The same extreme severity characterizes their prac- tice of fasting. Kaye (in his Tertullian. p. 410) sums up the differences between the orthodox and Monta- nists on the subject of fasting thus: "With respect to the jejunium, or total abstinence from food, the ortho- dox thought that the interval between our Saviour's death and resurrection was only the period during which the apostles observed a total fast, and consequently the only period during which fasting was of positive obli- gation upon all Christians. At other times it rested with themselves to determine whether they would fast or not. The Montanists. on the contrary, contended that there were other seasons during which fasting was obligatory, and that the appointment of those seasons constituted a part of the revelations of the Paraclete. With respect to the Dies stationarii, the Montanists not only proiionnceil the fast obligatory on all Christians, but prolonged it until evening, instead of terminating it, as was the custom, at the ninth hour. In the observance of Xeropli(ir/i(v ((j. v.\ tlic Montanists abstained not only from flesh and wine, like the orthodox, but also from
INIONTANISTS
529
MONTANISTS
richer fruits, and omitted their customary ablutions," ApoUonius (in Eusebius, H. E. v, 18), in this particular, simply notices of Montanus, "This is he who laid down laws of fasting," pointing out in these words that Mon- tanus's offence was not the changing of one law for an- other, but the imposition of a law where there had been liberty. Tertullian has wTitten an entire treatise in de- fence of fasting, and the objections brought against Montanism on this point show clearly the exaggerated legalism by which it was estranged from the true Chris- tian tradition. The law and the prophets, it was said to the Montanists, were until John ; fasting thencefor- ward should be a voluntary, not an enjoined act. The apostles themselves observed it, without laying it as a yoke upon any : we must not return to legal prescrip- tions. The prophets showed great contempt for all that is merely outward observance. Tertullian (De jejimiis, c. 2 and 3) replies that nothing is more adapted to give large license to the tiesh than the reducing of the law to the great commandment of love. He maintains the necessity of fasting — lirst, on the ground that self-indul- gence led to the fall. " It is necessary," he says, " that man should give satisfaction to God \vith the same ele- ment by which he offended, and that he should deny himself food, which caused his fall." That fasting is agreeable to God is proved by the words full of tender- ness addressed to Elijah when he was fastuig in the desert of Horeb, especially as compared with the severe tone of the call to Adam when he had been eating the forbidden fruit. Fasting facilitates holy visions, as is proved by sacred history from Daniel to Peter, and it prepares for martyrdom ; while the neglect of such ab- stinence leads to apostasy, by fostering the love for ma- terial pleasures. To the objections drawn from Holj' Scripture, Tertullian replies by the revelations of the Paraclete, which legitimately give expansion to its ob- ligation, and refuses to recognise any distinction be- tween the O. and N. T., as might be naturally enough expected from his strictly legal stand-point (comp, De jejuniis, c, 6-8),
Its strongest protests, however, Montanism, like all ascetic doctrines, entered against the union of the sexes. It not only prohibited second marriage as adultery, for laity as well as clergy, but even went so far as to dis- tinctly impugn all marriage, urging its faithful ones to absolute continence. Tertullian does not hesitate to compare the conjugal union to adultery, forgetting his own beautiful words about the perpetuity of marriage after death (^Adv. Jfai-c. i, c. 29, p. 452), and brands the union of sexes as caused by an impulse of lust. " Thus, then," he suggests, as an objection urged, "you set a brand even on first marriages." "And rir/hilt/," he re- plies, "since they co7isist in the same act as adultery. . . . Thus it is good for a man not to touch a woman ; vir- gmity is the highest holiness, since it is furthest re- moved from adulter}'" (^De Virg. Veland. p. 10). In his treatise on monogamy, however, Tertullian contents himself with prohibiting second marriages, taking his stand on Scripture, when he can make it sustain his view, appealing to the higher power of the Paraclete when he has to deal with the exact texts of St. Paul. The apostle, according to him, gave sanction to second marriages, but with a marked tone of antipathy, and simply in consequence of his knowledge and prophecy having been only in part. The Paraclete, however, in his new revelation, always acts in conformity with Je- sus Christ and his promises. " We acknowledge," said Tertullian, " only one marriage, as we acknowledge only one God. Jesus Christ has had only one bride, which is the Church. By his example, and by the explicit command revealed by the Paraclete, he has restored the true nature ; for monogamy dates from Eden. The priests were to have only one wife. Now, under the new econ- omy, every Christian is a priest of Christ. No differ- ence should be made in a moral point of view between the clergy and the laity, for the former are taken from among Christian people. Besides, how can maiTiage, VI.— L L