of the sins which the earth of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross removed, every sting of death blunted by its endurance by the head of our Lord. Certainly besides the figure there is eager insolence, and dishonour, and infamy, and with these the ferocity involved in the cruel things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the Lord, and is that so that you may now be crowned with laurel and myrtle and olive, and any celebrated branch, and, of much more use, with a hundred roses too, culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of lily and every sort of violet, perhaps also with gems and gold, so as even to rival that crown of Christ which afterwards He obtained? But He tasted the honey after the gall, and He was not greeted as the King of Glory by the heavens until He had been condemned to the cross as the King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father a little less than the angels for a time, and so crowned with glory and honour. If for these things you owe your own head to Him, repay it if you can, such as He presented His for yours, or do not be crowned with flowers at all, if you cannot be with thorns, because you will not be with flowers. Keep for God His own property untainted, for He will crown it if He chooses. And indeed He does choose and He calls us to it. To him who conquers He says, 'I will give him a crown of life.' You also be faithful to death, 2 you also fight the good fight, whose crown the Apostle was rightly confident had been laid up for him. 3 The angel receives a crown of victory, who goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to conquer, and another is adorned with an encircling rainbow, a celestial meadow. The elders sit crowned with the same gold, and the Son of Man Himself flashes out above the clouds. 4 If such are the appearances in the vision, of what sort will be the realities represented? Look at those crowns, inhale those odours. Why condemn the head destined for a diadem to a little chaplet or a twisted headband? For Jesus Christ has made us kings to God and His Father. What to you is the flower which is to die? You have a flower from the shoot of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its fullness rested, a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting. Tertullian, On The Crown, Chap 14-15 1 2 Tim 4.8 2 Apoc 2.10 3 2 Tim 4.7-8 4 Apoc 6.2, 10.1, 4.4, 14.14

The Resurrection And The Flesh

Tenes scripturas quibus caro infuscatur: tene etiam quibus illustratur. Legis cum quando deprimitur: adige oculos et cum quando relevatur. Omnis caro foenum: non hoc solum pronuntiavit Esaias, sed et Omnis caro videbit salutare Dei. Notatur in Genesi dicens Dominus, Non manebit spiritus meus super ipsos homines, quia caro sunt: sed et auditur per Ioelem, Effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem. Apostolum quoque ne de uno stilo noris quo carnem plerumque compungit: nam etsi negat habitare quidquam boni in carne sua, etsi adfirmat eos qui in carne sint Deo placere non posse, quia caro concupiscat adversum spiritum, et si qua alia ita ponit ut carnis non tamen substantia sed actus oneretur, dicemus quidem alibi nihil proprie carni exprobari oportere nisi in animae suggillationem quae carnem ministerio sibi subigit. Verum interim et in illis litteris Paulus est cum stigmata Christi in corpore suo portat, cum corpus nostrum ut Dei templum vitiari vetat, cum corpora nostra membra Christi facit, cum monet tollere et magnificare Deum in corpore nostro. Itaque si ignominiae carnis resurrectionem eius expellunt, cur non dignitates potius inducent? Quoniam Deo magis congruit in salutem redigere quod reprobarit interdum, quam in perditionem dedere quod etiam probavit. Tertullianus, De Resurrectione Carnis, Caput X Source: Migne PL 2.808a-b

You who hold to the passages in the Scriptures in which the flesh is denigrated, hold also to those in which it is honoured. You who read where it is abased, direct your eyes also to where it is elevated. 'All flesh is grass.' 1 Isaiah did not say this alone, but also: 'All flesh shall see the salvation of God.' 2 It is noted that the Lord says in Genesis, 'My Spirit shall not remain among these men, because they are flesh,' 3 but He is also heard saying through Joel, 'I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.' 4 Even the Apostle should not be known for just one statement in which he reproaches the flesh. For even if he denies that 'in his flesh dwells any good thing,' 5 even if he affirms that 'they who are in the flesh cannot please God,' 6 because 'the flesh desires against the Spirit,' 7 even in these and other passages, it is not the substance of the flesh, but its actions, which are censured. We shall say elsewhere that no reproof can be directed at the flesh without castigation of the soul, which orders the flesh to do its service. Yet meanwhile in the same passage Paul 'carries about in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus,' 8 he also forbids our body to be defiled, as it is 'the temple of God,' 9 and he makes our bodies 'members of Christ,' 10 and exhorts us to exalt and 'glorify God in our body.' 11 Thus if the ignominies of the flesh thrust off its resurrection, why shall not its dignities rather bring it about? Because it better befits God to restore to salvation what for a while He rejected, than to give up to ruin what He once approved. Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, Chap 10 1 Isaiah 40.7 2 Isaiah 40.5 3 Gen 6.3 4 Joel 3.1 5 Rom 8.18 6 Rom 8.8 7 Galat 5.17 8 Galat 6.17 9 1 Cor 3.16 10 1 Cor 6.15 11 1 Cor 6.20

The Limitations Of Miracles

Non fuit, inquis, ordo eiusmodi necessarius, quia statim se et Filium et Missum et Dei Christum rebus ipsis esset probaturus per documenta virtutum. At ego negabo solam hanc illi speciem ad testimonium competisse, quam et ipse postmodum exauctoravit, siquidem edicens multos venturos et signa facturos et virtutes magnas edituros, aversionem etiam electorum, nec ideo tamen admittendos, temerariam signorum et virtutum fidem ostendit, ut etiam apud pseudochristos facillimarum. Aut quale est si inde se voluit probari et intellegi et recipi, ex virtutibus dico, unde ceteros noluit aeque et ipsos tam subito venturos quam a nullo auctore praedicatos? Si quia prior eis venit et prior virtutum documenta signavit, idcirco, quasi locum in balneis, ita fidem occupavit, posteris quibusque praeripuit, vide ne et ipse in condicione posteriorum deprehendatur, posterior inventus creatore ante iam cognito, et proinde virtutes ante operato, et non aliter praefato non esse aliis credendum, post eum scilicet. Igitur si priorem venisse et priorem de posteris pronuntiasse hoc fidem excludet, praedamnatus erit et ipse iam ab eo quo posterior est agnitus, et solius erit auctoritas creatoris hoc in posteros constituendi, qui nullo posterior esse potuit. Iam nunc, cum probaturus sim creatorem easdem virtutes, quas solas ad fidem Christo tuo vindicas, interdum per famulos suos retro edidisse, interdum per Christum suum edendas destinasse, possum et ex hoc merito praescribere tanto magis Christum non ex solis virtutibus credendum fuisse quanto illum non alterius quam creatoris interpretari potuissent, ut respondentes virtutibus creatoris et editis per famulos suos et in Christum suum repromissis. Quamquam, et si alia documenta invenirentur in tuo Christo, nova scilicet, facilius crederemus etiam nova eiusdem esse cuius et vetera, quam cuius tantummodo nova, egentia experimentis fidei victricis vetustatis, ut sic quoque praedicatus venire debuerit tam praedicationibus propriis exstruentibus ei fidem quam et virtutibus, praesertim adversus Christum creatoris venturum et signis et prophetiis propriis munitum, ut aemulus Christi per omnes diversitatum species reluceret. Sed quomodo a deo nunquam praedicato Christus eius praedicaretur? Hoc est ergo quod exigit nec Deum nec Christum tuum credi, quia et Deus ignotus esse non debuit, et Christus agnosci per Deum debuit. Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem, Liber III, Caput III Source: Migne PL 2.323c-325a

An arrangement of prior prophecy, you say, was not necessary, because He was instantly able to prove Himself the Son, and He Who Was Sent, and the Christ of God, with His deeds, by means of the witness of His miracles. But I shall deny that evidence of this sort alone was sufficient testimony of Him when He Himself later dismissed its authority, since He, declaring that many would come and show great signs and wonders, so as to turn aside the very elect, and yet were not to be received, 1 showed the rashness of belief in signs and wonders, which were so easy to perform even by false christs. Else how is it, if He wished to be approved and understood and received on account of such wonders, that He forbade the recognition of others like that, whose coming was to be quite sudden and unannounced by any authority? If, because He came before them, and was before them in displaying signs, and therefore, just as the firstcomers have the first place in the baths, He had first right to faith, and so seized it from all who came after, be careful lest even He be caught in the condition of the latecomer, being found to be after the Creator, who had already been made known, and who had already worked miracles like Him, and just like Him had forewarned that others not be believed, who should come after Him. If, therefore, to have come first and to have first uttered this warning is the limit of faith, He will Himself have to be condemned, because He was later in being acknowledged, and authority to prescribe such a rule about latecomers will belong to the Creator alone, who could have been after none. And now, when I am about to prove that the Creator displayed the same miracles, which you claim as solely enough for faith in your Christ, sometimes by His servants before, and in other cases reserved for His Christ to show, I may from this with merit maintain that there was so much the greater reason why Christ should not be believed in simply on account of His miracles, inasmuch as these would have shown Him to belong to none other than the Creator, because they answer to the miracles of the Creator, both as performed by His servants and reserved for His Christ. And, then, even if some other proofs should be found in your Christ, that is, novelties, we would be more readily inclinced to believe that even they belong to the same one as the old ones, rather than to him who has nothing but new proofs which have not the witness of antiquity which wins faith, so that even here he should have come announced as much by prophecies of his own for the building up of faith in him, as by miracles, especially against the Creator's Christ who was to come fortified by signs and prophets of His own, that he might shine forth as a rival of Christ in every way. But how was his Christ to be foretold by a God who never predicted? This, therefore, must obtain: that neither your God nor your Christ are to be believed, because God should not have been unknown and Christ should have been made known through God. Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 3, Chapter 3 1 Mk 13.21-22

Patience and Bereavement

Ne illa quidem inpatientiae species excusatur in amissione nostrorum, ubi aliqua doloris patrocinatur adsertio. Praeponendus est enim respectus denuntiationis apostoli, qui ait: Ne contristemini dormitione cuiusquam sicut nationes quae spe carent.  Et merito: credentes enim resurrectionem Christi, in nostram quoque credimus, propter quos ille et obiit et resurrexit. Ergo cum constet de resurrectione mortuorum, uacat dolor mortis, uacat et inpatientia doloris.  Cur enim doleas, si perisse non credis? Cur inpatienter feras subductum interim quem credis reversurum? Profectio est quam putas mortem. Non est lugendus qui antecedit, sed plane desiderandus. Id quoque desiderium patientia temperandum: cur enim inmoderate feras abisse quem mox subsequeris? Ceterum inpatientia in huiusmodi et spei nostrae male ominatur et fidem praevaricatur, et Christum laedimus cum evocatos quosque ab illo quasi miserandos non aequanimiter accipimus. Cupio, inquit Apostolus, recipi iam et esse cum Domino. Quanto melius ostendit votum! Christianorum ergo votum, si alios consecutos inpatienter dolemus, ipsi consequi nolumus! Tertullianus, De Patientia Source: Migne PL 1.1263b-1264a

Not even that type of impatience on account of the loss of our own is excused, where some assertion of grief acts as patron of it. For the consideration of the Apostle's declaration must be put before us, which says, 'Be not saddened by the falling asleep of any one, like the peoples who are without hope.' 1 And rightly, for believing in the resurrection of Christ, we also believe in our own, for whose sake He both died and rose. Since, then, there is certainty concerning the resurrection of the dead, there is no room for grief for death, there is no room for the impatience of grief. For why should you grieve if you believe that he has not perished? Why should you bear impatiently for a time the withdrawal of him who you believe will return? That which you think to be death is departure. He who goes before is not to be lamented, though certainly wanted. That longing also must be tempered with patience, for why should you bear without moderation the going away of him whom you will soon follow? Besides, impatience in matters of this kind bodes ill for our hope, and fails in its duty to the faith, and we wound Christ when those called away by him we deem as ones to be pitied, not accepting it with equanimity. 'I desire,' says the Apostle, 'to be received now, and to be with the Lord.' 2 How far better a wish does he exhibit! If, then, we grieve impatiently over others who attain the wish of Christians, we ourselves are unwilling to attain it. Tertullian, On Patience 1 1 Thes 4.13 2 Philip 1.23

Prayer And Guests

Fratrem domum tuam introgressum ne sine oratione dimiseris - Vidisti, inquit, fratrem, vidisti Dominum tuum - maxime advenam, ne angelus forte sit. Sed nec ipse a fratribus exceptus priora feceris refrigeria terrena caelestibus; statim enim iudicabitur fides tua. Aut quomodo secundum praeceptum Pax huic domui dices, nisi et eis qui in domo sunt pacem mutuam reddas? Tertullianus, De Oratione, Caput XVI Source: Migne PL 1.1193b-1194a

Do not let not a brother who has entered your house depart without a prayer: you have seen a brother, it says, you have seen your Lord, especially if he is a stranger, lest perhaps he be an angel. 1 And when you are received by the brethren, do not give earthly refreshment precedence over the things of heaven, for immediately your faith will be judged. Or how will you, according to the command, say 'Peace be to this house,' 2 unless you also bring peace to those in the house and receive it?   Tertullian, On Prayer, Chapter 26 1 Heb 13.2 2 Lk 10.5

A Peril Of Knowledge

Et si habuero omnem scientiam.... Nihil mihi prodest scientia, si charitas non sit. Denique Scribis et Pharisaeis nihil profuit, dicente Salvatore: Vos habetis clavem scientiae, et neque vos intratis, neque alios sinitis introire. Per invidiam enim charitatem corrumpentes, scientiam ejus ad nihilum deduxerunt. Nam et Tertullianus et Novatianus non parvae scientiae fuerunt; sed quia per zelum charitatis fodera perdiderunt, in schisma versi, ad perditionem sui haereses creaverunt. Sanctus Ambrosius Mediolanensis,In Epistolam Beati Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, Cap XIII Source: Migne PL 17.252a-b

'And if I have all knowledge...' 1 Knowledge profits me not if there is no love. Thus it did not profit the Scribes and Pharisees, as the Lord says: 'You have the key of knowledge and neither do you enter, nor do allow others to enter.' 2 With envy corrupting love, they brought their knowledge to nothing. Both Tertullian and Novatian were not men of little knowledge, but because of their zeal they broke the bond of love, turning to schism, and created heresies for their own ruin. Ambrosiaster, from the Commentary On The First Epistle of Saint Paul To The Corinthians, Chapter 13 1 1 Cor 13.2 2 Lk 11.52

Repentance And Gratitude

Si tibi indulgentia Domini adcommodat, unde restituas quod amiseras, iterato beneficio gratus esto, necdum ampliato. Maius enim restituere quam dare, quoniam miserius est perdidisse quam omnino non accepisse. Verum non statim succidendus ac subruendus est animus desperatione, si secundae quis paenitentiae debitor fuerit. Pigeat sane peccare rursus, sed rursus paenitere non pigeat; pudeat iterum periclitari, sed iterum liberari neminem pudeat: iterandae valitudinis iteranda medicina est. Gratus in dominum extiteris, si quod tibi denuo offert, non recusaveris. Offendisti sed reconciliari adhuc potes: habes cui satisfacias et quidem volentem.  Id si dubitas, evolve quae spiritus ecclesiis dicat: desertam dilectionem Ephesiis inputat, stuprum et idolothytorum esum Thyatirenis exprobat, Sardos non plenorum operum incusat, Pergamenos docentes perversa reprehendit, Laudicenos divitiis fidentes obiurgat: et tamen omnes ad paenitentiam commonet, sub comminationibus quidem. Non comminaretur autem non paenitenti, si non ignosceret paenitenti, dubium, si non et alibi hanc clementiae suae profusionem demonstrasset: Non, ait, qui ceciderit, resurget et qui aversatus fuerit, convertetur? Ille est scilicet, ille qui misericordiam mavult quam sacrificia. Laetantur caeli et qui illic angeli paenitentia hominis; heus tu peccator, bono animo sis: vides ubi de tuo gaudeatur! Quid illa similitudinum dominicarum argumenta nobis volunt? Quod mulier dragmam perdit et requirit et repperit, amicas ad gaudium invitat, nonne restituti peccatoris exemplum est? Errat et una pastori ovicula, sed grex una carior non erat; una illa conquiritur, una pro omnibus desideratur, et tamen invenitur et humeris pastoris ipsius refertur: multum enim errando laboraverat. Illum etiam mitissimum patrem non tacebo qui prodigum filium revocat et post inopiam paenitentem libens suscipit, inmolans vitulum praeopimum convivio gaudium suum exornat: quidni? Filium enim invenerat quem amiserat, cariorem senserat quem lucri fecerat. Quis ille nobis intellegendus pater? Deus scilicet: tam pater nemo, tam pius nemo. Is ergo te filium suum, etsi acceptum ab eo prodegeris, etsi nudus redieris, recipiet quia redisti magisque de regressu tuo quam de alterius sobrietate laetabitur, sed si paeniteas ex animo, si famem tuam cum saturitate mercennariorum paternorum conpares, si porcos inmundum relinquas pecus, si patrem repetas vel offensum Deliqui dicens, pater, nec dignus ego iam vocari tuus. Tantum relevat confessio delictum quantum dissimulatio exaggerat; confessio enim satisfactionis consilium est, dissimulatio contumaciae.  Tertullianus, De Paenitentia, Caput VI-VII Source:  Migne PL 1.1241c-1243a

If the Lord's indulgence grants to you the means of restoring what you had lost, be thankful for the benefit renewed, not to say amplified. For to restore is greater than to give, as much as to have lost is more wretched than never to have received at all. Truly let not the spirit be immediately cut down and undermined by despair, if any incur the debt of second repentance. Certainly let it displease to sin again, but let it not to repent again; let it displease to imperil one's self again, but let it not shame anyone to be set free again; repeated sickness demands repeated medicine. You will show your gratitude to the Lord if what He offers to you again you do not refuse. You have offended, but you can yet be reconciled. You have Him whom you may satisfy and He is willing. If you doubt this, consider 'what the Spirit says to the churches.' He imputes to the Ephesians forsaken love; 1 reproaches the Thyatirenes with fornication and eating of things sacrificed to idols; 2 accuses the Sardians of works not full; 3 reproves the Pergamenes for teaching perverse things; 4 rebukes the Laodiceans for trusting in wealth; 5 and yet gives them all general warnings to repentance, under threat, it is true, but He would not threaten the unrepentant if He did not forgive the repentant, which would be doubtful if He had not elsewhere demonstrated this profusion of His clemency. Does He not say, 'He who has fallen shall rise again, and he who has been turned away shall be turned back?' 6 He it is, indeed, who would have mercy rather than sacrifices. 7 The heavens and the angels who are there rejoice at man's repentance. 8 Listen, sinner, and be encouraged. See where there is joy concerning you. What is it that the Lord's parables wish to persuade us? A woman has lost a drachma, and she seeks it and she finds it, and she invites her female friends to share her joy; is this not an example of a restored sinner? 9 One little ewe of the shepherd strays but the flock was not more dear than the one; that one is most diligently sought; that one is longed for instead of all, and when she is found, she is carried back on the shoulders of the shepherd himself, for she had exerted herself much in her straying. 10 That most gentle father, likewise, I will not pass over in silence, who calls his prodigal son home and willingly receives him repentant after his poverty, slaying his best fatted calf and adorning his joy with a banquet. Why not? He found the son he had lost, he had felt him dearer who he had regained. Who is that father to be understood by us to be? God, surely; no one is so truly a Father, no one so pious. He, then, will receive you back, His own son, even if you have wasted what you received from Him, even if you return naked, receiving you because have returned, and He will delight more over your return than over the sensible conduct of other, but only if you truly repent, if you compare your own hunger with the plenty of your Father's hired servants, if you leave behind the pigs, the unclean herd, if you again seek your Father, offended though He be, saying, 'I have sinned, nor am I now worthy to be called yours.' 11 As much as confession relieves sin, so much dissimulation increases it; for confession is counseled by the wish to make satisfaction, dissimulation by contumacy. Tertullian, from On  Repentance, Chapter 6-7 1 Apoc 2.4 2 Apoc 2.20 3 Apoc 3.2 4 Apoc 2. 14-15 5 Apoc 3.17 6 Jerem 8.4 7 Hosea 6.6 8 Lk 15.7 9 Lk 15.8-10 10 Lk 15.3-7 11 Lk 15.11-32

Marriage And The Beginning

Invenimus nos ad initiam dirigi a Christo, sicut in quaestione repudii dicens illud propter duritiam  ipsorum a Moyse esse permissum, ab initio autem non ita fuisse, sine dubio ad initium revocat matrimonii  individuitatem; ideoque quos Deus ab initio coniunxit in unam carnem duos, hodie homo non separabit. Dicit et apostolus scribens ad Ephesios Deum proposuisse in semetipso ad dispensationem  adimpletionis temporum ad caput, id est ad initium, reciprocare universa in Christo, quae sunt super caelos et super terras in ipso.  Sic et duas Graeciae litteras, summam et ultimam, sibi induit dominus, initii et finis concurrentium in se figuras, uti, quemadmodum A ad Ω usque volvitur et rursus Ω ad  A replicatur, ita ostenderet in se esse et initii decursum ad finem et finis reoursum ad initium, ut omnis dispositio in eo desinens, per quem coepta est, per sermonem scilicet dei, quia caro factus est, proinde desinat, quemadmodum et coepit. Et adeo in Christo omnia revocantur ad initium,  ut et fides reversa sit a circumcisione ad integritatem carnis illius, sicut ab initio fuit, et libertas ciborum et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit, et matrimonii individuitas, sicut ab initio fuit, et repudii cohibitio, quod ab initio non fuit; et postremo totus homo in paradisum revocatur, ubi ab initio fuit. Cur ergo vel monogamum illo non debeat Adam  referre, qui non potest tam integrum quam inde dimissus est? Quantum pertinet itaque ad initii restitutionem, id a te exigit et dispositionis et spei tuae ratio, quod ab initio fuit; secundum initium, quod tibi et in Adam censetur et in Noe recensetur, elige, in quo eorum initium tuum deputes: in ambobus te sibi monogamiae censura defendit.  Sed et si initium transmittit  ad finem ut A ad Ω, quomodo finis remittit ad initium ut Ω ad A, atque ita census noster transfertur in Christum, animalis in spiritalem, quia non primo, quod spiritale est, sed quod animale,  dehinc quod spiritale, proinde videamus, an id ipsum debeas huic quoque censui secundo, an in eandem te formam conveniat novissimus quoque Adam in quam et primus, quando novissimus Adam, id est Christus, innuptus in totum, quod etiam primus Adam ante exilium.  Sed donato infirmitati  tuae carnis suae exemplo perfectior Adam, id est Christus, eo quoque nomine perfectior qua integrior, volenti quidem tibi spado occurrit in carne; si vero non sufficis, monogamus incurrit in spiritu, unam habens ecclesiam sponsam secundum figuram, quam apostolus in illud magnum sacramentum  interpretatur, in Christum et ecclesiam, competentes carnali monogamiae per spiritalem. Vides igitur, quemadmodum etiam in Christo novas censum non possis eum sine monogamiae  professione deferre, nisi carne sis, quod spiritu ille est, licet et quod fuit carne, aeque esse debueris.  Tertullianus, De Monogamia, Caput V Migne PL 2 935-6

We find ourselves directed to the beginning by Christ, just as, in the question of divorce, he says that it had been permitted by Moses on account of their hard hearts but that from the beginning it was not so, doubtless recalling to the beginning the indivisibility of marriage, and so those whom God from the beginning joined, two in one flesh, 1 today man shall not separate. And writing to the Ephesians the Apostle says that God 'had proposed in Himself, at the dispensation of the fulfillment of the times, to recall to the head' that is, to the beginning 'everything in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him.' 2 So, also, two Greek letters, the first and the last, the Lord takes to Himself, as figures of the beginning and end 3 which join together in Him, so that, just as Alpha rolls on until it reaches Omega, and again Omega until it reaches Alpha, thus He shows in Himself both the downward course of the beginning to the end, and the backward course of the end to the beginning, so that every dispensation ending in Him through whom it began, that is, through the Word of God who was made flesh, may have an end corresponding to its beginning. And so in Christ are all things recalled to the beginning, that even faith returns from circumcision to the integrity of the flesh, as it was from the beginning; and freedom of foods and abstinence from blood alone, as it was from the beginning; and the indivisibility of marriage, as it was from the beginning; and the prohibition of divorce, which was not from the beginning; and finally the whole man is recalled into Paradise, where he was from the beginning. Why, then, should He not restore Adam there as a monogamist, who cannot have him as perfect as when he was dismissed? As much as it pertains to the restitution of the beginning, the reason of the dispensation you live under and of your hope demand this from you, that which was from the beginning in accordance with the beginning, which for you is counted in Adam, and recounted in Noah. Choose in which of the two you would have your beginning; in both the judgement of monogamy is maintained. But again, if the beginning passes on to the end, as Alpha to Omega, as the end passes back to the beginning, as Omega to Alpha, and thus our origin is transferred to Christ, the animal to the spiritual, because what is first is not spiritual, but what is animal, then comes what is spiritual, let us then see whether you owe the same to this second origin, whether the second Adam meet you in the same form as the first, since the second Adam, that is, Christ, was entirely unwedded, as was even the first before his expulsion. But the more perfect Adam, giving to your weakness the gift of the example of His own flesh, that is, Christ, more perfect as He was more entirely pure, comes before you, as a voluntary celibate in the flesh. If, however, you are unable, He stands a monogamist in spirit, having one Church as His spouse, which figure the Apostle interprets of that great sacrament of Christ and the Church, 4  the spiritual corresponding to carnal monogamy. You see, therefore, how, renewing your origin in Christ, you cannot follow it without the profession of monogamy; unless you be in the flesh what He is in spirit, and what He was in flesh, you equally should have been. Tertullian, On  Monogamy, Chapter 5 1 Gen 2.24 2 Ephes 1.10 3 Apoc 1.8; 22.13 4 Ephes 5.22-33

Names And Deeds And Gifts

Provoca nunc, ut soles, ad hanc Esaiae comparationem Christi, contendens illam in nullo convenire. Primo enim, inquis, Christus Esaiae Emmanuel vocari habebit, debinc virtutem sumere Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Porro iste, qui venit, neque sub eiusmodi nomine est editus neque ulla re bellica functus est.  At ego te admonebo, uti cohaerentia quoque utriusque capituli recognoscas. Subiuncta est enim et interpretatio Emmanuelis, Nobiscum Deus; uti non solum sonum nominis spectes, sed et sensum. Sonus enim Hebraicus, quod est Emmanuel, suae gentis est; sensus autem eius, quod est Deus nobiscum, ex interpretatione communis est. Quaere ergo an ista vox, Nobiscum deus, quod est Emmanuel, exinde quo Christus illuxit, agitetur in Christo. Et puto, non negabis, utpote qui et ipse dicas, Deus nobiscum dicitur, id est Emmanuel. Aut si tam vanus es, ut quia penes te Nobiscum deus dicitur, non Emmanuel, idcirco nolis venisse illum cuius proprium sit vocari Emmanuel, quasi non hoc sit et Deus nobiscum, invenies apud Hebraeos Christianos, immo et Marcionitas, Emmanuelem nominare, cum volunt dicere Nobiscum deus; sicut et omnis gens, quoquo sono dixerit Nobiscum deus, Emmanuelem pronuntiavit in sensu sonum expungens. Quodsi Emmanuel Nobiscum deus est, deus autem nobiscum Christus est, qui etiam in nobis est, quotquot enim in Christum tincti estis, Christum induistis, tam proprius est Christus in significatione nominis, quod est Nobiscum deus, quam in sono nominis, quod est Emmanuel. Atque ita constat venisse iam illum qui praedicabatur Emmanuel, quia quod significat Emmanuel venit, id est Nobiscum deus. Aeque et sono nominum duceris, cum virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae et regem Assyriorum sic accipis quasi bellatorem portendant Christum creatoris, non animadvertens quid scriptura praemittat, quoniam priusquam cognoscat vocare patrem et matrem, accipiet virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Ante est enim inspicias aetatis demonstrationem, an hominem iam Christum exhibere possit, nedum imperatorem. Scilicet vagitu ad arma esset convocaturus infans, et signa belli non tuba sed crepitacillo daturus, nec ex equo vel de curru vel de muro, sed de nutricis aut gerulae suae collo sive dorso hostem destinaturus, atque ita Damascum et Samariam pro mammillis subacturus?  Aliud est si penes Ponticos barbariae gentis infantes in proelium erumpunt, credo ad solem uncti prius, dehinc pannis armati et butyro stipendiati, qui ante norint lanceare quam lancinare. Enimvero si nusquam hoc natura concedit, ante militare quam vivere, ante virtutem Damasci sumere quam patris et matris vocabulum nosse, sequitur ut figurata pronuntiatio videatur. Sed et virginem, inquit, parere natura non patitur, et tamen creditur prophetae. Et merito. Praestruxit enim fidem incredibili rei, rationem edendo, quod in signo esset futura. Propterea, inquit, dabit vobis dominus signum: Ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet filium. Signum autem a Deo, nisi novitas aliqua monstruosa, iam signum non fuisset. Denique et Iudaei, si quando ad nos deiciendos mentiri audent, quasi non virginem sed iuvenculam concepturam et parituram scriptura contineat, hinc revincuntur quod nihil signi videri possit res cotidiana, iuvenculae scilicet praegnatus et partus. In signum ergo disposita virgo et mater merito creditur, infans vero bellator non aeque. Non enim et hic signi ratio versatur. Sed signo nativitatis novae adscripto exinde post signum alius ordo iam infantis edicitur, mel et butyrum manducaturi.  Nec hoc utique in signum est, malitiae non assentaturi, et hoc enim infantiae est, sed accepturi virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Serva modum aetatis et quaere sensum praedicationis, immo redde evangelio veritatis quae posterior detraxisti, et tam intellegitur prophetia quam renuntiatur expuncta. Maneant autem orientales illi Magi in infantia Christum recentem auro et ture munerantes, et acceperit infans virtutem Damasci sine proelio et armis. Nam praeter quod omnibus notum est, orientis virtutem, id est vim et vires, auro et odoribus pollere solitam, certe est creatori virtutem ceterarum quoque gentium aurum constituere, sicut per Zachariam, Et Iudas praetendet apud Hierusalem et congregabit omnem valentiam populorum per circuitum, aurum et argentum. De illo autem tunc auri munere etiam David, Et dabitur illi ex auro Arabiae; et rursus, Reges Arabum et Saba munera offerent illi. Nam et Magos reges habuit fere oriens, et Damascus Arabiae retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta esset in Syrophoenicen ex distinctione Syriarum, cuius tunc virtutem Christus accepit, accipiendo insignia eius, aurum scilicet et odores; spolia autem Samariae ipsos Magos, qui cum illum cognovissent et muneribus honorassent et genu posito adorassent quasi Deum et regem sub testimonio indicis et ducis stellae. Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem, Liber III, Caput XII  Migne PL 2 336-337

And you challenge us now, as is your custom, with Isaiah's description of Christ, contending that it is in no way suitable. For firstly you say that Isaiah's Christ will have to be called Emmanuel, 1 and then that He must take way the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of Assyria. 2 And yet the one who has come was neither born under this name, nor engaged in any warfare. But I admonish you that you should look into the meanings of both passages. For there is added the interpretation of Emmanuel, 'God with us;' so that you should not merely attend to the sound of the name, but also the sense. The speech is Hebrew, of his own people, that is, 'Emmanuel,' but the sense of it, 'God with us,' is by translation made common to all. Seek, then, whether this name, 'God with us,' which is 'Emmanuel,' since Christ enlightened, be not used for Christ. And I think you will not deny it, since you say He is called 'God with us,' that is, Emmanuel. Else if you are so vain, that, because with you He is called 'God with us', not Emmanuel, you therefore are unwilling to allow that He has come whose right it is to be called Emmanuel, as if this were not God with us, you will find among the Hebrew Christians, and even the Marcionites, that they name Him Emmanuel when they mean God with us, just indeed as every nation, by whatever sound they would use to say 'God with us', has called Him Emmanuel, with the meaning erasing the word. Now since Emmanuel is 'God with us', and 'God with us' is Christ, who is even in us, for 'as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ' 3, so Christ is in the meaning of the name, which is 'God with us', as He is in the pronunciation of the name, which is Emmanuel. And thus it holds that He has already come who was foretold as Emmanuel, because that which Emmanuel signifies has come, that is to say, 'God with us'. And you are equally led away by the sound of names, when you so understand the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, and the king of Assyria, as if they portended that the Creator's Christ would be a warrior, not attending to the prediction contained in the passage, 'For before the Child shall have knowledge to say father and mother, He shall take away the power of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria against the king of Assyria.' 2 You should first look to the description of age, whether it is able to show Christ as a man, much less a general. Although certainly by his cry the infant might be about to call to arms, he might be about to sound the alarm, not with a trumpet but with a little rattle, he might be about to seek the enemy, not on horseback, nor in chariot, nor from the wall, but from nurse's neck or maid's back, and so subjugate Damascus and Samaria from His mother's breasts. It is different, of course, when the babies of barbarian Pontus spring forth to battle. I believe they are anointed first in sunshine and then armed and rationed with bread and butter. 4 Now if it is allowed that nature nowhere grants that warfare be learned before life, to take the power of Damascus before he knows his father and mother's name, it follows that this is figurative speech. But, he may say, nature does not allow 'a virgin to conceive,' and yet the Prophet is believed. And with merit, for he has prepared beforehand trust in  the incredible thing, giving a reason for it, that it was to be a sign for the future. 'Therefore,' he says, 'the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.' 5 Now a sign from God, unless it were something novel and notable, would not have been a sign. And then some Jews, attempting to disconcert us with falsehoods, say that Scripture does not read that a virgin is to conceive and give birth but only a young woman, but they are refuted because nothing can be a sign that is a daily occurrence, that is, a young woman being pregnant and giving birth. As a sign, then, a virgin and mother is rightly adjudged, but a warlike infant is not like this, for in this the sense of the sign is not grasped. But after the sign of the strange and novel birth, afterwards is declared as another sign the course of the Infant, who was to eat butter and honey. Not that this indeed is as a sign, nor is His 'refusing the evil,' for this, too, is of infancy, but His taking of the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria against the king of Assyria is indeed a sign. Attend to the statement of the age, and seek the sense of the prophecy, and do give back to the truth of the Gospel what you later took from it, and so, renouncing its omissions, the prophecy is understood. Let those eastern Magi wait on the new born Christ, offering to Him in His infancy, their gifts of gold and frankincense, and surely an Infant shall receive the might of Damascus without a battle and unarmed. For besides what is known to all, that the might of the East, that is, its strength and resources, usually consist of gold and spices, it is certainly true of the Creator, that He makes gold the riches of the other nations also, as He says by Zechariah: 'And Judah shall also fight at Jerusalem and shall gather together all the wealth of the nations round about, gold and silver.' 6 And then concerning that gift of gold, David also says: 'And there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia,' 7 and again: 'The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts.'  8 For the East generally regarded the Magi as kings, and Damascus in the past was deemed to belong to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophœnicia in the division of the Syria, which riches Christ then received, accepting its tokens, gold and spices, while the spoils of Samaria were the Magi themselves, who when they found Him and honoured Him with their gifts, on bended knee adored Him as God and King, by the witness of the star which led their way and guided them. Tertullian, from Against Marcion, Book 3, Chap 12 1 Is 7.14   2 Is 8.4 3Gal 3.27  4 Marcion was from Pontus 5 Is 7:14   6 Zech 14.14  7 Ps 71.15  8 Ps 71.10

Prayer And Restraint

Atqui cum modestia et humilitate adorantes magis  commendabimus Deo preces nostras, ne ipsis quidem manibus sublimius elatis, sed temperate ac probe elatis, ne vultu quidem  in audaciam erecto. Nam et ille publicanus, qui non tantum  prece, sed et vultu humiliatus atque deiectus orabat, iustificatior  pharisaeo procacissimo discessit. Sono etiam vocis subiectos  esse oportet, aut quantis arteriis opus est, si pro sono audiamur!  Deus autem non vocis, sed cordis auditor est, sicut conspector. Daemonium oraculi Pythii Et mutum, inquit, intelligo et non loquentem exaudio. Dei aures sonum expectant? Quomodo ergo oratio Ionae de imo ventre ceti per tantae bestiae viscera ab ipsis  abyssis per tantam aequoris molem ad caelum potuit evadere? Quid amplius referent isti qui clarius adorant nisi quod  proximis obstrepunt? Immo prodendo petitiones suas quid minus faciunt quam si in publico orent? Tertullianus, De Oratione

But when we pray with modesty and humility we more commend our prayers to God, with not even our hands lifted too high, but elevated temperately and fittingly, with not even our face boldly raised. For that tax collector prayed not only with his petition but with his face humble and cast down, and he went away more justified than the impudent Pharisee. 1 Even the sound of our voice should be subdued, else what large windpipes we would need if we were heard for the noise we make. But God is the hearer not of the voice, but of the heart, just as He is its examiner. The Pythian oracle says: 'And I understand the mute and hear the speechless one.' 2  Do the ears of God wait for sound? How, then, could Jonah's prayer, from the depth of the whale's belly, through the entrails of such a beast, from the very abysses, through such a mass of sea, find its way out to heaven? And what do they gain who pray more loudly, except that their roaring is heard by their neighbours? Why, by shouting their petitions, what do they do less than if they were to pray on the street? 3 Tertullian, from On Prayer 1 Lk 18:9-14 2 Herodotus 1.47.3 3 cf Mt 6.5

Advice on Seeking

Nobis etsi quaerendum esset adhuc et semper, ubi tamen quaeri oportet? Apud haereticos? Ubi omnia extranea et adversaria nostrae veritatis ad quos vetamur accedere? Quis servus cibaria ab extraneo, ne dicam ab inimico domini sui sperat? Quis miles ab infoederatis, ne dicam ab hostibus regibus donatiuum et stipendium captat nisi plane desertor et transfuga et rebellis?  Etiam anus illa intra tectum suum dragmam requirebat, etiam pulsator ille vicini ianuam tundebat, etiam vidua illa non inimicum licet durum iudicem interpellabat. Nemo inde instrui potest unde destruitur; nemo ab eo inluminatur a quo contenebratur. Quaeramus ergo in nostro et a nostris et de nostro: idque dumtaxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire. Tertullianus, De Praescriptione Haereticorum

Even if we must still seek, and always, yet where should one seek? Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign and opposed to our own truth, and to whom we are forbidden to draw near? What servant looks for food from a stranger, or hopes for it from an enemy of his master? What soldier expects to obtain bounty and pay from kings who are unallied, I might  say hostile, unless he be a deserter, and a runaway and a rebel? Even that old woman searched for the drachma beneath her own roof, 1 that knocker kept knocking at his neighbour's door, 2 that widow made appeal to a stern but not a hostile judge. 3 No one is able to be instructed by that by which he is destroyed, no man is illuminated by that which is wrapped in darkness. Let us seek, therefore in that which is ours and from ours and by ours:  only insofar as that which is in question preserves the rule of faith. Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 1 Lk 15.8 2 Lk 11 5-13 3 Lk 18 1-8

A Heretical Teacher

Solemus haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate praescribere. In quantum enim ueritatis regula prior, quae etiam haereses futuras renuntiauit, in tantum posteriores quaeque doctrinae haereses praeiudicabuntur, quia sunt quae futurae ueritatis antiquiore regula praenuntiabantur. Hermogenis autem doctrina tam novella est; denique ad hodiernum homo in saeculo, et natura quoque haereticus, etiam turbulentus, qui loquacitatem facundiam existimet et inpudentiam constantiam deputet et maledicere singulis officium bonae conscientiae iudicet. Praeterea pingit in licite, nubit assidue, legem Dei in libidinem defendit, in artem contemnit, bis falsarius, et cauterio et stilo, totus adulter, et praedicationis et carnis, siquidem et nubentium contagio foetet nec ipse apostolicus Hermogenes in regula perseuerauit.  Sed viderit persona, cum doctrina mihi quaestio est. Dominum non alium videtur agnoscere, alium tamen facit quem aliter agnoscit, immo totum quod est deus aufert nolens illum ex nihilo universa fecisse.  A Christianis enim ad philosophos conuersus, de ecclesia in Academiam et Porticum, inde sumpsit  materiam cum domino ponere, quae et ipsa semper fuerit neque nata neque facta nec initium habens omnino nec finem, ex qua dominus omnia postea fecerit. Tertullianus, Adversus Hermogenem

We are accustomed, for the sake of concision, to write against heretics by their lateness. For inasmuch as by rule truth precedes them, which also foretold future heresies, so must later teachings be prejudged as heresies, being those things which the older rule of truth predicted for days to come. Now the teaching of Hermogenes has such novelty. In short, he is a man of the present time, and by his nature a heretic, and turbulent with it, one who regards loquacity as eloquence and thinks impudence to be constancy, and judges that to malign other men is the duty of a good conscience. Besides this he paints what he will, marries continually, affirms the law of God in the promotion of lust, spurns it in his art, falsifies by a double way, with his malice and his pen, is a thorough adulterer, both in doctrine and in the flesh, since he reeks with the disease of many marriages, nor, like the Apostle's Hermogenes 1 has he persevered in the law. But we have gazed only at the character of the man, when it is his teaching I question. He seems not to acknowledge another Lord, though he acknowledges Him in a different way, or rather by this he takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things from nothing. For, turning from Christians to  philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he learned there how to place matter beside the Lord, as if it had always been, never born, never made, having no beginning at all nor end, from which the Lord afterwards created all things. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 1 2 Tim 1:15

The Will of God

Secundum hanc formam subiungimus 'Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra,' non quod aliquis obsistat quominus uoluntas Dei fiat, et ei successum uoluntatis suae oremus, sed in omnibus petimus fieri uoluntatem eius. Ex interpretatione enim figurata carnis et spiritus nos sumus caelum et terra. Quamquam et si simpliciter intelligendum est, idem tamen est sensus petitionis, ut in nobis fiat uoluntas Dei in terris, ut possit scilicet fieri et in caelis. Quid autem Deus vult quam incedere nos secundum suam disciplinam? Petimus ergo substantiam et facultatem uoluntatis suae subministret nobis, ut salvi simus et in caelis et in terris, quia summa est uoluntatis eius salus eorum quos adoptauit. Est et illa Dei uoluntas quam Dominus administrauit praedicando, operando, sustinendo. Si enim ipse pronuntiauit non suam, sed Patris facere se uoluntatem, sine dubio quae faciebat, ea erant uoluntas Patris, ad quae nunc nos uelut ad exemplaria prouocamur, ut praedicemus et operemur et sustineamus ad mortem usque. Quae ut implere possimus, opus est Dei uoluntate. Tertullianus, De Oratione

According to this formula, we subjoin, 'Your will be done on the earth as it is in the heavens'1 not that there is something preventing the will of God being done and that we are praying to Him for the success of His will, but we seek that His will be done in all. For by a figurative interpretation of flesh and spirit we are heaven and earth, which, even if it is understood simply, still the sense of the petition is the same, that in us God's will be done on earth, that is, to make it possible for it to be as it is in heaven. For what does God will but that we should walk according to His discipline? We seek, therefore, that He bestow upon us the substance and capability of His will, that we may be saved both in heavens and on earth, because the sum of His will is the salvation of those whom He has adopted. There is also that will of God which the Lord served in preaching, in doing, in enduring. If indeed He himself proclaimed that He did not His own but the will of the Father, without doubt the things which He did were the will of the Father, to which things as exemplars we are now called, that is, that we preach, that we do, that we endure even unto death. Things which, if we are to be capable of doing them, we need the will of God. Tertullian, On Prayer 1 Mt 6.10

Repentance and Reluctance

Quid si praeter pudorem, quem potiorem putant, etiam incommoda corporis reformident, quod inlotos, quod sordulentos, quod extra laetitiam oportet deversari in asperitudine sacci et horrore cineris et oris de ieiunio vanitate? Num ergo in coccino et Tyrio pro delictis supplicare nos condecet? 'Cedo acum crinibus distinguendis et pulverem dentibus elimandis et bisulcum aliquid ferri vel aeris unguibus repastinandis! Si quid ficti nitoris, si quid coacti ruboris in labia aut genas urgeat?' Praeterea exquirito balneas laetiores hortulani maritimive secessus, adicito ad sumptum, conquirito altilium enormem saginam, defaecato senectutem quamque vini: si quis interrogarit, cur animae largiaris: 'Deliqui', dicito, 'in dominum et periclitor in aeternum perire: itaque nunc pendeo et maceror et excrucior, ut Deum reconciliem mihi, quem delinquendo laesi'! Sed enim illos qui ambitus obeunt capessendi magistratus neque pudet neque piget iucommodis animae et corporis, nec incommodis tantum verum etiam contumeliis omnibus eniti in causa votorum suorum. Quas non ignobilitates vestium adfectant, quae non atria nocturnis et crudis salutationibus occupant, ad omnem occursum maioris cuiusque personae decrescentes, nullis conviviis celebres, nullis commes sationibus congreges, sed exules a libertatis et laetitiae felicitate, itaque totum propter unius anni volaticum gau- dium! nos, quod securium virgarumve petitio sustinet, in periculo aeternitatis tolerare dubitamus et castigationem victus atque cultus offenso domino praestare cessabimus quae gentes nemine omnino laeso sibi inrogant? Hi sunt,de quibus scriptura commemorat: Vae illis, qui delicta sua velut procero fune nectunt!  Tertullianus, De Paenitentiae

What if, besides the shame of which they take most thought, they also fear the bodily discomforts, that, unwashed, that estranged from joy, they should spend time in rough sackcloth and the horror of ashes, and by fasting have empty mouths? Does it then befit us to supplicate for our sins in scarlet and Tyrian purple? Why, walk with your hair carefully arranged, and teeth polished, and some forked contraptions of iron and bronze for cleaning your nails. If it enchances brightness, if it encourages a healthy red glow, should it not be applied to lips or cheeks? Furthermore let a man seek out pleasant baths in some secluded garden or seaside place,  let it consume his coin, let him hunt for the rarest delicacy of fatted fowls, let him fall asleep over vintage wine, and if someone asks, 'Why are you treating yourself so?' let him say, 'I have sinned against the Lord and am in peril of eternally perishing, and so now I am drooping and wasting away and torturing myself that I may reconcile God to myself whom by sinning I have offended.' But even they who go about canvassing for civil office feel neither ashamed nor revolted by the discomforts of body and soul it causes, and not such discomforts only, but they suffer verbal abuse of all kinds that they may gain votes. What lowness of dress do they not affect? What houses do they not visit morning and night? They bow whenever they meet any high person, they forgo all feasts, nor shall they attend entertainments, but voluntarily they exile themselves from happiness of freedom and festivity, and all for the the fleeting joy of a single year! Do we hesitate to endure what the competitor for the rods of office sustains, when eternity is at stake, and shall we be tardy in offering to the offended Lord a self-chastisement in food and raiment which pagans impose upon themselves when they have offended no one? Such are they of whom Scripture makes mention: 'Woe to them who fashion their own sins into a long rope.'1 Tertullian, On Repentance 1 Isa 5.18

The Trinity And Division

Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae maior semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis saeculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem sed cum sua oeconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis divisionem praesumunt unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem non destruatur ab illa sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius dei cultores praesumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta haeresim faciat et trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus et ita sonum ipsum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, et tam opifice ut putes illos tam bene intellegere monarchiam quam enuntiant; sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, oi0konomian  intellegere nolunt etiam Graeci. At ego, si quid utriusque linguae praecerpsi, monarchiam nihil aliud significare scio quam singulare et unicum imperium: non tamen praescribere monarchiam ideo quia unius sit eum cuius sit aut filium non habere aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse aut monarchiam suam non per quos velit administrare. Atquin nullam dico dominationem ita unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam per alias proximas personas administretur quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi:  si vero et filius fuerit ei cuius monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam et monarchiam esse desinere si particeps eius adsumatur et filius, sed proinde illius esse principaliter a quo communicatur in filium, et dum illius est proinde monarchiam esse quae a duobus tam unitis continetur.  Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur sicut scriptum est, Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse quia per tanta milia virtutum procuratur,  quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et in spiritu sancto secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiae patris, quas non patitur in tot angelorum numero et quidem tam alienorum a substantia Patris? membra et pignora et instrumenta et ipsam vim ac totum censum monarchiae eversionem deputas eius? non recte. Tertullianus, Adversus Praxeam

Certainly the simple, who I will not call unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of the faithful, because the very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one and true God, not understanding that though He is the One He must be believed in with His own economy, are troubled at this arrangement. The number and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of unity when the unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is not destroyed but actually supported by it. Thus they throw against us that two and three gods are preached by us while they believe themselves to be the true worshipers of the One God, as if the unity itself held irrationally was not productive of heresy, and the Trinity rationally contemplated constituted the truth. They say that we maintain the Monarchy, and as far as the sound is expressed, even Latins pronounce it in such a way that you would think their understanding of the Monarchy was as complete as their pronunciation, but while Latins take care to pronounce the Monarchy, Greeks are unwilling to understand the arrangement. But I, if I have grasped anything of either language, am sure that Monarchy means nothing other than single and individual rule; but even so, this monarchy does not prescribe, because it is of One, Him whose it is, either from having a Son, or from having made for Himself a Son, or from administering His monarchy by as He will. And further I say that no dominion belongs to one only, as his own, or is in such a sense singular, or is in such a sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered through others closely associated with it, and whom it has itself appointed as officials to itself, and if indeed there is a Son to Him whose monarchy it is, it does not instantly divide and cease to be a monarchy if the Son also be taken as a participant in it, but it is equally His by whom it is communicated to the Son, and being His it is quite as much a monarchy, since it is held together by two who are in unity. Therefore as the Divine Monarchy also is administered by so many legions and hosts of angels, as it is written: 'Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him," 1 and since it has not because of this ceased to be of One so as no longer to be a monarchy because it is maintained by so many thousands of powers, how is it that God should seem to suffer division in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, partaking of the substance of the Father, when He does not so in the multitude of so many angels who are not of his substance? And do you consider that the actual members and the pledges and instruments of His might and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow and of it? That is not right.  Tertullian, from Against Praxeas 1 Dan 7.10

Resurrection and Nature

Aspice nunc ad ipsa quoque exempla divinae potestatis. Dies moritur in noctem et tenebris usquequaque sepelitur; funestatur mundi honor, omnis substantia denigratur: sordent silent stupent cuncta: ubique iustitium est, quies rerum: ita lux amissa lugetur. Et tamen rursus cum suo cultu cum dote cum sole eadem et integra et tota universo orbi revivescit, interficiens mortem suam noctem, rescindens sepulturam suam tenebras, heres sibimet existens,  donec et nox revivescat cum suo et illa suggestu. Redaccenduntur enim et stellarum radii quos matutina succensio extinxerat, reducuntur et siderum absentiae quas temporalis distinctio exemerat, redornantur et specula lunae quae menstruus numerus adtriverat. Revolvuntur hiemes et aestates, verna et autumna, cum suis viribus moribus fructibus. Quippe etiam terrae de caelo disciplina est, arbores vestire post spolia, flores denuo colorare, herbas rursus imponere, exhibere eadem quae absumpta sunt semina, nec prius exhibere quam absumpta. Mira ratio: de fraudatrice servatrix, ut reddat intercipit, ut custodiat perdit, interficit ut vivificet, ut integret vitiat, ut etiam ampliet prius decoquit, siquidem et uberiora et cultiora restituit quam exterminavit, re vera fenore interitu et iniuria usura et lucro damno. Semel  dixerim, universa conditio recidiva est: quodcumque conveneris fuit, quodcumque amiseris erit: nihil non iterum est: omnia in statum redeunt cum abscesserint, omnia incipiunt cum desierint:ideo finiuntur ut fiant: nihil deperit nisi in salutem. Totus igitur hic ordo revolubilis rerum testatio est resurrectionis mortuorum:operibus eam praescripsit Deus ante quam litteris, viribus praedicavit ante quam vocibus. Praemisit tibi naturam magistram, submissurus et prophetiam, quo facilius credas prophetiae discipulus ante naturae, quo statim admittas cum audieris quod ubique iam videris, nec dubites Deum carnis etiam resuscitatorem quem omnium noveris restitutorem. Tertullianus, De Resurrectione Carnis

Attend now to those very analogies of the Divine power. Day dies into night and is buried everywhere in darkness, the glory of the world is slain, its entire substance is tarnished, all things become dark, silent, numb, everywhere activity ceases, all is quiet, and so over light's loss there is mourning. But again it revives, with its own splendour, its own glory, is own sun, the same as ever, whole and entire, throughout all the world, slaying its own night of death, tearing away the darkness from its own sepulchre, coming forth the heir of itself, until the night revives, it, too, being accompanied with its own attendants. The rays of the stars are rekindled, which had been quenched by morning's rise, and the different shapes of the stars  return which an interval of time had removed, the mirrors of the moon are readorned which her monthly count had worn away. Winters and summers return, and spring and autumn, with their powers, their ways, their fruits, and since earth is the pupil of heaven trees which had been stripped bare are clothed, flowers are coloured anew, grass is spread again, seed is produced which had been consumed and not produced until consumed. Wondrous method, from a fraudster to a handmaid; that it might restore, it steals away, that it might guard, it destroys, it kills that it might revivify, that it might make whole, it wounds, that it may enlarge, it first decreases, and indeed it gives back what it had destroyed richer and fuller by a privation which is profit, by an injury which is advantage, and by a loss which is gain. In short I say that the instinct of renewal is in everything: whatever you may meet with has already existed, whatever you have lost shall be again, nothing is without reoccurrence. All things return to their former state when they pass away, all things begin after they have ceased, they end that they might be. Nothing perishes unless for salvation. Thus the whole of this revolving order of things witnesses to the resurrection of the dead. In His works God wrote it before He wrote it in letters, He proclaimed it with power before he gave it voice. He first sent nature to you as a teacher, sending prophecy as reinforcement, that you may more easily believe prophecy being nature's pupil and forthwith admit what you hear when you have already seen it everywhere, nor will you doubt that God is the revivier of the flesh whom you have found to be the restorer of all things. Tertullian, On The Resurrection of the Flesh