J
/
^^
..r\ .
W^^^
^
THE
ECCLESIASTICAL
HISTORY
^econU ann Cdirti Centuries,
ILLUSTRATED FROM THE WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN.
JOHN. BISHOP OF BRISTOL,
MASTER OF CHRIST's COLLEGE,
AND
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
SECOND EDITION.
CAMBRIDGE :
Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the University.
FOR J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE
AND C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
M.DCCC.XXIX.
Digitized by ^e Internet Archive
in 2007 ,\fvitli funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalhiOOkayeuoft
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
Soon after the first edition of this work issued
from the Press, I received a copy of a Ger-
man work on the writings of Tertiillian,
published at Berhn in 1825, by Dr. August
Neander, under the title of " Antignosticus
Geist des Tertullians, &c." As it is probable
that few other copies have yet reached Eng-
land, a short account of its object and con-
tents may not be unacceptable to the reader.
The learned author states in his Preface,
that he is engaged in writing an Ecclesiastical
History of the first three centuries, a portion
of which will be occupied by an enquiry into
the different forms under which the Christian
Doctrine developed itself; in other words, into
the different doctrinal and practical systems
which arose during that period. The authors
of those systems he divides into two classes,
«2
IV
the Idealists and the Realists ; the Idealists
he again divides into the Ultra, from whom
the Gnostics took their rise, and the INIoderate,
who formed the Alexandrian School. Of the
Realists, he conceives TertuUian to be the pro-
per representative. His object, therefore, is,
by an analysis of Tertullian's writings, to pre-
sent his readers with an accurate view of the
Realist system. He had done the same with
reference to the Gnostic system, in a work
which I have not seen.
In pursuing this object, he classes the writ-
ings of TertuUian under three heads.
I. Those, which were occasioned by the
relation in which the Christians of Tertullian's
day stood to the heathen ; which were either
composed in defence of Christianity and in
confutation of heathenism, or referred to the
sufferings and conduct of Christians in time
of persecution, and to their intercourse with
the heathen.
II. Those, which related to the Christian
Life, and to the Discipline of the Church.
III. Tertullian's Dogmatical and Polemical
works.
I. Under the first head he mentions, as com-
posed before Tertullian's secession from the
Church,
The Tract ad Martyres.
Me Spectaculis.
de Idololatriil.
The two Books ad Nationes.
^The Apology.
The Tract de Testimonio Animee ;
* I have classed the Tracts de Spectaculis and de Ido-
lolatria, among the works probably composed by Tertullian
after he became a Montanist ; nor do Dr. Neander's argu-
ments appear to me of sufficient weight to establish a dif-
ferent conclusion. He supposes these Tracts to have been
occasioned by the public festivities which took place after
the defeat of Niger and Albinus (pp. 14, 32.) ; and contends,
that Tertullian, if he had been then a Montanist, would,
instead of resorting exclusively to arguments drawn from
Scripture, have also appealed to the authority of the New
Prophecy (p. 26). But the references to passing events are
of too general a character to Avarrant us in deciding posi-
tively upon the time when the Treatises were written: and
Dr. Neander himself admits (p. 112), that in the Tract de
Spectaculis Tertullian uses stronger language respecting the
incompatibility of the military life with the profession of
Christianity, than in the Tract de Corona, which was cer-
tainly composed after he became a Montanist. This single
feet, in my opinion, outweighs all the arguments on the
other side.
2 Dr. Neander supposes the two Books ad Nationes to
have been anterior to the Apology, respecting the date of
which he agrees with Mosheim (pp. 58. 76 note). He
infers also (p. 79) from the answer to the charge of unpro-
fitableness brought against the Christians by their enemies,
that Tertullian could not have imbibed the ascetic spirit
of Montanism, when he wrote the Apology. But the
validity
VI
as composed after Tertullian became a Mon-
tanist,
^The Tract de Corona.
de Fuga in Perseciitione.
Scorpiace.
The Tract ad Scapulam.
II. Under the second head, Dr. Neander
classes
The Tract de 'Patientia.
de ^Oratione.
de Baptismo.
— • de Poenitentia.
The two Books ad Uxorem.
The two Books de Cultu Foeminarum.
among the works composed by Tertullian be-
fore he became a Montanist.
validity of this inference may be questioned; as it is cer-
tain that Tertullian sometimes varied his language with his
object.
" The largess alluded to in the Tract de Corona was,
according to Dr. Neander, that given to the military on
account of the victories of Severus over the Parthians (p. 114.)
If this supposition is correct, we must assign the year 204-
as the probable date of the Tract.
* Dr. Neander remarks, that a comparison of the modes
in which Tertullian applies the parables of the Lost Sheep,
and of the Prodigal Son, in the Tract de PatientiS, c. 12.
and in that de Pudicitia, c Q. will prove the former to have
been written before his secession from the Church (p. 168).
' Dr. Neander considers the additional chapters of the
Tract de Oratione genuine.
Vll
The Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis.
de Monogamia.
de Pudicitia.
de Jejuniis.
de*' Virginibus velandis.
de' PalHo;
among those written, after he recognised the
prophecies of Montanus.
III. Of the works which fall under the
third head, Dr. Neander thinks, that one only
was written before Tertiillian became a Mon-
tanist — The Tract de Prsescriptione Hceretico-
riim. The rest were written by him when a
Montanist.
The five Books against JMarcion.
The Tract adversus Valentinianos.
" From the following passage in the second chapter of this
Tract, (Sed eas ego Ecclesias proposui, quas et ipsi Apostoli
vel Apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam. Habent
igitur et illae eandem consvietudinis auctoritatem, tempora
et antecessores opponunt magis quam posterae istae,) and from
other incidental expressions. Dr. Neander infers, that the
custom, against which it was directed, prevailed in the Church
of Rome.
^ With respect to this Tract, Dr. Neander interprets the
expression, Preesentis imperii triplex virtus, Deo tot Augustis
in unum favente, of Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, and
supposes the Tract to have been composed about the year
208. He conjectures also, that Tertullian was induced, after
the death of his wife, to adopt the ascetic mode of life, and
in consequence, to wear the Pallium, the peculiar dress of
the atTKfjTai (p. 310.)
VUl
The Tract de Came Christi.
de Resiirrectione Carnis.
adversus Hermogenem.
de Anima.
^ adversus Praxeam.
^adversus Jud^eos.
Dr. Neander gives a more or less detailed
« Dr.'Neander thinks with Blondel (p. 487-) that the
Bishop of Rome mentioned in the first chapter of the Tract
against Praxeas, was Eleutherus : Allix was disposed rather
to fix upon Victor.
^ On this Tract Dr. Neander has written a short dis-
sertation^, the object of which is to prove that the ninth
and following chapters are spurious. In our remarks upon
Semler's Theory respecting TertuUian's works, we stated
that he grounded an argument on the fact, that a consider-
able portion of the third Book against Marcion is repeated
in the Tract against the Jews. Dr. Neander draws a dif-
ferent inference from this fact. He observes, that many of
the passages thus repeated, however suitable to the contro-
versy between Tertullian and Marcion, are wholly out of
their place in a controversy with a Jew. He concludes, there-
fore, that Tertullian, having proceeded as far as the quo-
tation from Isaiah in the beginning of the ninth chapter
of the Tract against the Jews, from some unknown cause
left the work unfinished ; and that the remainder of the
Tract was afterwards added by some person, who thought
that he could not do better than complete it, by annexing
what Tertullian had said on the same passage of Isaiah -in
the third Book against Marcion, with such slight variations
as the difference of circumstances required. The instances
alleged by Dr. Neander, in proof of this position, are un-
doubtedly very remarkable; but, if the concluding chapters
of the Tract are spurious, no ground seems to be left
for asserting that the genuine portion was posterior to the
third Book against Marcion ; and none consequently for assert-
ing that it was written by a -Montanist.
IX
analysis of each Tract; and occasionally intro-
duces (most frequently in considering the works
included under the last head) the sentiments
of other Ecclesiastical writers on the points
under discussion — a proceeding foreign from
the plan which I had proposed to myself.
He is always learned and ingenious ; but
not altogether free from that love of hypo-
thesis, for which the German writers are
remarkable.
There is an Appendix to the work, con-
taining two Dissertations; one on the last part
of the Tract adversus Jud^eos ; the other on
Tertullian's doctrine respecting the Lord's Sup-
per, which Dr. Neander supposes to be some-
thing intermediate between that of Justin and
Irenseus, whom he asserts to have maintained
(he does not allege any passages in proof
of the assertion) the doctrine of Consubstan-
tiation — and the doctrine of Origen, who
did not allow that any divine influence was
united to the outward signs as such, but
thought that the object of sense was the sym-
bol of the object of the understanding, only
to the worthy receiver; though, in addition
to that symbolical relation, he conceived a
sanctifying influence to be united with the
whole rite, in the case of those who are capa-
ble of receiving that influence. Dr. Neander
thinks, that to eat the flesh and drink the Mood
of Christ, meant, in Tertullian's view of the
subject, to appropriate to ourselves the divine
Xdyo^ who appeared in the nature of man, and to
enter into a living union with him through faith.
He thinks also, that in the words, Caro
corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et
anima de Deo saginetur, Tertullian intended
to say that, while the body, in a supernatural
manner, comes into contact with the body of
Christ, the soul receives into itself the divine
life of Christ. Dr. Neander justly remarks,
that on other occasions Tertullian speaks, as
if the bread and wine were merely represen-
tative signs of the body and blood of Christ.
It may be doubted, therefore, whether in
arguing upon the above expressions, he has
made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities
of Tertullian's style. If, however, he is cor-
rect, Tertullian must be classed with those who
maintain a real presence of Christ's body in
the Eucharist, but in a spiritual, not in a
gross corporeal sense. Dr. Neander appears
himself to consider the bread and wine as
mere symbols.
In the body of Dr. Neander's work, are
also two Disquisitions ; one on a passage in the
XI
third chapter of the Tract de Corona, where
Tertullian speaks of various customs observed
in the Church on the authority of Tradition;
tlie other, on an obscure passage in the
fourteenth chapter of the Tract de Jejuniis,
from which Dr. Neander infers, that the prac-
tice of fasting on a Saturday already existed
in the Western Church.
If the reader will compare Dr. Neander's
classification of TertuUian's writings with that
which I have ventured to suggest, he will
find that the difference between us is not
great ; and with respect to some of the Tracts
on which we differ, the learned author ex-
presses himself with great diffidence. He was
too well aware of the dubious character of
the proofs on which his conclusions necessarily
rest, to adopt a more decided language. I was
myself restrained by similar considerations, from
hazarding any positive decision of many of the
controverted points, connected with TertuUian's
life and writings. It would have been no dif-
ficult task to bring forward the different pas-
sages produced by preceding writers upon
those points; to add others of equally, or
more, doubtful application to the subject in
debate; and after the parade of a formal dis-
cussion, to pronounce between the contending
Xll
parties. Such a proceeding would have been
very imposing, and have carried with it an
appearance of great learning and profundity ;
but it would at last have been only solemn
trifling. AVhen the facts are not merely scanty,
^''but susceptible of different interpretations, it
seems to follow as a necessary consequence,
that the mind must remain in a state of sus-
pense: and an author ought at least to escape
censure for avowing doubts which he really
feels. Diffidence may imply a defect both
in the moral and intellectual character ; but it
is surely less offensive in itself, and less
likely to be injurious in its consequences, than
that presumptuous rashness, which ventures
to deliver peremptory decisions, where there
^0 For instance. Dr. Neander asserts that Tertullian had
once been a Heathen, and produces, in support of the
assertion, the first sentence in the Tract de Poenitentia,
(p. 3.) Poenitentiam, hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro
fuimuSj &c. He afterwards (p. 5.) alludes to the j^assages
in the Tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7- and de Mo-
nogamia, c. 12. (Nonne et Laici Sacerdotis sumus.'' and
Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum
omnes sumus, &c.) which have been alleged, in order to
disprove the fact of Tertullian's admission into the Priest-
hood; but thinks that they do not disprove it. In both
cases, Tertullian speaks in the first person and in the plural
number ; yet in the former, we ai*e to suppose that lie
spoke in his own, in the latter, in an assumed character.
Surely there is something very arbitrary in these deci-
sions.
XIU
are scarcely materials even for forming an
opinion.
I was naturally anxious to ascertain the
opinion of Dr. Neander, respecting the in-
stances of the exercise of miraculous powers
mentioned by TertuUian, and the accounts of
visions which occur in his writings. The
learned author accounts for ^^the story of the
female who came back from the theatre under
the influence of a dtemoniacal possession, by
supposing that, being conscience-stricken, she
returned the answer recorded by TertuUian,
under the persuasion that she was possessed by
an evil spirit who made use of her organs of
speech. The story of the man, who was chas-
tised in a vision, because his servants had sus-
pended garlands on his door in his absence,
may. Dr. Neander thinks, be accounted for
^^on psychological principles. The view which
^^ De Spectaculis, c. 26. (p. 31 note.)
^^ De Idololatria, c. 15. (p. 54.) I do not perfectly com-
prehend the meanhig of this observation. It is very easy to
conceive, that a man of a superstitious temper might have
been so affected on finding that his servants had complied
with what he deemed an idolatrous practice, as to dream
that he was severely chastised for their misconduct. But
TertuUian's words convey the idea that the chastisement
was real. Scio fratrem per visionem eadem nocte castigatum
graviter quod januam ejus, subito annuntiatis gaudiis publicis,
servi coronassent. Are we to suppose, that the impression,
made on the mind by the dream, affected the body, and
produced
XIV
he takes of the subject of visions is, that the
fermentation at first produced by Christianity
in the nature of man was accompanied by
many extraordinary phaenomena, not likely to
occur in a similar manner at all times.
New powers were imparted to human nature ;
and those which had been before concealed
were brought into action. Moreover, the ne-
cessities of the infant Church called for many
unusual interpositions of Providence. Great
caution would of course be requisite, in form-
ing a judgement respecting those phsenomena,
since it would be easy to confound that which
was natural with that which was divine; and
into this error the turn of TertuUian's mind
would render him peculiarly liable to fall, by
disposing him to regard all such appearances
as divine revelations. In a subsequent part
of his work, Dr. Neander mentions the ^^ story
of the female to whom the soul was exhibited
in a corporeal shape — as an instance of Tertul-
lian's readiness to consider visions as commu-
nications from heaven. Although Dr. Neander
has not expressed himself decidedly, I infer
from the general tenor of his observations, that
he objects altogether to the notion, that the
produced the same feeling of soreness as if the beating had
been real ?
'•' De Anima, c. p. (p. 46.5.)
XV
exercise of miraculous powers was intended to
be confined to any particular persons, or to any
particular age. ^^He supposes TertuUian to
have asserted, that the possession of the extra-
ordinary gifts of the Spirit was the peculiar
characteristic of an Apostle; and regards this
assertion as a proof of Montanism. He speaks
also of the impropriety of confining the cha-
rismata to the Apostolic age. To what I have
before said on this disputed subject I will
now add, that we usually infer what will he
the future course of the divine government
from considering what it has been; and thus
Christians living towards the end of the second
century^ — who had either themselves conversed,
or had heard the accounts of others who had
conversed, with men who had witnessed the
exercise of miraculous powers — could not be
justly charged with credulity, for expecting
the continuance of the same powers in the
Church. Centuries have since elapsed, during
which no miraculous narrative deserving of
credit can be produced. Our case, therefore, is
widely different. They who contend that, be-
^* The passage on which Dr. Neander builds this in-
ference, is in the Tract de Exhortatione, c. 3. Proprie enim
Apostoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus prophetije^
et efficacia virtutum, documentisque Jinguarum; non ex parte,
quod caeteri. p. 242.
XVI
cause the first teachers of the Gospel were
endowed with miraculous powers in order to
prove their divine commission, it is not un-
reasonable to suppose, that similar powers would
be imparted to those, who in subsequent ages
went forth to convert heathen nations, may
fairly be called upon to produce an instance,
subsequent to the times of the immediate suc-
cessors of the Apostles, in which such powers
have been actually conferred.
Dr. Neander's notions respecting the autho-
rity ascribed by the early Christians to Tradi-
tion seem to coincide with my own. He says,
"these two fountains, of the knowledge of the
doctrine of faith — the collection of the Apo-
stolic writings and oral Tradition — sent forth
streams, flowing by the side of each other
through all communities which agreed in the
essentials of Christianity; and especially through
the communities which were of Apostolic
foundation. But as the stream of Tradition
necessarily became more turbid, in proportion
as the distance from the Apostolic times in-
creased, the writings of the Apostles were
designed by Providence to be an unadulte-
rated source of divine doctrine for every age.
Though on some occasions the Christians of
those days might appeal solely to the autho-
XVll
rity of Tradition, they uniformly maintained,
that the doctrine of Christianity, in all its
parts, might be deduced from Holy Writ."
(p. 312.)
The spirit, in which Dr. Neander's remarks
on Tertullian are conceived, is widely dif-
ferent from that in which it has been fashion-
able of late years to think and speak of the
Fathers. M. Barbeyrac, whose views were
directed to the systematic developement of the
principles of Ethics, looking only at Tertul-
lian's defects, regarded him as an author who
was incapable either of thinking naturally, or
preserving a just medium ; who delivered him-
self up to the guidance of his African ima-'
gination, which magnified and confounded all
the objects presented to it, and did not allow
him to consider any one with attention ; who
in short, had disfigured the morality of the
Gospel by his extravagancies, and thereby in-
flicted a serious injury on Christianity itself.
Dr. Neander, on the contrary, ^^ to whose
'* I have, in the fourth chapter of the present work, ex-
amined certain passages of Tertullian's writings, from which
it has been inferred, that he did not recognise the distinc-
tion between the Clergy and Laity. Dr. Neander accounts
(p. 204.) for the apparent inconsistency in his language, by
supposing that he stood on what may be termed the boundary
mark of two periods ; the period of original simple Christianity,
and the period of the establishment of a system of Church-
}) authority.
XVlll
mind the image of the Christian community,
as it existed under the immediate superin-
tendance of the Apostles, appears to be con-
tinually present, discovers in TertuUian the
working of that spirit which animated the early
authority. During the former period, there was a perfect
equality among Christians ; no distinction of orders ; all were
Priests. The separation of the Clergy from the Laity, and
the gradation of ranks among the former, were subsequently
introduced by injudicious attempts to transfer the institu-
tions of the Mosaic to the Christian dispensation. This view
of the subject frequently occurs in Dr. Neander's work :
but I must confess my inability to reconcile it either with
the statements contained in the Acts of the Apostles and
in the Epistles, or with the natural course of things. If
the Church of Christ on earth was i7i fact what it is in
theory, the distinction between the Clergy and Laity would
doubtless be unnecessary. But where are we to look for the
period of original simple Christianity, of which Dr. Neander
speaks.^ Even the Apostles found themselves under the
necessity of appointing particular orders of men for the
accomplishment of particular objects; and of making new
regulations in order to correct the abuses which from time
to time sprang up. The distinction, therefore, of the Clergy
from the Laity, and of Orders among the Clergy, arose out
of the necessities of what Dr. Neander elsewhere (p. 341.)
calls, that frail compound of spiritual and sensual — human
nature ; not out of any designed imitation of the Mosaic in-
stitutions. After it had once been established, we might
naturally expect to find the language of the Old Testament
respecting the Jewish Priesthood applied to the Christian :
at first only in the way of analogy, but subsequently per-
hajJs to promote the interested views of ambitious men.
Dr. Neander has pointed out a remarkable instance of the
application of the phraseology of the Old Testament to
the celebration of the Eucharist, in the Tract de Oratione,
c. 14. (p. 184 note.)
XIX
converts ; and regarding him as a man whose
whole soul was absorbed in his desire . to pro-
mote the practical influence of the Gospel, is
little disposed to speak with harshness of errors,
which arose from the overflowings of Christ-
ian zeal. Looking rather to the internal feel-
ing, than to the terms in which it is expressed,
he discerns matter for commendation in pas-
sages, in which others have found nothing but
extravagance and absurdity. The concluding
passage of the Tract de Spectaculis, which called
forth Gibbon's animadversions, appears ^^ to
Dr. Neander to contain a beautiful specimen
of lively faith and Christian confidence ; though
he wishes that the vehemence of Tertullian's
zeal had been tempered by a larger infusion
of Christian love. He ventures even to defend
the celebrated declaration, ^^ Certurii est, quia
impossibile, which has contributed more than
any other circumstance, to bring Tertullian's
writings into discredit; and says with great
truth, that how strangely soever it may sound
when separated from the context, yet when
taken in connexion with what precedes, it is
only an exaggerated mode of stating, that a
Christian readily admits, on the authority of
Revelation, that which men, who rely solely on
'« p. 34.
17 De Carne Christi, c. 4. p. 394-
b2
XX
the conclusions of their own reason, pronounce
impossible. There can be no doubt that Dr.
Neander has entered more deeply into Ter-
tullian's character, and has, in consequence,
been enabled to form a juster estimate of
his merits and defects, than the Philosophical
Jurist or the Sceptical Historian. Yet there
are, perhaps, occasions, in which Dr. Neander
himself has interpreted Tertullian's expressions
too strictly ; and, ^^ though aware of the
difficulty of referring the opinions of a man,
on whom the feeling of the moment had so
much influence, to general principles, he has
not always been able to resist the temptation
to generalize ; and has in consequence ex-
tracted from Tertullian's words a train of
thought of which he himself was probably
never conscious.
I will now proceed to mention the prin-
cipal additions and alterations which have been
made in this second edition.
In Chapter I. note 171. the reader will
find a passage disproving Sender's assertion,
that Eusebius has never mentioned Miltiades
as a writer against the Heretics. The passage
is in the Eccl. Hist. I. v. c. 28.
18 p 380.
XXI
In Chapter III. p. 176. I had given an
erroneous account of the exordium of the
Tract de Testimonio Ammse, having sub-
stituted in the place of the argument there
urged by TertuUian, that which he uses
in the passage in tlie Apology, to which I
had referred in the note. The error is now
corrected.
In Chapter V. note 211. (note 209- first
Edition) the reader will find an attempt to
reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in Ter-
tullian's language, respecting the state of the
soul during the interval between its separa-
tion from the body and the general resurrec-
tion.
In Chapter VI. p. 457. (p. 453. first Edition,)
I have inserted a note containing a reference
to the custom, Avhich existed in Tertullian's
time, of reserving a portion of the consecrated
bread, and eating it at home before every
other food. Dr. Neander thinks that this cus-
tom gave rise to the practice of administering
the communion only in one kind. He observes
also, that the practice of daily communion ap-
pears from the writings of TertuUian, to have
then prevailed, at least in the African Church.
See de Idololatria, c. 7.
XXll
There are some minor alterations, which it
is unnecessary to specify ; and at the end
of the Volume will be found a list of Ad-
denda, some of which have been suggested
to me by the perusal of Dr. Neander's work.
Notwithstanding all the care which I have been
able to bestow, the learned reader will doubt-
less discover additional errors and omissions.
One mistake has, however, been imputed to
me, of which I have not been guilty. I have
never mentioned, incidentally or otherwise, that
Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was contemporary
with Tertullian.
In the Introduction to the present work,
I have stated, that the object which I ^proposed
to myself in my Lectures on the writings of
Tertullian was, to employ them, as far as they
could be employed, in filling up Mosheim's out-
line of Ecclesiastical History. After this ex-
plicit declaration, it may appear almost un-
necessary to add, that I never intended to
compose an Ecclesiastical History of the
second and third centuries. My labours were
directed to an humbler object — to assist in
collecting materials for a future historian of
the Church. My persuasion has always been,
that a good Ecclesiastical History of that, or
of any other period will never be composed.
XXlll
until the works of each writer, who flourished
during the period, have been examined ; and
the information which they supply, collected
and arranged under different heads> I did not
mean to propose Mosheim's arrangement as the
best which could be devised ; I followed it,
because his history is that which is in most
general use among theological students in this
country. I deem it also most essential to the
successful execution of such a plan, that the
testimony of each author should be kept as
distinct as possible. If I may form a judge-
ment from Dr. Neander's Preface, his view
of the subject nearly coincides with my own.
He there states, that he has published a
volume on the Gnostic system, which must
necessarily include an examination of the
work of Irenasus ; a friend, at his request,
is employed on the writings of Cyprian : in the
volume, of which I have now given a short
account, we have the spirit of TertuUian, the
representative of the Realists ; there remain,
therefore, for consideration, only the Moderate
Idealists of the Alexandrian school, whose opi-
nions will be found in the writings of Clemens
and Origen. Having thus prepared the way,
by analysing the works of the five principal
authors of the second and third centuries, the
learned author will proceed to the conipletion
XXIV
of his Ecclesiastical History of that period.
With the design of facilitating the composition
of a similar History, I had, in the fulfilment
of the duties of my office, before I lectured
on the writings of TertuUian, examined the
writings of the Fathers who preceded him ;
whether I shall, at any future period, be able
to lay before the Public the result of the
examination, must depend upon the time which
I can spare from other avocations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Introduction l
CHAP. I.
On Tertullian and his Writings.
Jerome's account of Tertullian 5
Whether Tertullian ever was a Presbyter ? 8
Whether a Presbyter at Rome or at Carthage ? 9
Whether originally a Gentile ? 11
His adoption of Montanism 12
Account of Montanus from Eusebius ib.
— • from Epiphanius 17
. of the peculiar opinions of Montanus 19
of his pretensions. The variation in Mosheim's
language on this subject 22
His Discourses probably committed to writing : . 30
The notion that the Apostles did not publicly teach the
Doctrine of the Gospel in its full perfection 32
This notion supported by the authority of Clemens Alex-
andrinus 33
Causes of Tertullian's secession from the Church 36
Importance of his Writings ib.
Unsuccessful attempts to arrange them in chronological
order 39
Date of the Tract de Pallio ib.
— — of the first Book against Marcion 42
— — of the Tract de Monogamia, and the two Books
ad Nationes ib.
Difficulty of ascertaining what works were, and what
were not, written before Tertullian's secession from
the Church 45
The Tract de Poenitentia 45
XXVI ( ONTENTS.
Page
The Tract de Oratione 46
■ de Baptismo 47
The two Tracts ad Uxorem 48
The Tract ad Martyres ib.
— de Patientia 49
• adversus Judaeos 50
• de Praescriptione Haereticorum ib.
• adversus Hermogenem 51
The Apology 52
The two Books ad Nationes 54
The Tract de Testlmonio Animge 55
ad Scapulam ib.
Tracts containing decisive marks of Montanism. De
Corona, de Anima, de Virginibus velandis, de Resiir-
rectione Carnis, against Praxeas, Books I. III. IV.
and V. against Marcion, the Tracts de Fuga in
Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, de Pudi-
citia 56
Mistake of Gibbon respecting the Tract de Corona 57
The second Book against Marcion 58
The Tract de Carne Christi ib.
Scorpiace ib.
The Tract against the Valentinians , 5'^
de Spectaculis ib.
de Idololatria 60
The first Book de Cultu Foeminarum ib.
The Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis ib.
Classification of TertuUian's works 6l
Works not now extant QS
The Tract de Pai-adiso ib.
• de Spe Fidelium 64
The six Books de Ecstasi, and the seventh against Apol-
lonius ib.
The Tract against the Apelliaci it-
against Herraogenes, de Censu Animae ib.
de Vestibus Aaron ib.
■ ad Amicum Philosophum ib.
Tracts, the titles of which appear in the Codex Ago- '
bardi 65
Learning, style, and laiiuity of TcrtuUian ib.
CONTENTS. XXVll
Page
Examination of Semler's objections to the genuineness
of Tertullian's writines "9
CHAP. II.
On the External History of the Church.
The wide diffusion of Christianity in Tertullian's day 91
Whether to be ascribed to the exercise of miraculous
powers 95
Instances of the exercise of miraculous powers recorded
by Tertullian 102
Instances of visions 103
The miracle of the thundering Legion 105
The proposal of Tiberius to receive Christ among the
Deities of Rome 110
Two causes of the rapid propagation of Christianity,
assigned by Mosheim — Translations of the New Tes-
tament, and Apologies composed in defence of Christ-
ianity 112
Concerning the Laws which applied to the Christians,
as a Sect 114
Sketch of the Apology II9
Gibbon's remarks on the early Apologists for Christ-
ianity 133
Sufferings of the early Christians, and honors annexed
to martyrdom 137
Account of the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione .... 147
ad Martyres 150
• of the Scorpiace 151
General observations on the subject of martyrdom 154
Allusion to the dviration of Christ's ministry 158
to the Census of Augustus and ovir Lord's
descent from David through Mary 159
• to the miraculous darkness at the Crucifixion. 16I
Condition of the Jews in Tertullian's time l62
Appendix to Chapter II. containing extracts from the
late Dr. Hey's unpublished Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History I62
XXVlll CO>fTENTS.
CHAP. III.
On the State of Letters and Philosophy.
Page
Account of the Tract de Testimonio Animse 17(5
Remarks on the prevalent disposition to undervalue the
argument a posteriori 1 82
Account of the Treatise de Anima 1 90
TertuUian's opinions respecting Angels and Daemons 214
CHAP. IV.
On the Government of the Church.
TertuUian's account of the Christian assemblies 222
On the distinction between the Clergy and Laity 223
TertuUian's notion of the origin of the Church 229
On the distinction of Orders among the Clergy 232
TertuUian's account of the origin of the Episcopal Office
and of its Duties 233
On the independence of the Apostolic Churches 236
On the titles Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum^
Papa 238
On the Order of Readers (Lectores) and of Widows 242
On Synods or Councils 244
On the distinction between Catechumeni and Fideles 245
On the Penitential Discipline of the Church 251
On the distinction between Mortal and Venial Sins 254
Silence of Tertullian on the subject of Auricular Con-
fession 257
Christian Authors mentioned by Tertullian ib.
CHAP. V.
On the Doctrine of the Church.
The consideration of the first and second Articles of
our Church deferred ogg
CONTENTS. XXIX
Page
Article III. Christ's descent into hell 263
■ IV. The Resurrection of Christ 268
Account of the Tract de Carne Christi ib.
• de Resurrectione Carnis 272
Article V. deferred. 289
VI. The sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for sal-
vation ib.
On the Tradition of the Church 290
Tertullian's testimony to the Canon of Scripture 307
account of the Septuagint Version 309
of the Book of Enoch 310
On the expression Authenticaz Literce 311
■ Epistle to the Hebrews 313
Travels of Paul and Thecla 314
Whether the Canon of Scripture was determined by the
authority of councils .'' ib.
Remarks on the work entitled Palaeoromaica 315
On the words Instrumentum, Testamentum, Digesta... 317
title of the Epistle to the Ephesians 318
Quotations not found in Scripture ib.
Article VII, Of the Old Testament 320
VIII. The three Creeds 321
IX. Original Sin 324
Two strange opinions of Tertullian 330
Article X. Of Free-will ib-
XI. Of the Justification of Man 334
XII. Of good Works 337
XIII. Of Works before Justification ib.
XIV. Of Works of Supererogation 338
XV. Of Christ alone without Sin ib.
XVI. Of Sin after Baptism 339
XVII. Of Predestination and Election 341
XVIII. Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only in
the name of Christ 345
XIX. Of the Church 346
XX. Of the Authority of the Church ib.
XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils ib.
XXII. Of Purgatory ib.
Pearson's notion respecting the perpetual Virginity .... 349
Article XXIII. Of ministering in the Congregation 350
XXX CONTENTS.
Page
Article XXIV. On speaking in the Congregation in a
known tongue ^-54
XXV. Of the Sacraments 356
• XXVI. Of the vinworthiness of the Ministers
which hindereth not the effect of the Sacraments.. 358
The consideration of Articles 27, 28, 30, deferred 360
Article XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests ib.
• XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, &c 362
■ XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church 363
XXXV. XXXVI. omitted ib.
. XXXVII. Of Civil Magistrates ib.
XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, &e 365
■ XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath ib.
On the Millennium 66
On the final Salvation of all men 368
On the approaching end of the World ib.
Examination of Mosheim's Chapter on the Doctrine of
the Church in the second Century 370
Examination of M. Barbeyrac's strictures on Tertullian,
in his Traite de la Morale des Peres 380
CHAP. VI.
On the Ceremonies used in the Church.
Forms observed in Prayer 406
Account of the Tract de Oratione 409
Whether the Public Prayers were extemporaneous.^ .... 411
Sunday, or the Lord's Day, and the Sabbath, kept as
days of rejoicing 412
Christmas Day, Easter, and Whitsuntide 413
Commemoration of the days on which the Martyrs suf-
fered 414
Account of the Tract de Jejuniis 415
Fasts observed in the Church 417
by the Montanists 420
Observations on Fasting 422
. on the Monastic mode of life 425
CONTENTS. XXXI
Page
On the Agape, or Feast of Charity 428
On Vigils, and Processions 430
Article XXVII. Account of Tertullian's Tract de Bap-
tismo , 431
On the forms observed in Baptism 434
On the Baptism of John 437
Whether Tertullian was acquainted with the Jewish Bap-
tism of Proselytes ? 439
Whether the Apostles were baptised ? 442
On the necessity of Baptism to Salvation 444
On Heretical Baptism, and the propriety of rebaptising 445
On the Baptism of Martyrdom ib.
On the right of the Laity to baptise 446
On Infant Baptism 449
On the seasons for administering Baptism 451
Article XXVIII. On the Eucharist ib.
On Transubstantiation 453
Article XXX. On Communion in both kinds 457
On Marriage 458
On Extreme Unction 459
On the sign of the Cross 460
On Exorcism and Exsufflation 46l
On the custom of announcing certain hours of the day ib.
CHAP. VII.
Concerning the Heresies and Divisions which
TROUBLED THE ChURCH.
Account of the Tract adversus Judaeos 463
The Nazarenes and Ebionites 474
The Philosophical Heretics 475
Saturninus — Cerdo — Marcion 478
Account of the five Books against Marcion 480
Lucan, Severus, Blastus, Apelles 509
Bardesanes, Tatian, Basilides, Carpocrates 512
Valentinus 513
Account of the Tract against the Valentinians ib.
XXXU CONTENTS.
Page
The Followers of Valentinus 524
The Cainites 525
The Grecian Heretics, Artemon — Theodotus — Praxeas. . 526
Account of the Tract against Praxeas 527
Comparison of TertuUian's opinions with those declared
in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Articles of our
Church, and in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds . 552
Titles applied to Christ 566
On the corruptibility of Christ's Flesh, his ubiquity,
and personal appearance ib.
Hermogenes — account of the Tract against him 567
Simon Magus 578
Menander the Samaritan 580
The Nicolaitans 581
Heretics who asserted the mortality of the Soul ib.
General observations ib.
INTRODUCTION.
The following pages contain the substance
of a Course of Lectures delivered by the
Author, as Regius Professor of Divinity, in
the Lent and Easter Terms of 1825. He
had previously delivered two Courses, on the
writings of the leathers : and the plan which
he then pursued was, first to give a short
account of the author's life ; next an analysis
of each of his works; and lastly a selection of
passages, made principally with a view to the
illustration of the Doctrines and Discipline of
the Church of England. The peculiar cha-
racter of the writings of the earlier Fathers
pointed out this as the mode, in which the
information to be derived from them might
be most clearly and usefully exhibited to the
Theological Student. In proceeding, however,
to the writings of TertuUian, the next in order
of time to those whose works had been pre-
A
viously reviewed, it occurred to the Author
that a different mode might be adopted with
advantage; and that they might be rendered
subservient to the illustration of Ecclesiastical
History in general. They, who have read
Mosheim's work, require only to be reminded,
that he divides the history of the Church into
two branches, external and internal. Under
the former he comprehends the prosperous and
adverse events which befel it during each cen-
tury ; under the latter the state of learning
and philosophy, the government, doctrine, rites
and ceremonies of the Church, and the Heresies
which divided its members and disturbed its
tranquillity, during the same period. This
arrangement was not an original idea of
Mosheim ; the Centuriators of Magdeburgh
had before adopted nearly a similar plan. His
work is moreover of a very compendious cha-
racter, designed to present his readers with a
general and connected view of the history of
Christianity from its first promulgation; and
to assist their studies, by directing them to
the sources from which, if they are so dis-
posed, they may derive more particular and
detailed information. The object, therefore,
which the Author proposed to himself in his
Lectures on the writings of Tertullian, was,
to employ them, as far as they could be em-
ployed, in filling up Mosheim's outline, by
arranging the information which they supply
under the different heads above enumerated.
Still it was necessary for him so far to adhere
to his original plan as to prefix a brief account
of Tertullian himself ; in order that the Student
might be enabled accurately to distinguish the
portion of Ecclesiastical History which his wri-
tings serve to illustrate, as well as justly to
appreciate the importance to be attached to
his testimony and opinions.^
' The edition of TertuUian's works, to which the refer-
ences in the following pages are made, is that of Paris,
1675.
A 2
CHAP. I.
ON TERTULLIAN AND HIS WRITINGS.
Xhe following account of 'Tertullian is
given by ^Jerome;
" TertuUian a presbyter, the first Latin
writer after Victor and Apollonius, was a
native of the province of Africa and city of
Carthage, the son of a 'proconsular centurion:
^ He is called in the MSS. of his works Quintus Septimius
Florens TertuUianus : and in the concluding sentence of the
Tract de Virginibus Velandis he calls himself Septimius
TertuUianus. But whether that sentence is genuine may
be reasonably doubted ; the same remark applies to the con-
cluding words of the Tracts de Baptismo and de Exhor-
tatione Castitatis. The final mention of TertuUian in the
latter is omitted in the Codex Agobardi. Jerome calls him
Septimius TertuUianus. Ep. ad Fabiolam sub fine.
^ Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum.
^ A proconsular centurion appears to have been a species
of officer, who was constantly in attendance upon the pro-
consul to receive his commands. See the note of Valesius
in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 2. This part of Jerome's ac-
count has been supposed to be founded on a passage in the
Apology,
6
he was a man of a sharp and vehement
temper, flourished under Severus and Anto-
ninus Caracalla, and wrote numerous works,
which, as they are generally known, I think it
unnecessary to particularise. I saw at Con-
cordia in Italy an old man named Paulus.
He said that, when young, he had met at
Rome with an aged amanuensis of the blessed
Cyprian, who told him that Cyprian never
passed a day without reading some portion
of Tertullian's works ; and used frequently to
say, Give me my master, meaning TertuUian.
After remaining a presbyter of the Church until
he had attained the middle age of life, TertuUian
was by the envy and contumelious treatment of
the Roman clergy driven to embrace the opi-
nions of Montanus, which he has mentioned in
several of his works under the title of the New
Prophecy ; but he composed, expressly against
the Church, the Treatises de Pudicitia, de Per-
secutione, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, and * six
Apology, c. 9. Infantes penes Africam Saturno immolabantur
palam usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii, qui ipsos Sacerdotes in
iisdem arboribus templi sui obumbraticibus scelerum votivis
crueibus exposuit, teste militia patriae nostrae, quaj id ipsum
manus illi proconsuli functa est. Rigault says, that one MS.
reads Patris nostri.
* The six books de Ecstasi and the seventh against Apollo-
nius are lost. Montanus pretended that he was frequently
thrown into a species of rapture or ecstasy ; and that, while in
that state, he saw visions and received communications from
the
books de Ecstasi, to which he added a seventh
against 'ApoUonius. He is reported to have
the Spirit, which enabled him to foretel future events. This
circumstance was urged by his opponents, as an argument
against the truth of his pretensions to, inspiration ; and Milti-
ades, of whom Tertullian speaks with respect, wrote a Treatise
to shew that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, 7rep\
Tov fit] oeTu TTpoipriTfiv ev eKarda-ei \aXe7u. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.
L. V. c. 17- Tertullian wrote his Books de Ecstasi in defence
of Montanus ; and a passage in the fourth book against Mar-
cion, c. 22. will put the reader in possession of his notions on
the subject of prophetic inspiration. He is speaking of the
Transfiguration, when, according to St. Luke, St. Peter knew
not what he said: on which Tertullian observes, Quomodo
nesciens.'' utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam de-
fendimus in causa Novae Prophetia?, gratia; ecstasin, id
est, amentiam convenire ? In Spiritu enim homo constitutus,
praesertim quum gloriam Dei conspicit vel quum per ipsum
Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet
virtute divina, de quo inter nos et Psychicos (the name given
by Tertullian to the Orthodox) quaestio est. Comp. adv.
Marc. L. i c. 21. sub fine. L. v. c. 8. sub fine. adv. Praxeam
c. 1 5. In like manner Tertullian supposes that in the deep
sleep or ecstasy {eKaraa-tv in the Septuagint) into which
Adam was thrown, when his rib was taken from him to form
Eve, he was enabled to predict the perpetual union of Christ
and the Church. Nam etsi Adam statim prophetavit mag-
num illud Sacramentum in Christum et Ecclesiam (the refer-
ence is to Ephesians, v. 31.) " Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et
caro ex carne mea. Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et
matrem, et adglutinabit se uxori suae et erunt duo in carnem
unam," accidentiam Spiritiis passus est ; cecidit enim ecstasis
super ilium, Sancti Spiritus vis, operatrix Prophetiae. De
Anima, c. 11. Tertullian is very fond of this notion respect-
ing the deep sleep or trance into which Adam was thrown ;
we find it again De Virgin. Vel. c 5. De Anima, c. 21, 45.
De Jejuniis, c. 3.
^ ApoUonius is mentioned as an opponent of Montanus,
by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 18.
8
lived to a very advanced age, and to have
composed many other works which are not
extant."
The correctness of some parts of this
account has been questioned. Doubts have
been entertained whether Tertullian was
a presbyter. It is certain that he was mar-
ried, for among his works are two Treatises
addressed to his wife. How then were the
Roman Catholics to dispose of a fact, which
appeared to militate strongly against their
favorite doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy ?
The easiest mode was to deny that he ever be-
came a presbyter ; and in support of this opinion
® two passages, in which he appears to speak of
himself as a layman, have been quoted from
works supposed to have been written when he
was far advanced in life. On these passages
'^Allix remarks, that the course of Tertullian's
argument in some measure compelled him to
*• Vani erimus si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat,
Laicis licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptiim
estj regnum quoque nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit.
De Exhort. Castit. c. 7- Again, Sed quum extollimur et
inflamur adversus Cl^um, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc
oranes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit.
Quum ad peraequationem disciplinae Sacerdotalis provocamur,
deponimus infulas, et irapares sumus. De Monogamia, c. 12.
-^ Dissertatio de Tertulliani Vita et Scriptis, c. 2.
9
speak in the first person ; and he opposes to
them one from the Treatise Me Anima, in which
our author states that he remained in the
Church, or place of religious assembly, after the
people were dismissed, for the purpose of re-
cording and investigating the accounts given
by a Christian female, to whom visions were
vouchsafed, of what she saw in her spiritual
ecstasies; an office which, in the opinion of
Allix, would not have been assigned him, had
he not been a presbyter. It must, however, be
confessed, that this passage is by no means de-
cisive of the controversy ; and we must be con-
tent to receive the fact of TertuUian's admission
to the priesthood, as the majority of Roman
Catholic divines have received it, upon the
authority of Jerome. We shall hereafter have
occasion to notice the different conjectures pro-
posed by them, in order to deprive their Pro-
testant opponents of the argument which the
example of Tertullian supplies in favor of a
married priesthood.
Another question has been raised respect-
ing the place where Tertullian officiated as
a presbyter ; whether at Carthage, or at Rome.
That he at one time resided at Carthage
may be inferred from Jerome's account; and
'e.g.
10
is rendered certain by ^several passages in
his own writings. Allix supposes that the
notion of his having been a presbyter of the
Roman church owed its rise to Jerome's state-
ment, that the envy and abuse of the Roman
clergy impelled him to espouse the party
of Montanus. ^"Optatus and the ^^ author of
the work de H^eresibus, which Sirmond edited
under the title of Pr£edestinatus, expressly call
him a Carthaginian presbyter. Semler, how-
ever, in a Dissertation inserted in his edi-
tion of TertuUian's works, (c. 2,) contends
that he was a presbyter of the Roman
church. We know, he argues, that Tertullian
visited Rome ; for '" he speaks of the pro-
fusion of pearls and precious stones which he
saw there. ^^ Eusebius tells us that he was ac-
curately acquainted with the Roman laws, and
on other accounts a distinguished person at
^ De Pallio, c. 1. Apology, c. 9. Scorpiace, c. 6. De
Res. Carnis, c. 42.
'" Adv. Parmenianum, L. i.
" c. 26.
''^ De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 7- Gemmarum quoque
nobilitatem vidimus Roma', &c.
^^ Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 2. It should, however, be ob-
served that Valesius, following Rufinus, understood the words
7(01/ /iuAio-Ta fVi PwV';? Xufi-np^v to mean, that Tertullian
had obtained distinction among Latin Writers.
11
Rome. He ''displays moreover a knowledge
of the proceedings of the Roman church with
respect to JNlarcion and Valentinus, who were
once members of it, which could scarcely have
been obtained by one who had not himself been
numbered among its presbyters. The question
is of little importance, nor do the arguments
on either side appear to be of so convincing
a nature as to warrant a peremptory decision.
Semler admits that, after Tertullian seceded
from the church, he left Rome and returned
to Carthage.
Jerome does not inform us whether Tertul-
lian was born of Christian parents, or was con-
verted to Christianity. '^ There are passages in
his writings which seem to imply that he had
been a Gentile : yet he may perhaps mean to
describe, not his own condition, but that of
Gentiles in general before their conversion,
Allix and the majority of commentators vmder-
stand them literally, as well as ^^some other
^* De Praescriptione Haereticorum^ c. 30.
^^ Poenitentiam hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro
fuimus^ C£eci, sine Domini lumine, natura tenus norunt,
De Pcenitentia, c. 1 . Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in
qua et inventi sumus. De Fuga in Persec. c. 6. Et nati-
ones, quod sumus nos. Adv. Marc. L. iii. c. 21. Ha^c et nos
risimus aliquando ; De vestris fuimus. Apology, c. 18.
^^ De Cultu Foem. L. ii. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 59- De
Pccnitcntia^
12
passages in which he speaks of his own infirmi-
ties and sinfulness.
His writings shew that he flourished at the
period specified by Jerome, that is, during
the reigns of Severus and Antoninus Cara-
calla, or between the years 193 and 216 ;
but they supply no precise information respect-
ing the date of his birth, or any of the
principal occurrences of his life. Allix places
his birth about the year 145 or 150 ; his
conversion to Christianity about 185 ; his mar-
riage about 186 ; his admission to the priesthood
about 192; his adoption of the opinions of
Montanus about 199 ; and his death about
220 : but these dates rest entirely upon con-
jecture.
As the most remarkable incident in Tertul-
lian's life was his adoption of the errors of INIon-
tanus, it will be necessary to give some account
of that Heresiarch. We find in ^^ Eusebius the
statement of an anonymous author, supposed by
Lardner and others to be Asterius Urbanus,
who wrote it about thirteen years after the
death of Maximilla, one of the prophetesses
rcenitentia, c. 4, 12. De Patientia, c. 1. In the Tract de
Idololatria, c 4. he says of himself, Et quid ego modicae
memoriae homo?
17 Eccl. Hist. L. V. c. 16.
13
who accompanied Montanus. From this state-
ment we learn that he began to prophesy at
Ardabaii, a village in that part of Mysia which
was contiguous to Phrygia, while Gratus was
proconsul of Asia, — that many persons were
induced to believe him divinely inspired, par-
ticularly two females, Maximilla and Priscilla
or Prisca, who also pretended to possess the
same prophetic gifts; that the fallacy of their
pretensions was exposed, and their doctrine
condemned; and that they were themselves
excommunicated by different Synods held in
Asia. The same anonymous author adds that
Montanus and Maximilla hanged themselves;
and that Theodotus, one of the earliest sup-
porters of their cause, was taken up into the
air and dashed to pieces by the Spirit of
falsehood, to whom he had consigned himself
under the expectation that he should be con-
veyed into heaven. The author, however, tells
us that he does not vouch for the truth of
either of these stories.
Considerable difference of opinion prevails
respecting the exact period, when Montanus
began to prophesy. The date of the procon-
sulship of Gratus has not been ascertained;
but in speaking of the persecution in which
the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne suffered.
14
'^Eusebius says, that Montanus and his com-
panions then began to be spoken of as prophets
in Phrygia. The seventeenth year of Marcus
Antoninus, or the year 177, is assigned by
Eusebius himself as the date of the persecution
in Gaul. In speaking also of the works of Apol-
lonius of Hierapolis, who flourished about the
year 170, ^^ Eusebius says, that he wrote
against the Cataphrygian heresy, of which
Montanus then began to lay the foundations.
^"Epiphanius places the rise of this heresy in
the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, or the
year 157, in which date he is followed by
Pearson and Beausobre; Baratier places it as
early as 126. Lardner decides in favor of the
date assigned by Eusebius, whose authority on
chronological questions is more to be relied
upon than that of Epiphanius.
It appears from the account given by the
anonymous author, already quoted, that the
^^ Eccl. Hist. L. V. c. 3. The martyrs addressed letters
to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, as well as to Eleu-
therus, bishop of Rome, respecting the New Prophecy.
Irenaeus does not expressly mention the Montanists, but
is supposed to allude to them twice, L. iii. c. 11. p. 223.
L. iv. c. 61. Clemens Alexandrinus twice mentions the Cata-
phrygians. Strom. L. iv. p. /511. A. L. vii p. 765. C.
19 Ecci. Hist. L, iv. c. 27-
20 Hser. 28 or 48.
15
^'followers of Montanus were numerous and
powerful. One of them, named Tliemiso, pos-
sessed sufficient influence to prevent Zoticus
and Julian, the bishops of Comana and
Apamea, from questioning the evil Spirit by
whom they supposed Maximilla to be inspired.
"'The general opinion of Christians in those
days, founded as they conceived on Apostolic
authority, was that the spirit of prophecy
would remain in the Church until the second
coming of Christ. They felt, therefore, a pre-
disposition to lend an attentive ear to one
who assumed the character of a prophet; and
though the trances and ecstatic raptures and
fanatical ravings of JMontanus might disgust
and repel the judicious and sober minded,
they would be regarded by the credulous and
wondering multitude as the surest signs of
Divine inspiration.
21 We know from Tertullian that one of the bishops of
Rome (learned men are not agreed respecting the particu-
lar bishop) was disposed for a time to recognise the pro-
phetic character of Montanus. Adv. Praxeam, c. 1.
^ The anonymous author urges (c. 17-) as an argument
against the Montanists, that there had been no succession
of prophets among them since the death of Maximilla.
She appears from Epiphanius to have herself foreseen this
objection ; and to have furnished her followers with an
answer by declaring, that after her no prophetess would
appear, but the end of the world would come.
16
From a long extract, given by ^^Eusebius
out of the writings of Apolloniiis against the
Montanists, we collect, that their leader was
charged with recommending married persons
to separate; "* with laying down laws respecting
fasts; with calling Pepuza and Tymium, vil-
lages of Phrygia, Jerusalem, to which he
wished to gather all the nations of the earth.
He seems to have established a regular body
of preachers ; to whom he assigned salaries,
which he paid out of contributions raised
from his followers under the name of Obla-
tions. Of Maximilla and Priscilla, ApoUonius
relates, that they left their husbands when
they joined themselves to Montanus ; and he
accuses the Montanists in general of convert-
ing religion into a source of profit, as well
as of being licentious in their conduct. He
confirms the statement of the anonymous
writer respecting the attempt made by certain
bishops to try the Spirit in Maximilla whe-
ther it was of God; and mentions Themiso
as a man of great wealth, who wrote a catho-
lic epistle in defence of Montanism. Of him-
23 Eccl. Hist. L. V. c. 18.
-* The expression is 6 t/f/o-Te/a? vopioQeTrj(7a<;. Montanus
did not merely himself observe additional fasts, but en-
joined the obGervance of them by others.
17
self he says, that he composed his work forty
years after Montanus began to prophesy.
The account given by '^Epiphanius of the
Montanists is, that they received both the
Old and New Testaments ; believed in the Re-
surrection of the Dead; and maintained the
Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. Their error
consisted in supposing that Montanus, Maxi-
milla, and Priscilla were divinely inspired ; and
maintaining that the recognition of the Charis-
mata, or Spiritual Gifts, announced by INIon-
tanus, was of absolute necessity. The larger
portion of the account of Epiphanius is taken
up in refuting the notions of Montanus re-
specting inspiration ; and proving that the pro-
phets both of the Old and New Testaments,
at the time when they delivered their predic-
tions, were in a state of complete self-posses-
sion, and perfectly understood what they said.
^^He gives some specimens of the prophecies
of IMontanus and his female associates, which
are of the most extravagant character. In
one of them Montanvis says, " I am the Lord
God who dwell in man." In another, " I am
no angel or embassador : I myself, God the
-^ H«r. 28 or 48.
'S Sect. 4, 10, 11, 12, 13.
B
18
Father, am come." Yet Epiphanius seems not
to have understood these expressions as de-
signed to convey the idea, that Montanus re-
presented himself to be God the Father.
Otherwise, he would scarcely have said that
the Montanists agreed with the Catholic Church
respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
According to the anonymous author quoted
by Eusebius, Maximilla predicted that wars
and tumults — according to Epiphanius, that
the end of the world — would closely follow
her decease. The former observes, in confuta-
tion of her predictions, that in the interval of
thirteen years, which had elapsed between her
death and the time at which he wrote, the
world and the Church had enjoyed profound
peace : the latter that, although she had been
dead 220 years, the world still continued to
exist. Epiphanius mentions also the respect
entertained by the Montanists in his day for
a desolate spot in Phrygia, called Pepuza ; once
the site of a town, which had been levelled
with the ground : and adds that they expected
the heavenly Jerusalem to descend there. To
the general head of Cataphrygians ^^he refers
a number of minor sects, called Quintilliani,
Pepuziani, Priscilliani, Artoturitae, and Tasco-
27 Haer. 29 or 49.
19
drugitffi. The first three were so called in con-
sequence of a vision seen by a female, of the
name of -^Quintilla or Priscilla, at Pepuza.
The Artoturitee derived their name from using
bread and cheese in the celebration of the
Eucharist ; and the Tascodrugitse from their
custom of putting the fore-finger on the nose
in the act of prayer; Tao-«-o9 in the Phrygian
language signifying a stake, and ^podyyo'?
a nose or beak.
The foregoing statements, respecting the doc-
trines and opinions of Montanus, are in great
measure confirmed by the notices scattered over
Tertullian's works. We find him, on the au-
thority of the New Prophecy, enforcing the
necessity of frequent fasts — if not actually con-
demning marriage, yet on all occasions giving
a decided preference to a life of celibacy, and
positively pronouncing second marriages un-
^ TertuUian wrote his Treatise de Baptismo against a
female named Quintilla, who denied the necessity and
efficacy of baptism. He describes her as belonging to the
sect of Cainites (Caiani) ; wild and profligate fanatics, who
called Cain their father, and regarded with particular
veneration Esau, Corah, Judas, and all the characters noted
in Scripture for their opposition to the will of God.
Perhaps, therefore, TertuUian called Quintilla a Cainite,
from analogy only, because she set herself against a divine
ordinance, not because she was actually a member of the
sect.
B 2
20
lawful — maintaining that favorite notion of en-
thusiasts in all ages of the Church, that the hea-
venly ''^ Jerusalem would descend on earth, and
that the saints would reign there for a thousand
years. We find him also uniformly asserting
the orthodoxy of the Montanists upon the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity ; though
with respect to the Trinity they appear to have
^° introduced certain novel illustrations of the
generation of the Son from the Father. We
learn further from Tertullian, that Montanus
denied to the Church the power of grant-
ing absolution to persons guilty of flagrant
offences — particularly to adulterers and forni-
cators— and maintained that Christians were not
at liberty to avoid persecution by flight, or
to purchase their safety with money.
^^ Mosheim asserts, on the authority of the
work already quoted under the title of Vrae-
destinatus, that among his other doctrines Mon-
^^ In confirmation of this notion, Tertullian narrates
a prodigy which occurred in Judea, and was witnessed by
the army then on its march into the east. For forty suc-
cessive days, early in the morning, a city was seen suspended
from heaven. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24.
^ Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam
Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et
Sol radium. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8.
^^ De rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Saeculum
secundum, c. 67.
21
tanus taught the approaching downfal of the
Roman Empire ; which would be followed by the
appearance of Antichrist, and the second coming
of our Lord to avenge the persecutions inflicted
on his saints. The more judicious and sober-
minded Christians would naturally take alarm
at the open avowal of tenets, the necessary
effect of which must be to render their religion
obnoxious to the ruling powers, and to bring
upon them fresh hardships and sufferings. We
have seen that MaximiUa predicted the speedy
approach of those wars and tumults which were
to precede the end of the world; and there
are passages in ^^ TertuUian's works which lead
to the suspicion that he entertained similar sen-
timents. He appears, however, to have felt the
necessity of concealing them, and is betrayed by
the struggle between his conviction and his pru-
dence into occasional inconsistency of language.
^'He sometimes speaks as if Christians ought,
at others as if they ought not to pray for
the speedy consummation of all things.
^^ See particularly the concluding chapter of the Tract
de Spectaculis, where Tertullian's exultation at the pros-
pect of the approaching triumph of the Christians, and of
the punishment of their adversaries, nearly gets the better
of his discretion. Quale autem spectaculum m proximo est
adventus Domini jam indubitati, jam superbi, jam triumph-
antis ? See also de Oratione, c. 5.
^ Compare Apology, c. 32. SQ. ad Scapulam, c. 2, with
de Oratione, c. 5. de Res. Carnis, c. 22, sub in.
22
One question still remains to be considered :
What was the precise nature of the preten-
sions of Montanus ? The two passages, quoted
by Epiphanius from his Prophecies, would
at first sight lead us to suppose that he
gave himself out to be God the Father.
Some writers have thought that he pre-
tended to be the Holy Ghost, who was
incarnate in him, as the Word was in Jesus.
Mosheim appears at different times to have
held different opinions on the subject. In
his ^^work de Rebus Christianorum ante Con-
stantinum, he thus speaks of Montanus :
" Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, natura
tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi
in tantam incidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum
Sanctum sen Paracletum iUum qui cmimaverat
Apostolos Jesu Christi, dwinitus sibi ohtigisse
contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti
pr^edicandas, et morum vitseque disciplinam,
priori ab Apostolis tradita sanctiorem et me-
liorem, tradendam." But in his ^^Ecclesias-
tical History, he gives the following account
of the pretensions of Montanus : " Montanus
pretended to be the Paraclete or Comforter,
whom the Divine Saviour, at his departure
from the earth, promised to send to his dis-
^^ Saeculum secundum, c. ()Q.
^^ Century II. c. 5. p. 237, note.
23
ciples to lead them into all truth. Neither
have they," he adds, " who inform us that Mon-
tanus pretended to have received from above
the same Spirit or Paraclete, which formerly
animated the Apostles, interpreted with accu-
racy the meaning of this Heretic. It is, there-
fore, necessary to observe here, that INIontanus
made a distinction between the Paraclete pro-
mised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy
Spirit that was shed upon them on the day
of Pentecost ; and understood by the former
a Divine Teacher, pointed out by Christ under
the name of Paraclete or Comforter, who was
to perfect the Gospel by the addition of some
doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast
a full light upon others which were expressed
in an obscure and imperfect manner, though
for wise reasons which subsisted during the
ministry of Christ. This Paraclete, Montanus
represented himself to be." It is scarcely neces-
sary to observe, that the former statement is
directly at variance with the latter, which Mo-
sheim professes to have collected from an atten-
tive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my
own perusal of the same writings has con-
ducted me to the conclusion, that the former,
not the latter, is the correct representation of
the pretensions advanced by Montanus, I shall
proceed to state the reasons on which my
opinion is founded.
24
Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let
us first turn to tlie commencement of the Trea-
tise de Virginibus velandis, whicli contains the
fullest and most connected account of Tertul-
lian's notions respecting the Paraclete. Having
laid down what he calls the immutable rule
of faith respecting the Father and the Son,
Tertullian goes on to say " that those parts of
the Christian dispensation, which relate to the
life and conversation of Christians, admit of
change and improvement. On this very account
our Lord sent the Paraclete ; to the end, that
as the weakness of man's nature rendered
him incapable of bearing the whole truth at
once, the Christian rule of life might by de-
grees be carried to ^^ perfection by him, who
was substituted in the place of the Lord,
i. e. the Holy Spirit. Man, in his earliest state,
was directed by the fear of God implanted
in his nature: under the Law and Prophets
he was in his infancy : under the Gospel in
his youth : but now, through the Paraclete, he
has reached the state of perfect manhood." In
this passage the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit
are clearly identified.
^ Ab illo vicario Domini, Spiritu Sancto. Tertullian's
notion was that, Avlien our Lord ascended into heaven, he
sent the Holy Spirit to carry on the Gospel Dispensation.
Thus in the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 13.
Misisse vicariam vim Spiritiis Sancti, qui credentes agat ; and
again, c. 28, Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius.
25
We will now proceed to the Tract de Mo-
nogamia; in which Tertullian is endeavouring
to establish the superior sanctity of a life of
celibacy, and contending that the Apostle's
words, " It is better to marry than burn," im-
ply only a permission granted in condescension
to the infirmities of human nature.^^ "Whe-
ther then," he proceeds, " we look to the grounds
on which the permission was granted, or to
the preference given to a state of celibacy (in
the preceding words of St. Paul ' It is good
for a man not to touch a woman'), the evident
tendency of the Apostle's reasoning is to do
away the permission to marry. This being so,
why may not the same Spirit, coming after
the days of the Apostles at the appropriate
time (there being, according to the Preacher,
a time for all things) for the purpose of lead-
ing Christians into all truth — why may not,
I say, the same Spirit have imposed a final
and complete restraint upon the flesh ; and called
men away from marriage, not indirectly, but
openly ? especially as St. Paul's argument, that
^'^ c 3. Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nu-
bendi, &c. It should be observed, that Tertullian's professed
object, in the second and third chapters of the Tract de
Monogamia, is to shew, that although the injunctions of the
Paraclete were new and burthensome to human weakness,
Christ had prepared the minds of his followers to expect
that such would be their character. Compare c. 14.
26
* the time is short,' is much more forcible now
that 160 years have elapsed since he wrote
his Epistle. Had such been the injunction of
the Paraclete, ought you not thus to have
reasoned with yourself? This is in truth the
ancient discipline, exhibited in the flesh and
will of the Lord (who was not married) and
afterwards in the recommendations and exam-
ples of his Apostles. This is the holiness to
which we were originally destined. The Para-
clete introduces no new doctrine : he now defi-
nitively enjoins that of which he before gave
warning ; he now requires that for which he
has hitherto been content to wait. Reflect
upon these observations, and you will easily
be convinced that it was competent to the
Paraclete to limit man to a single marriage;
since he might (in perfect consistency with the
doctrine of Christ and his Apostles) have for-
bidden marriage altogether : and if you rightly
understand the will of Christ, you will admit it
to be credible that the Paraclete would curtail
a liberty which might with propriety have been
wholly taken away. Nay, you will acknow-
ledge that, in this case also, the Paraclete is
your advocate ; since he has not imposed upon
your weakness the obligation of absolute and
undeviating continence." Surely the fair infer-
ence to be deduced from the comparison of
27
this and the preceding passage is, not that
^^ Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete ; or
made a distinction between the Paraclete pro-
mised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy
Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of
Pentecost : but that Montanus conceived himself
to be inspired by the same Spirit as the Apo-
stles, though it was his peculiar office to close
as it were the Christian revelation, and to place
in a clear and refulgent light those sublime
truths, those doctrines of perfection, which,
during Christ's residence upon earth, his dis-
ciples had not been able to bear ; but which
had been in a progressive state of develope-
ment since the descent of the Holy Spirit on
the day of Pentecost. To say that the Holy
Spirit inspired the Apostles, and the Paraclete
Montanus, is to make a distinction only of
words ; if, as is evident from the general tenor
of TertuUian's writings, he ^^identified the Holy
^ So far was Tertullian from supposing that Mon-
tanus was the Paraclete, that he did not even conceive
the revelations of the Paraclete to have been confined to
him. For in the Tract de Res. Carnis, c. 11, he quotes
some words, as spoken by the Paraclete through the pro-
phetess Prisca; de quibus luculenter et Paracletus per Pro-
phetidem Priscam, "Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt."
^^ He uses the word Paracletus to designate the third
Person in the Holy Trinity. Ita connexvis Patris in Filio,
et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohasrentes, alteram ex altero.
Adv. Praxeam, c. 25. And in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13,
we find Spiritus Sanctus — qua Paracletus, id est, advocatus.
28
Spirit with the Paraclete. It is true that Ter-
tiillian generally speaks of the New Prophecy
as proceeding from the Paraclete; but this
is not invariably the case. In the ^"Treatise
against Praxeas, he caUs it the prophecy of the
Holy Spirit. He makes a distinction between
the revelations vouchsafed to the Apostles and
to Montanus, with respect to their different
degrees of perfection ; but none with respect
to the source from which they were derived.
For in the Tract *Me Prasscriptione Hgere-
ticorum, he says that "the Paraclete was the
teacher of the Apostles when they went forth
to preach unto the Gentiles ;" and in ^^ the
Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, that "the Holy
Spirit, having previously allowed some doctrines
to remain involved in a certain degree of ob-
scurity in order to prove the faith of Christians,
■"' Hie interim acceptum a Patre munus efFudit, Spi-
ritum Sanctum, tertinm nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum
majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchioe sed et olKovoixtai
interpretatorem, si quis sermones Novae Prophetiae ejus ad-
miserit, c. 30.
■*' Quod si nationibus destinati doctores Apostoli, ipsi
quoque doctorem consecuti erant Paracletum, c. 8.
^'^ Sed quoniam nee dissimulare Spiritum Sanctum opor-
tebat, quo minus et hujusmodi eloquiis superinundaret,
qua> nullis ha?reticorum versutiis semina subspargerent, imo
et veteres eorum eespites vellerent, ideirco jam omnes retro
ambiguitates et quas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua
totius sacramenti pradicatione diseussit per Novam Prophe-
tiam de Paraeleto inundantem. Sub fine.
29
had now removed all ambiguities by a clear
and explicit developement of the whole mys-
tery of the Gospel ; through the New Prophecy
which had been poured out abundantly from
the Paraclete." My conclusion is, that the pre-
tensions of Montanus were correctly repre-
sented by Augustine, when ^^he said, of him
and his two female associates, Adventum Spi-
ritus Sancti a Domino promissum in se potius
quam in Apostolis fuisse asserunt ; and ^* by
Philaster, according to whom the IVIontanists
held that the fulness of the Holy Spirit was
not given to the Apostles, but to Montanus.
This is also the view taken by ^' Lardner ; who
says, that " the followers of Montanus sup-
posed God to have made some additional reve-
lations by him for the perfection of believers."
But when Lardner, speaking of the compa-
rative importance attached by the Montanists
to the Revelations, made to their leader, and
to the Apostles, contends that " they could not
think this inspiration of Montanus equal to
that of the Apostles, as it did not relate to
the great articles of faith, but chiefly to
matters of external order and discipline," he
certainly does not give an accurate representa-
^ Liber de Haeresibus, c. 26.
** Haeres. Cataphryges.
^ History of Heretics. Of the Montanists, c. 19-
30
tion of the opinions of our author ; who ought
perhaps so to have reasoned, but in fact rea-
soned otherwise. TertuUian, who believed that
Montanus was commissioned to complete the
Christian revelation, could not deem him infe-
rior to the Apostles, by whom it was only
obscurely and imperfectly developed ; nor can
Lardner's statement be reconciled with the dis-
tinguished appellation of TrvevnaTiKol, or spiritual,
which TertuUian confers on the Montanists ;
while he brands with the epithet of yj/vxtnol,
or ^^ animal, those who, though they believed all
the fundamental articles of the Christian faith,
rejected the new revelation from the Paraclete.
Tertullian's works furnish presumptive
proof that the effusions of Montanus and
his female associates had been committed to
writing. A passage has been ^'already cited
containing a saying of the prophetess Prisca;
and in ^Hhe Treatises de Fuga in Persecutione
'**' Homines solius animae et carnis. De Jejuniis, c. 17>
''^ Note 38.
^ Spiritum vero si consulas, quid magis Sermone illo
Spiritus probat ? namque omnes pene ad Martyrium exhor-
tatur non ad fugam, ut et illius commemoremur " Publicaris,
inquit : bonum tibi est. Qui enim non publicatur (Trapadeij-
fxaTi'^erai) in hominibus, publicatui* in Domino. Ne confun-
daris : justitia te producit in medium. Quid confunderis^
laudem ferens ? Potestas fit quum conspiceris ab hominibus."
Sic et alibi, " Nolite in lectulis^ nee in aborsibus et febribus
mollibus
31
and de Pudicitia are citations from the Dis-
courses of Montanus. Yet the work, from
which Epiphanius made his extracts, could not
have been known to our author. Had he been
acquainted with it, he could scarcely have failed
in his Treatise against Praxeas to give some ex-
planation of expressions, which appear at first
sight to identify Montanus with God the Father.
Such were the tenets and pretensions of
Montanus, as far as we can collect them
from the writings of authors who lived
near his time ; and particularly of Tertullian,
who appears to have adopted all his pecuHar
opinions. Some of his followers are said to
have fallen into great errors both of doctrine
and practice ; though we may reasonably sus-
pect that they were in many instances charged
with crimes which existed only in the invention
of their accusers. IMontanus was evidently a
man of weak intellects, who was induced,
partly by a superstitious temper, partly ^^by
mollibus optare exire, sed in Martyriis, ut glorificetur qui est
passus pro vobis." De Fuga in Persec c. Q. Si et Spiritum
quis agnoveritj audiet et fugitives denotantem, c. 11. Hoc
ego magis et agnosco et dispono, qui ipsum Paracletum in
Prophetis Novis habeo dicentem, " Potest Ecclesia donare
delictum," sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant. De Pudicitia,
C.21.
^^ The anonymous author in Eusebius imputes the con-
duct of Montanus to this motive.
32
the desire of distinction, himself to pursue,
and to recommend to others, an ascetic course
of life. The austerity of his doctrine and
practice naturally gained him admirers and
followers; and he confirmed his empire over
their minds by professing to see visions, and
to receive revelations from heaven. Perhaps he
had succeeded in persuading himself that he
was divinely inspired. Fanaticism is for the
most part combined with fraud, in the cha-
racter of the religious impostor; nor is it im-
probable that, in the state of exhaustion to
which the body of Montanus was reduced by
the length and frequency and severity of his
fasts, his mind might occasionally become
disordered, and he might mistake for realities
the creations of a distempered fancy.
The notion that the doctrine of the Gospel
was not publicly delivered by the Apostles in
its full perfection, but that certain important
truths were reserved which the minds of men
were not yet able to bear, does not appear to
have been peculiar to the school of Montanus.
The ^^ Valentinians held a similar language, and
supposed these mysterious truths to relate to
their extravagant and unintelligible fancies re-
specting the Pleroma and the successive gene-
^ De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c 25.
33:
rations of ^^ons. Even among the orthodox,,,
a notion not altogether dissimilar very gene-
rally prevailed. The principal object of the,
Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus is to point
out the distinction between the Christian wha
is perfected in knowledge {yvwariKos), and the
great mass of believers ; and to lay down rules
for the formation of this perfect character.
He does not indeed, like Montanus, profess
to communicate truths which he had received
by immediate revelation from above, and of
which the Apostles were ignorant. He sup-
poses them to have been revealed by Christ
to Peter, James and John, at ^^ the time of
the Transfiguration, and to Paul at a subse-
quent period; and to have been by them
orally transmitted to their successors in the
superintendance of the Church. When, how-
ever, we come to enquire into the nature of
this ^"sublime knowledge, we find that it
^' Eusebius says qfler the resurrection, Eccl. Hist.
L. ii. c. 1. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. L. i. p. 322. 1. 18.
p. 323. 1. 23. p. 324. 1. 26. L. vi. p. 771- 1. 14. p. 774.
1. 27. p. 802. 1. 3Q. p. 806. 1. 25. Ed. Potter. Mr. Rennell
in his Proofs of Inspiration has inadvertently referred to
the first of these passages as bearing testimony to the inspi-
ration of the New Testament^ p. 46.
^^ Clemens says that he is not at liberty to disclose
fully and openly wherein this yi/wo-i? consists, as it is of too
pure and spiritual a nature to be comprehended by Christians
C in
34
consisted of subtle explanations of the doe-
trine of the Trinity and of other Christian
doctrines; of allegorical and mystical inter-
pretations of Scripture ; and of moral precepts
not widely differing from those, the observance
of which was enjoined by Montanus, though
carried to a less degree of extravagance. For
instance, ^^ Clemens does not pronounce second
marriages positively unlawful, but says that a
man who marries again after the decease of
his wife falls short of Christian perfection.
The notions of Clemens bear a close affinity
to mysticism, and are calculated to form a sort
of philosophic Christian, raised far above the
sensible world, and absorbed in sublime con-
templations; those of Montanus would lead
men to place the whole of virtue in bodily
austerities and acts of mortification : both may
be justly charged with having assisted in
paving the way for the introduction of the
monastic mode of life.
There is nothing more flattering to the
pride of man than the persuasion that he is
in general, L. i. p. 327- 1. 41. The notion, if not originally
suggested by certain passages in St. Paul's Epistles, was at
least defended by a reference to them. Strom. L. v. p. 683.
1.18.
53 Strom. L. iii. p. 548. 1. 26*.
35
the favoured depositary of knowledge which
is unattainable by the generality of his fellow-
creatures ; — that, while they are destined to pass
their lives amidst thick clouds and darkness,
he with a select few is permitted to bask in
the meridian sunshine of divine truth. Both
the philosophy and the religion of the Gentile
world had their external and internal doctrines ;
and from them in an evil hour the distinction
was introduced into the Church of Christ.
Clemens Alexandrinus is the earliest Christian
writer in whose works any allusion to it ap-
pears; and we say that he introduced the dis-
tinction in an evil hour, because on it and
on the account which he gives of its origin,
are founded the two principal arguments urged
by Roman Catholics in defence of their doc-
trinal and other corruptions. When driven
from every other point, they fly, as to a last
refuge, to the disciplina arccmi and to oral
tradition ; and though the writings of Clemens
afford no countenance whatever to the parti-
cular errors which the Romish Church is
anxious to maintain, yet it derives no small
advantage to its cause from the statement of
so early a writer — that Christ communicated
important truths to the Apostles, which were
neither intended for the ear, nor adapted to the
comprehension of the great body of believers,
c2
36
and which had come down to his own time
through the medium of oral tradition.
But to return to TertuUian — his adoption of
the opinions of Montanus has, without the
slightest semblance of truth, been imputed by
Pamelius and others to disappointed ambition.
He was indignant, they say, because he was
defeated in his pretensions to the See, either
of Rome or Carthage. The true cause of his
defection from the Church is to be sought in
the constitution and temper of his mind; to
which the austere doctrines and practice of the
new Prophet were perfectly congenial, and of
which the natural warmth and acerbity were,
as ^* Jerome informs us, increased by the cen-
sures, perhaps by the misrepresentations of the
Roman clergy.
Before we quit this part of the subject,
it will be necessary to obviate an objection,
which the foregoing statement may possibly
suggest. " What reliance, it may be asked, can
we place upon the judgement, or even upon
the testimony of Tertvdlian, who could be de-
luded into a belief of the extravagant preten-
sions of Montanus ? or what advantage can the
^* Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum.
37
theological student derive from reading the
works of so credulous and superstitious an
author ?" These are questions easily asked, and
answered without hesitation by men who take
the royal road to theological knowledge : who
either through want of the leisure, or impa-
tience of the labour, requisite for the exami-
nation of the writings of the Fathers, find it
convenient to conceal their ignorance under an
air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair
sentence of condemnation has been passed upon
the Fathers, and their works have fallen into
unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty,
because it bespeaks great ignorance of human
nature, which often presents the curious phe-
nomenon of an union of the most opposite
qualities in the same mind; of vigour, acute-
ness, and discrimination on some subjects, with
imbecility, dullness, and bigotry on others. The
sentence is unfair, because it condemns the
Fathers for faults, which were those, not of the
individuals, but of the age : of the elder Pliny
and Marcus Antoninus, as well as of Tertullian.
It is moreover unfair, because the persons, who
argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue
differently in other cases. Without intending
to compare the gentle, the amiable, the accom-
plished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the
unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual
38
reveries of Madame Guy on with the extrava-
gancies of Montanus and his prophetesses, it
may be remarked that the predilection of
Fenelon for the notions of the mystics be-
trayed a mental weakness, differing in degree,
rather than in kind, from that which led Ter-
tuUian to the adoption of Montanism. We
do not, however, on account of this weak-
ness in Fenelon, throw aside his works as
utterly undeserving of notice, or deem it a suf-
ficient ground for questioning the superiority
of his genius and talent : we regard with sur-
prise and regret this additional instance of
human infirmity, but continue to read Tele-
machus with instruction and delight. Let us
shew the same candour and sound judgement
in the case of the Fathers: let us separate the
wheat from the tares, and not involve them in
one indiscriminate conflagration. The assertion
may appear paradoxical, but is nevertheless
true, that the value of Tertullian's writings to
the theological student arises in a great measure
from his errors. When he became a Montanist,
he set himself to expose what he deemed faulty
in the practice and discipline of the Church :
thus we are told indirectly what that practice
and that discipline were; and we obtain infor-
mation which, but for his secession from the
Church, his works would scarcely have supphed.
39
In a word, whether we consider the testimony
borne to the genuineness and integrity of the
books of the New Testament, or the infor-
mation relating to the ceremonies, discipline,
and doctrines of the primitive Church, Ter-
tuUian's writings form a most important link
in that chain of tradition which connects the
Apostolic age with our own.
^^ Attempts have been made to arrange Ter-
tuUian's works in chronological order; with
how little success we may judge from the
" For the better understanding of the remarks upon
Tertullian's writings, the dates of the principal events connected
with the reign of Severus are inserted as given by the Bene-
dictines in their learned work, L'Art de Verifier les Dates.
A. D.
Commencement of the reign of Severus 193
Defeat of Niger 195
Taking of Byzantium I96
Defeat of Albinus I97
Cai'acalla associated in the empire I98
War against the Parthians I98
Severus returns from that war 203
Celebration of the Secular Games 204
Plautianus put to death 204 or 205.
War in Britain 208
Wall built by Severus 210
Death of Severus 211
Caracalla born 188
called Csesar 196
Augustus 198
Geta born 189
called Caesar I98
Augustus 208
410
diversity of opinions which has prevailed
among learned men respecting the date of
a single tract, that entitled de Pallio. It ap-
pears that TertuUian had exchanged the Roman
Toga for the Pallium, which was worn by
the Greeks and by those who affected to be
called philosophers. This change of dress ex-
cited the ridicule and censure of his fellow-
citizens of Carthage; and he composed the
Treatise de Pallio in answer to their attacks.
Pamelius, with whom Scaliger agrees, sup-
poses that it is the earliest of TertuUian's
works now extant; written immediately after
his conversion to Christianity, on which occa-
sion he put on the Pallium, the garment then
universally worn by Christians. Salmasius
contends that the Pallium was the dress, not
of Christians in general, but of presbyters
only ; and that the tract was consequently
written after the admission of TertuUian into
that order. ^''Allix differs both from Pame-
lius and Salmasius, and affirms, that the Pal-
lium was worn only by those Christians who
adopted an ascetic course of life ; he concludes,
therefore, that the tract was written shortly
after TertuUian openly professed himself a
Montanist. Each of the three critics supports
^^ Dissertatio de TertuUiani vita et sciiptis, c. 6.
his opinions by quotations from the tract it-
self; and there is one passage which at first
sight would lead the reader to hope that the
date might be ascertained with a considerable
degree of precision. Tertullian ^^says, that
three persons were then united in the admi-
nistration of the empire, and that the world
enjoyed profound peace. Unfortunately, the
commentators cannot agree among themselves
whether the three emperors were ^* Severus,
Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus, or ^^ Severus,
Antoninus Caracalla, and Geta; or whether
the profound peace of which Tertullian speaks
was that which followed the suppression of
Niger's revolt, or that which the empire en-
joyed during the latter years of the life of
Severus. ^"Semler leans to the former opinion,
but admits that the question is involved in
great obscurity. In fact, the style of the Trea-
tise is so declamatory and rhetorical, that no
inference can be safely drawn from particular
expressions ; *^^ to me, however, it appears to
^7 Quantum urbium aut produxit, aut auxit, aut reddidit
praesentis Imperii triplex Virtus ! Deo tot Augustis in unum
■favente, quot census transcripti ! &c. c. 2.
^ A.S. 196.
53 A. S. 208.
^^ Dissertatio in Tertullianum, c 1.
"^ This inference I draw from the following passages:
Enimvero quum hanc primiim sapientiam vestit, qu« vanis-
simis superstitionibus renuit, tunc certissime pallium super
omnes
42
have been written as a defence of the general
adoption of the Pallium at that period, by
the Christians of Carthage; or perhaps of its
adoption by himself in particular, because he
deemed it more suitable to the Christian cha-
racter.
The only work, which supplies positive evi-
dence of its date, is the first Book against
Marcion. In ^"c. 15. Tertullian says, that he
is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign
of the Emperor Severus, or the year 207.
There is also positive evidence in ^^this book
that the author was, when he wrote it, a
believer in the prophecies of Montanus.
In a passage from the "* Tract de Monogamia,
already referred to, Tertullian says, that 160
omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superqvie oranes
apices et titulos sacerdos suggestus ; deduc oculos, suadeo,
reverere habitum unius interim erroris tui renuntiatorem, c 4.
sub fine. And again, Sed ista pallium loquitur. " At ego
jam illi etiam divinae Sectae ac Disciplinse commercium
confero." Gaude pallium, et exulta; melior jam te Phi-
losophia dignata est, ex quo Christianum vestire ccepisti, c. 6.
^^ Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris.
*'-' Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quern quidem
apud nos Spiritalis Ratio, Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum
in Fide matrimonium praescribens, c. 29-
^* c. 3. See note 37.
43
years had elapsed since St. Paul addressed his
first Epistle to the Corinthians. Pamelius in
consequence assigns the year 213 as the date
of the tract, conceiving that the first Epistle to
the Corinthians was written in 53. But in the
first place, learned men are not agreed respect-
ing the exact date of the Epistle, some fix-
ing it as late as 59 ; and in the next, it is
highly probable that TertuUian did not speak
with precision, but used round numbers. In
the first Address ad Nationes our author
says, ^^in one place that 250 years, in another
that 300 years had not yet elapsed since the
birth of Christ: it is evident, therefore, that
in neither instance did TertuUian mean to
express the precise number.
Unable to discover in the works themselves
any marks by which their dates may be pre-
cisely ascertained, later critics have been con-
tent to divide them into two classes; those
written before TertuUian adopted the errors of
Montanus, and those written afterw^ards. But
even on this point a diversity of opinions
subsists, and the commentators are not agreed
to which of the two classes each work be-
longs. Unless indeed the tract comtains some
^^ The first number occurs in c. 7. the secor id in c. 9-
44
allusion to the Paraclete or to the New Pro-
phecy, we are not warranted in positively as-
serting that it was written by a Montanist ;
nor does the absence of all such allusion jus-
tify a contrary inference. The subject of the
tract might afford its author no opportunity
of disclosing his belief in the inspiration of
Montanus ; while on the other hand the mere
fact, that one of the tenets maintained by that
Heresiarch occurs in a particular work, is not of
itself sufficient to prove that Tertullian, when
it was written, was professedly a Montanist.
There were in that age, as in most ages, of the
Church, two parties, the advocates of a milder
and of a severer discipline. In the latter class
would be many, whose opinions respecting the
course of life to be pursvied by a Christian
would not differ widely from those of Mon-
tanus; although they might give no credit to
his pretended revelations from heaven. The
natural disposition of Tertullian would incline
him to the more rigid side; yet it is proba-
ble that a gradual change was effected in his
sentiments, and that, as he advanced in years,
they continually assumed a harsher and more
uncompromising character. Such is the usual
progress of opinion, and we know that on two
points at least this change actually took place
in his casci— the readmission of penitents into
45
the Church, and the degree of criminality to be
attached to a second marriage. As the inclina-
tion to the severe discipline of Montanus always
existed in Tertullian's mind, and increased by
slow and almost imperceptible degrees, it is
scarcely possible, in the absence of all external
testimony, to draw a well-defined line of separa-
tion between the works which were and those
which were not composed before his seces-
sion from the Church. Having premised these
observations respecting the difficulty of ar-
riving at any certainty on the subject, I will
proceed to state the result of my own exa-
mination of Tertullian's writings.
The Tracts de Pcenitentia, de Oratione, and
de Baptismo, are allowed by the majority of
commentators to have been written, before Ter-
tuUian had become a follower of Montanus.
Erasmus dovibted the genuineness of the
Tract de Pcenitentia ; partly on account of its
superiority in point of style to the acknow-
ledged works of TertuUian, and partly because
it contains opinions at variance with those
which he has expressed in the Tract de
Pudicitia. ^'^ In the former, he expressly
«« See c. 7, 8, 9-
46
says, that all crimes without exception com-
mitted after baptism may once, but only
once, be pardoned by the Church upon re-
pentance : in the '^^ latter, he denies that adul-
terers, as well as idolaters and murderers, can
ever be reconciled to the Church. But ^Mn
the commencement of the Tract de Pudicitia he
himself alludes to this change in his senti-
ments, which is also mentioned by ^^ Jerome;
and the necessary inference from a compari-
son of the passages is, that the Tract de
Pcenitentia is genuine, and that it was com-
posed while Tertullian was yet a member of
the Church.
^° A passage in the fifth Chapter of Hilary's
Commentary on St. Matthew implies that
Tertullian composed the Treatise de Oratione
before he quitted the communion of the
•^7 See c. 5.
^^ c. 1. Erit igitur et hie adversus Psychicos titulus, ad'
versus mece quoque sententix retro penes illos societatem, &c.
^^ Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal
Son: Unde vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro,
quem de Pudicitia adversum Pcenitentiam scripsit et senten-
tiam veterem nova opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire.
70 De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos com-
mentandi Cyprianus vir Sanctaj memoriae liberavit. Quam-
quam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit ;
sed cmsequetis error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus
auctoritatem.
47
Church. It is certain that ''Mie mentions the
Shepherd of Hermas without bestowing upon it
any of those opprobrious epithets which he
employs in ^^the Treatise de Pudicitia, writ-
ten after he became a Montanist.
AUix thinks that he discovers traces of a
leaning to Montanism in the Tract de Bap-
tismo. He founds his suspicions on an allusion
to the name of ^^ Pisciculi, which TertuUian
applies to the Christians, and on the men-
tion of ^* Charismata. But with respect to
the latter term, there appears to be no reason
for restricting it to the revelations of Mon-
tanus; and with respect to the appellation of
Pisciculi, though Allix may be right in sup-
posing it to have been borrowed by Ter-
tuUian from the Sibylline Verses, the work,
according to him, either of Montanus or a
'1 c. 12. 72 c. 10.
73 Sed nos Pisciculi secundum I'x^dvv nostrum Jesum
Christum in aqua nascimur, c. 1. Cicero says (De Divina-
tione, L. ii. c. 54. or 111.) that the origmal Sibylline Verses
were Acrostics ; and in the eighth book of the spurious verses
are some Acrostics, commencing with the initial letters of the
words 'If/o-ou? Xpi<rT09, Oeov Y'io<;, 'Luirtjp, of which letters
the word lx^v<: is composed : but according to Lardner, there
is no good ground to think that TertuUian has alluded to
these Acrostics. Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 29-
7* Petite de Domino peculia, gratias, distributiones charis-
matum subjiciente, c. 20. sub fine.
48
Montanist ; yet the majority of learned meit
are of opinion that the forgery of the Sibyl-
line Verses was prior to the rise of the
heresy of Montanus. There is in my opinion
a far more suspicious passage in ^Hhis book,
where Tertullian says, that three persons com-
pose a Church ; a notion which frequently oc-
curs in the works confessedly written after
he became a believer in the New Prophecy.
AUix, in like manner, discovers a leaning to
Montanism in the two Treatises ad Uxorem ; in
the former of which Tertullian dissuades his
wife, in case she should survive him, from con-
tracting a second marriage ; in the latter, fearful
that she might be unwilling to impose upon her-
self so severe a restraint, he cautions her at
least not to marry a heathen. This condescen-
sion to human weakness is so utterly at variance
with the harsh language which he applied to
second marriages after he became a Montanist,
that I cannot assent to the opinion of Allix.
In the Tract ad Martyres is '^an allusion
75 Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio
salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesioe mentio ;
quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus,
ibi Ecclesia qua? trium corpus est. c. 6.
"''^ c. 1. Quam pacem quidam, in Ecclesia non habentes,
a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt- Et ideo
earn
'49
to a practice which then prevailed, of restor-
ing penitents to the communion of the Church,
at the request of persons confined in prison
on account of their profession of Christianity.
If we compare the tone of this allusion
with the pointed condemnation of the practice
in the "Tract de Pudicitia, we must, I
think, conclude that TertuUian was not yet
a convert to INIontanism when he wrote the
Tract ad JNIartyres. The death of the philo-
sopher Peregrinus, which happened between
the years 164 and 170, is mentioned in c. 4 ;
and the concluding sentence has been sup-
posed, with great appearance of probability,
to relate to the numerous executions, particu-
larly of persons of the Senatorial Order, which
took place after the defeat and death of
''^ Albinus ; though it may perhaps relate to the
death of Plautianus.
A comparison of the different modes in
which TertuUian speaks of flight in time of
persecution, in the Tracts de ^^Patientia and
earn etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire
debetis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis.
" c. 22.
78 A. S. 197.
7^ c. 13. Si fuga urgeat, adversus incoramoda fuga?
caro militat. The fair inference from these words appears
to be that flight in time of persecution is allowable.
D
50
de Fuga in Persecutione, will lead to the
conclusion that the former was written while
he was yet a member of the Church.
The Treatise adversus Judseos is supposed
by Pamelius to have been written in the year
198 ; by Allix (after Baronius) in 208. Allix
grounds his opinion on the expressions respect-
ing the state of the Roman empire which
occur in c. 7, and which he conceives to be
applicable only to the latter years of the reign
of Severus ; but they are so general that no
inference as to the date of the tract can be
safely drawn from them.
Allix infers from the mention of Charis-
mata in the ^° Tract de Prasscriptione Hsere-
ticorum, that it was written after Tertullian
became a Montanist. But, as was observed
with respect to the Tract de Baptismo, the
context suggests no reason why we should
restrict the word to the peculiar gifts of the
Paraclete of Montanus. Allix also quotes a
passage from the first book against Marcion,
from which he argues that it was prior to
the Tract de Preescriptione Haereticorum ; ^^ the
8" C. 29.
"' Sed alius Ubellux hunc gradum sustinebit adversus
Hcerelicos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos,
quod
51
context leads me to an opposite conclusion.
Besides, had the tract been written by a Mon-
tanist, some mention of the Paraclete would
probably have been introduced into the short
summary of faith given in c. 13. ; as is the case
in the first chapter of the Tract de Virginibus
velandis. **-The conclusion also warrants the
inference that it was written before all the
Treatises against particular Heresies. It was
certainly prior to the Tract de ^^Carne Christi.
It was also prior to the "^ Tract against
Hermogenes, in the first chapter of which there
is an allusion to it. AUix thinks that Ter-
tullian was a Montanist, when he wrote
against Hermogenes, ^^ because he charges that
quod hoc sint de Praescriptione Novitatis. Nunc quatenus
adraittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium Prce-
scriptio?iis ubiqiic advocaUim diffidentiae deputetur, regulam
Adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis
quaestio dimicatura est. c. 1.
^^ c 45. Sed nunc quidem generaliter actum est a nobis
adversus haereses omnes, certis et justis et necessariis prae-
scriptionibus repellendas a conlatione Scripturarum. De
reliquo, si Dei gratia annuerit, etiam specialiter quibusdam
respondebimus.
^ c. 2. Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus
omnes haereses alibi jam usi sumus.
^* c. 1. Solemus Haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate
praescribere.
^ c. 1 . Praeterea pingit illicite, nubit assidue. Legem Dei
in libidinem defendit.
D 2
52
heretic with marrying repeatedly ; but I doubt
whether the words are sufficiently precise to
warrant the inference.
Great diversity of opinion prevails amon^
the commentators respecting the date of the
Apology. Allix appears to me to have shewn
satisfactorily that it was written, ^^'^not at
Rome, but at Carthage: and that it was ad-
dressed, not ^Ho the Senate, but to the
governors of Proconsular Africa. He has not,
however, been equally successful in proving
that it was written so late as the year
217. I cannot discover, in ^^the passage in
^® Speaking of Rome, Tertullian says, c 9- Ecce in ilia
religiosissima urbe vEneadum : and in c. 21. sub fine, he
thus addresses the Romans : Ut ad vos quoque, dominatores
gentium, aspiciam : and again, in c. 35. Ipsos Quirites,
ipsam vernaculam septem collium plebem, convenio: modes
of expression which he would scarcely have used, had the
Tract been written at Rome.
^^ In designating the persons to whom the Apology is
addressed, he styles them in general Presides ; thus, Veritatis
extorquendae Praesides, c. 2. Ex ipsis etiam vobis justissimis
et severissimis in nos Pra?sidibus, c 9. Hoc agite, boni
Praesides, c. 50. In c. 2. he uses the expression. Hoc impe-
rium cujus ministri estis ; and from a passage in c 45. Deum
non Proconsulem timentes, it may fairly be inferred that
he was writing in a province governed by a Pro-Consul.
88 Nonne vanissiraas Papias Leges, quae ante liberos sus-
cipi cogunt quam Juliae matrimonium contrahi, post tant«
auctoritatis senectutem heri Severus constantissimus Princi-
purn exclusit? c. 4.
which Tertullian speaks of the reformation of
the Papian Laws, any reason for thinking that
Severus was then dead ; I should rather infer
the contrary. The allusion to the conspiracies
which were daily ^Metected at the very time
when the book was written, as well as the
^° enumeration of the barbarous nations which
either then were, or had recently been, at war
with Rome, correspond to the events which
took place during the reign of Severus; and
as the work contains internal testimony that
the Christians were then suffering persecution,
why may it not have been written soon after
^^the promulgation of the law, by which the
Christians were forbidden to make proselytes,
that is, about the year 204 ? The date assigned
^^ Unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini? and again, Sed et
qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores quotidie reve-
lantur, post vindemiam parricidarum racematio superstes, &c.
c. 35. This passage appears to relate to the triumph of Seve-
rus after his return from the Parthian War, and to the con-
spiracy of Plautianus which took place about the year 204.
^ c. 37. Plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique
Parthi.
^^ The part taken by the Syrians of Palestine in favour of
Niger greatly irritated Severus, and probably gave occasion
to this law. ^lii Spartiani Severus, p. g02. C. From the
words of the historian it might be inferred that the law
applied only to Palestine. In itinere Palaestinis plurima jura
fundavit. Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam
de Christianis sanxit, p. 904. Speaking shortly after of
the inhabitants of Alexandria, he says, Multa praeterea his
jura mutavit.
54
by Mosheim, in a Tract written expressly on
the subject, is 198. It was not to be expected
that any marks of Montanism would appear
in the Apology.
The two books, entitled ad Nationes, have
come down to us in so imperfect a state that
it is difficult to ascertain whether they were
designed to be a distinct work from the Apor
logy ; or whether Tertullian at first wrought
his materials into this form, which he after-
wards thought proper to change. The argu-
ments are for the most part the same as those
urged in the Apology, and are frequently ex-
pressed in the same words. Allix fancied that
he found an allusion ^*to the assumption of
the title of Parthicus by Caracalla, and con-
cluded, therefore, that these books were written
after the death of Severus; but I suspect that
the allusion existed only in his own fancy.
*^ Ita vero sit, quum ex vobis nationibus quotidie Ca?sai'es,
et Parthici, et Medici, et Germanici, L. i. c I7. Allix drew
his inference from a passage in the life of Caracalla which
goes under the name of ^Elius Spartianus. Datis ad Senatum,
quasi post victoriam. Uteris Parthicus appellatus est; nam
Germanici nomen patre vivo fuerat consecutus, p. 930. D.
The circumstance here alluded to occurred not long before the
death of Caracalla in 21 7. But the titles of Parthicus and
Germanicus had been so frequently conferred upon Emperors,
that it cannot be affirmed with any degree of certainty that
a particular allusion to Caracalla was intended.
55
The Tract de Testimonio Anim^e was sub-
sequent to the Apology, to which it contains
a reference. Ut loco suo edocuimus ad fidem
earum (Divinarum Scripturarum) demonstran-
dam, c. 5. The reference is to the nineteenth
chapter of the Apology, in which Tertullian
establishes the superior antiquity of the Hebrew
Scriptures to the literature of the Gentiles.
The terms in which Tertullian speaks,^^ in
his address to Scapula, of the favour shewn
by Severus to the Christians, in consequence
of the cure wrought upon him by one of their
body named Proculus, lead to the conclusion
that the work was composed after that Empe-
ror's death. There is ^*in this Tract an allusion
to the destruction of Byzantium which took
place in the year 196; as well as to a preter-
natural extinction of the Sun's light which
occurred at Utica, and which Allix supposes
to have been an eclipse of the Sun that hap-
pened in the year 210. He agrees with Sca-
liger and Holstenius in thinking that this was
one of the latest of Tertullian's works, and
written about the year 217. In c. 4. Tertullian
®^ c 4. The cure was performed by the use of oil. Severus
labourefd under an arthritic complaint. MXn Spartiani Severus,
p. 903. D.
^* c. 3. Extincto pene lumine.
56
mentions Cincius Severus among the governors
who treated the Christians with lenity. This
governor was put to death by Severus after the
defeat and death of ^^Albinus. The Tract con-
tains no traces of Montanism, yet was probably
written after the author became a INIontanist.
The Treatises, in which we find positive allu-
sions to the prophecies of Montanus, are those
^^de Corona, ^^de Anima, ^Me Virginibus velan-
dis, ^^de Resurrectione Carnis, ^""against Praxeas,
^'Hhe first, '"'third, ^'''fourth, and '""fifth books
against Marcion, and the Tracts de Fuga in
Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, and
de Pudicitia. The four last-mentioned Tracts
are stated by Jerome to have been composed by
our author in direct opposition to the Church,
and their contents fully confirm the statement.
With respect to their order, we know only that
the Tract de Monogamia was prior to that de
Jejuniis,'"^ which contains a reference to it.
^•' A. D. 198. iElii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. A.
^^ c. 1. Qui prophetias ejusdem Spiritus Sancti respuerunt.
''-' cc. 9. 11. 55. 58. There is in this Tract, c. 55. an
allusion to the martyrdom of Perpetua, which is supposed to
Jiave happened about the year 203.
98 cc. 1. 17. "9 c. 11.
^•» cc. 1, 2. 8. 13. 30. 101 c. 29.
102 f._ 24. 103 c 22.
'"* c. If). Ut docent Veteres et Novae Prophetiac.
^^' c. 1.
57
^^^ Gibbon affirms it " to be evident that
Tertullian composed his Treatise de Corona
long before he was engaged in the errors of
^lontanus." I am afraid that the historian was
induced to adopt this opinion, because it as-
sisted him in transferring the sentiments, ex-
pressed by Tertullian, from the followers of
INIontanus to the primitive Christians in general ;
and thereby to confirm his representation of
their rashness and extravagances. But the allu-
sion to the New Prophecy, in the first chapter,
affords a complete refutation of the assertion.
Gibbon also supposes the event, which gave
occasion to the Treatise, to have happened at
Carthage, when a donative was distributed
to the soldiers by the emperors Severus and
Caracalla ; and consequently before the title of
Caesar was conferred on Geta ; that is, before the
year 198. But should we allow the correctness
of this date to be better ascertained than it
really is, the only inference to be drawn from
it would be, that even at that early period
Tertullian had openly avowed his belief in the
prophecies of Montanus. There is moreover in
this Tract an allusion to a ^" Tract on Public
Spectacles, which Tertullian composed in Greek ;
i«^ Chapter 15. Note 49-
^"7 Sed et huic materiae propter suaviludios nostros Graeco
quoque stilo satisfecimus, c. 6. sub fine.
58
if it agreed with the Latin Tract now extant,
he was probably a Montanist when he wrote it.
^''^*Tertullian appears in the Tract de Corona
to announce his intention of writing the Scor-
piace.
The second book against Marcion affords an
example of the difficulty of accurately deter-
mining from the Treatises themselves, whether
the author was a Montanist when he composed
them : for it contains no decisive marks of
Montanism. The same remark is applicable to
the Tract de Carne Christi, though we find
^°Hn it an express reference to the fourth book
against INIarcion ; and ^'^^ to the Scorpiace, in
which we also find a reference to the works
against Marcion. Jerome in his work against
Vigilantius, c. 3. says that the latter Tract was
written against the Cainites, a branch of the
Gnostics, who appear to have spoken con-
temptuously of martyrdom, and to have dis-
^^'7* c. 1. Sed de quaestionibus confessionum alibi docebi-
mus.
^^ c. 7- Audiat igitur et Apelles quid jam responsum sit
a nobis Marcioni eo libello^ quo ad Evangelium ipsius provoca-
vimus. The reference is to c. 19-
^"^ c. 5. Longum est ut Deum meum bonum ostendam;
quod jam a nobis didicerunt Marcionitae. The reference is
to the second book. From c. 1, and c. 4, it appears that
the Scorpiace was written during a time of persecution.
59
suaded Christians in times of persecution from
exposing themselves to danger by an open pro-
fession of their faith ; ^^" contending that He was
the true martyr, luapTu^ who bore testimony to
the Gospel by his virtuous life and conversation.
Here then we might expect to find strong
proofs of Tertullian's Montanism ; yet they do
not occur. "^ There is in the Scorpiace an
allusion to the establishment of the Pythian
games at Carthage, as if it had recently taken
place.
If the Proculus, whom TertuUian "^ calls
Proculus noster, and mentions with respect in
his Treatise against the Valentinians, was the
same to whose dispute or dialogue with Caius
both "^Eusebius and Jerome refer, we may
fairly conclude that TertuUian was a Montanist
when he composed the Treatise.
Allix infers that the Tract de Spectaculis
was written after TertuUian became a Mon-
tanist, because in enumerating the privileges of
"•^ Compare Irenaeus, L. iii. c. 20. L. iv. c. 64. and
Clemens Alexandrinus, L. iv. c. 4. p. 571. 1. 10.
^^^ Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando in-
quietant, donatam Pythico Agone post stadii senectutem^
c. 6.
"2 c. 5.
"^ Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 20. Catalogus Scriptoium Eccl.
sub Caio.
60
the Christian, he mentions ^'Hhat of asking
revelations from heaven. The introduction
"^ of the New Jerusalem in the last chapter,
when compared with the final chapter of the
fourth book against Marcion, supplies in my
opinion far more decisive proof of his Mon-
tanism. ^^^Allix has shewn satisfactorily that
it was written, not at Rome, but at Carthage.
It was prior to the Tract ^^^ de Idololatria and
to the ^^^ first book de Cultu Foeminarum,
which contain references to it. These two
Tracts, therefore, were probably written after
TertuUian became a Montanist, though they
contain no decisive marks of Montanism. ^^^In
the Tract de Idololatria, Allix fancies that he
discovers an allusion to the festivities which
took place at Carthage, when the birth-day of
Geta was celebrated, in the year 203.
The notion that three persons compose a
Church has been ^'"already mentioned as indi-
"* c. 29. Quod revelationes petis.
"^ Qualis Civitas nova Hierusalem ?
"^^ Quanta praeterea Sacra, quanta Sacrificia praecedant,
intercedant, succedant, quot Collegia, quot sacerdotia, quot
officia moveantur, sciunt homines illius urbis (Romae) in qua
Daemoniorum conventus consedit, c. 7. Proinde tituli:
Olympia Jovi, qujc sunt Rom« Capitolina, c. 11. Observe
also the use of the word Pra;sides in the last chapter.
"7 c. 13. "8 c. 8. "9 c. 15. '20 p. 48.
61
cative of Montanism. It occurs in *^^ the Tract
de Exhortatione Castitatis : yet I am led to
infer, from a comparison of this Tract with
that de JMonogamia, that Tertullian, when he
wrote it, had not embraced the tenets of Mon-
tanus in all their rigour.
Perhaps we shall not deviate very widely
from the truth, if we adopt the following
classification of TertulHan's works, without
attempting to arrange them in the order in
which they are written.
A¥orks probably written while he was yet
a member of the Church.
De Poenitentia.
De Oratione.
De Baptismo.
The two books ad Uxorem.
Ad Martyres.
De Patientia.
Adversus Juda^os.
De Prasscriptione Hsereticorum.^^^
*^^ c. 7- Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laid. Compare
de Pudicitia, c 21. Pamelius supposes that the three persons
alluded to in the latter passage were Montanus, Maximilla,
and Priscilla ; but, as it appears to me, without sufficient
grounds.
^^^ Referred to in the first book against Marcion, c 1. adv.
Praxeam, c. 2. de Came Christi, c. 2. adv. Hermogenem, c. 1.
6^
Works certainly written after he became
a Montanist:
First book against Marcion.
Second book against INIarcion.^^'
De Anima.''*
Third book against Marcion.
Fourth book against Marcion.^^*
De Carne Christi/'^
De Resurrectione Carnis/^
Fifth book against Marcion.
Adversus Praxeam.
Scorpiace.^^^
De Corona Militis.
De Virginibus Velandis.
De Exhortatione Castitatis.
De Fuga in Persecutione.
De Monogamia/^^
De Jejuniis.
De Pudicitia.
^^ Referred to in the Scorpiace, c 5. In the Treatise de
Aniraa, c. 21. where the allusion is to c 5. De Res. Carnis,
cc. 2. 14.
^^* Referred to in the Tract de Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 17- 45.
Compare cc. 18 and 21.
^^ Referred to in the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 7-
12^ Referred to in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 2.
See also the concluding words of the Tract de Carne Christi.
1^ Referred to in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 10.
^28 In c. 4. Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted
all the heretics.
^^^ Referred to in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 1.
Works probably written after he became
a Montanist:
Adversus Valentinianos.
Ad Scapulam.
De Speetaculis.^™
De Idololatria.
The two books de Cultu Foeminarum.
Works respecting which nothing certain can
be pronounced :
The Apology.
The two books ad Nationes.
The Tract de Testimonio Anim^e/"
De PaUio.
Adversus Hermogenem.
In addition to the works already enume-
rated, Tertullian composed others not now
extant :
A Treatise, entitled de Paradiso.^^^
'^ Referred to in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 13. and in
the first book de Cultu Foeminarum, c. 8. In the Tract de
Corond, c. 6. is a reference to the Greek Tract de Specta-
culis.
^^^ Subsequent to the Apology, see c. 5. Prior to the
Tract de Carne Christi, in the twelfth chapter of which it
is quoted.
^^ Mentioned in the Tract de Anima, c. 55. and in the
fifth book against Marcion, c. 12.
64
Another '^^ de Spe Fidelium.
Six Books ^^* de Ecstasi, and a seventh
against Apollonius, mentioned by Jerome in
his account of our author.
A Tract ^^^ against the Apelliaci, or follow-
ers of Apelles.
A Tract ^^^ against Hermogenes, entitled de
Censu Animas.
In the Treatise '^^ de Anima, Tertullian men-
tions his intention of discussing the questions
of Fate and Free-Will, upon the principles of
the Gospel.
Jerome mentions other works of Tertullian :
One^^^ de vestibus Aaron.
One^^^ ad Amicum Philosophum: Jerome's
words are, Et nunc eadem admoneo, ut, si tibi
^^ Mentioned in the third book against Marcion, c. 24.
and by Jerome in his account of Papias.
^^ There is an allusion to the books de Ecstasi in the
fourth book against Marcion, c. 22.
^^ Mentioned in the Treatise de Carne Christi, c. 8.
'^ Mentioned in the Treatise de Anima, cc. 1. 3. 22. 24.
'37 c. 20.
'38 Epistola ad Fabiolam de veste Sacerdotali, sub fine.
'39 Epistola 22, ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis.
I am in doubt whether Jerome here alludes to Tracts ex-
pressly entitled de Virginitate, or means only that Tertullian
had in various works written on the advantages of the
unmarried state.
65
placet scire quot molestiis virgo libera, quot
uxor astricta sit, legas TertuUianum ad Amicum
Philosophum, et de Virginitate alios libellos,
et beati Cypriani volumen egregium. Among
Tertullian's works now extant, there is none
entitled ad Amicum Philosophum ; and I should
have supposed that Jerome referred to the
Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, had he not
in his first Book against Jovinian said that
Tertullian wrote upon the subject of celibacy
in his youth.
In the Index to Tertullian's works given
in the Codex Agobardi appear the three fol-
lowing titles : De Animee Summissione ; De
Superstitione Sasculi ; De Carne et Anima.
The tracts themselves are not extant in the
^IS. ; which appears at one time to have con-
tained the Tracts de Paradiso and de Spe
Fidelium.
^^"Mosheim classes the Montanists amongst
the illiterate sects: but this epithet is wholly
inapplicable to Tertullian, who appears to
have been acquainted with every branch of
science and literature that was studied in his
day. ^^^ Eusebius mentions particularly his
i-w* Cent. II. c. 5. Sect. 23.
'*' Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c 2. -
66
knowledge of ^^^ Roman law, which displays it-
self in his frequent use of legal terms ; and
his quotations embrace not only the poetry and
history, but also the "^natural philosophy and
^^* medical science of antiquity. The Greek
language must have been familiar to him, as
he composed in it three "^Treatises, not now
extant. So great indeed was his reputation
for genius and learning that, notwithstanding
his secession from the Church, succeeding Eccle-
siastical writers always speak of him with
high respect. Cyprian, as we have seen, called
him his master, and never passed a day with-
out reading some portion of his works. We
cannot, however, among the merits of Ter-
tullian, reckon that of a natural, flowing, and
perspicuous style. He frequently hurries his
readers along by his vehemence, and surprises
them by the vigour, as well as inexhaustible
fertility of his imagination ; but his copious-
^^^ See the Tract de Anima, c. 6. sub fine.
^^ He appears to have been well acquainted with Pliny.
^** See the Tract de Anima, cc. 2, 6.
'*^ Those de Spectaculis (see de Corona, c. 6.) de Virgini-
bus velandis, c. 1. and de Baptismo, c. 15. For additional
proof of his knowledge of Greek, see adv. Marcionem, L. ii.
cc. 9/24. L. iii. cc. 15, 22. L. iv. cc. 8, 11, 14. L. v. c. 17-
de Praescript. Haeret. c. 6. adv. Hermogenem, cc. 19, 40. adv.
Praxeam, c. 3. ad Scapulara, c. 4. de Idololatria, c. 3. He
sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. See
adv. Marc. L. iv. c 39. adv. Praxeam, c. 5. adv. Jud. c. 9.
67
iiess is without selection ; and there was in
his character a propensity to exaggeration,
which affected his language and rendered it
inflated and unnatural. He is indeed the harsh-
est and most obscure of writers, and the least
capable of being accurately represented in a
translation. With respect to his Latinity, I
know only one critic who has ventured to speak
in its commendation — the late Gilbert Wake-
field; between whom and TertuUian, widely as
they differed upon doctrinal questions, there
appear to have been some points of resemblance.
Both possessed great stores of acquired know-
ledge, which they produced in and out of
season ; both were deficient in taste, discrimi-
nation, and judgement. "^ In one of his letters
to Mr. Fox, JNIr. Wakefield complains that the
" words of TertuUian, Arnobius, Apuleius,
Aulus Gellius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, are
usually marked in dictionaries as inelegant and
of suspicious authority: when they are, in rea-
lity, the most genuine rem.ains of pure Roman
composition," or as he had previously expres-
sed himself, " of the language of the old
comedians and tragedians, of Ennius and Luci-
lius." I am far from intending to assert that
this statement is wholly destitute of foun-
dation. When I have myself been obliged to
"^ Letter 54.
E 2
68
consult the dictionaries for the meaning of
some strange and portentous word which
crossed me in my perusal of Tertullian's works,
I have occasionally found that it had been used
by Plautus; but the general opinion, which I
have formed respecting Tertullian's Latinity,
cannot be better expressed than in the words of
the learned Ruhriken. "^ " Fuit nescio quis —
qui se pulchre de Latina Lingua meriturum
speraret, si verba et verborum constructiones
ex Tertulliano — in Lexicon referret. A cujus
sententia dici vix potest quantopere dissentiam.
Sit Tertullianus quam velis eruditus, sit omnis
peritus antiquitatis ; nihil impedio ; Latinita-
tis certe pessimum auctorem esse aio et con-
firmo. At usus est sermone eo quo tunc
omnes Afri Latine loquentes utebantur.
A(t)piac€v 0 e^ecTTi, ookw, toi^ Awpieearcriv.
Ne hoc quidem concesserim. Nam si talis
Afrorum sermo fuit, cur, non dicam Apuleius
et Arnobius scriptores priscee elegantiae studiosi,
sed Cyprianus, &c. aliter locuti reperiuntur?
Quid ergo ? Fecit hie, quod ante eum arbitror
fecisse neminem. Etenim quum in aliorum
vel summa infantia tamen appareat voluntas et
conatus bene loquendi, hie, nescio qua ingenii
"' PFaefatio ad Schelleri Lexicon.
69
perversitate, cum melioribus loqui noluit, et
sibimet ipse linguam finxit duram, horridam,
Latinisque inauditam ; ut non mirum sit per
eum unum plura monstra in Linguam Latinam,
quam per omnes Scriptores semi-barbaros, esse
invecta."
In the preceding remarks 'We have all along
taken for granted that the works, the dates of
which we have been investigating, were com-
posed by an individual, named Tertullian.
This fact we conceived to be established by
testimony precisely similar to that by which
the genuineness of the works of every author
is ascertained — by the testimony of writers
whose proximity to the times in which he lived,
and whose opportunities of information ren-
dered them competent to form a correct opi-
nion on the subject. We are told that Cy-
prian, who was Bishop of Carthage within
forty years after the period at which Tertul-
lian lived there, held his works in the high-
est estimation ; and in confirmation of this
statement we find that Cyprian frequently
repeats, not only the sentiments, but even the
words contained in the writings now extant
under his name. We find ^^^Eusebius, a dili-
^*^ L. ii. c. 2. The only work of Tertullian quoted by
Eusebius is the Apology, which he states to have been
translated
70
gent enquirer into all points connected with
Ecclesiastical history, quoting within a century-
after Tertullian's death one of his works which
had been translated into Greek, and speaking of
him ^^^ as well known in the capital of the
world. We find Jerome, who has left us a
catalogue of Ecclesiastical authors accompanied
by succinct accounts of their lives and writings,
quoting various works of Tertullian without
giving the slightest hint that he entertained
a doubt of their genuineness. We find him
quoted by ^^^ Augustine, who had resided at
Carthage and made enquiries there respecting
the sect which bore his name; and by subse-
quent writers, who may be deemed too far
removed from his time to be received as in-
dependent witnesses. Here surely is a chain
of testimony sufficient to satisfy even a scep-
tical mind. It did not, however, satisfy that
of Semler; who in a dissertation, inserted in
translated into Greek, and with which alone he appears to
have been acquainted. He was perhaps little versed in the
Latin language ; and had never met with the tracts com-
posed by Tertullian himself in Greek, which were of less
general interest than the Apology.
■*•'' If we adopt the interpretation suggested by Valesius,
after Rufinus, of the words twi/ jjidXtara eVi 'Pwfxr]^ XafX-rrpciv,
inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, the inference will be
strengthened.
^^ Liber de Haeresibus, 86. TertullianistEc.
71
his ^^^ edition of Tertullian's works, endeavours
to fix a mark of spuriousness, not only upon
them, but also upon the writings which are
extant, under the names of Justin Martyr, and
Irenffius. ^^" His theory is, that all those works,
though bearing; the names of different authors,
proceeded from one and the same shop esta-
blished at Rome ; and were the produce of the
joint labours of a set of men, who entered
into a combination to falsify history and cor-
rupt the Scriptures, principally with the view
of throwing discredit upon certain persons,
INIarcion, Valentinus, &c. whom they thought
fit to brand with the title of Heretics. This,
it must be allowed, is a theory which, for
novelty and singularity, will bear a comparison
with the boldest speculations of the German
critics. Let us, therefore, enquire upon what
foundations it rests ; first observing that we
neither profess, nor deem it incumbent upon
us, to give a full and complete solution of
all the doubts and difficulties which an inge-
^^^ Hala? Magdeburgicae, 1770.
^^^ Ex una atque eadem officina quidam libri videntur pro-
diisse quos studiosissime solebant variis et diversis Scriptoribus
dividere. Antiquissima fuit heec Societas et impensa sive ab
uno sive a duobus diligentia, quae cum Romand ilia, tarn
Graeca quam Latina, Societate nova videtur sic cohserere ut
communi consilio operam dederint. Sect. 10. See also the
concluding Section.
72
nious mind may frame, in order to disprove
the genuineness of works written sixteen cen-
turies ago. Were this requisite, vain would
be the attempt to establish the genuineness of
any work of great antiquity ; for by the mere
lapse of time many facts and circumstances
are consigned to oblivion, the knowledge of
which can alone enable us to dispel all ob-
scurity and to reconcile all seeming contradic-
tions. In these cases we must not expect
demonstration, but be content to weigh pro-
babilities and ascertain on which side the
evidence preponderates.
To proceed then to Semler's proofs, or
rather surmises ; for the latter appears the
more appropriate term. He ^^^ first complains,
that the allusions contained in these books to
the life and history of their author are very
scanty and obscure, and afford no useful in-
formation. '^' He even insinuates, that the
works themselves, like the writings of the
Sophists, were mere exercises of wit ; and that
'^^ Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse, quae
horum Librorum 7\uctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat.
Sect. 1.
'^* Solet enirn hie Scriptor Dedamatorinn imitari exem-
plum qui ipsi conjinguut argumenti, quod sibi desumpserunt,
tempus, et omnes illas rerum Appendices quibus tempera
Solent commode et stiidiose distingui. Sect. 1.
73
the historical facts and marks of time were
introduced by the author in order to give
his fiction an appearance of reality. But this
insinuation is utterly unsupported by proof.
The author, whoever he may be, certainly
meant his readers to suppose that he lived in
the time of Severus; and his statements in
many points accord, in none are at variance
with the accounts handed down to us by the
historians of that Emperor's reign. The man-
ners and customs which he describes, the trans-
actions to which he alludes, correspond with
the information which we derive from other
sources. Still his works may be wholly of
a fictitious character ; he may have invented
the circumstances which are supposed to have
occasioned them — the calumnies, against which
he defends the Christians — the persecutions,
which he exhorts them to bear with con-
stancy— the heretical opinions, which he under-
takes to confute ; and he may have occasion-
ally interspersed historical facts in order to
give his inventions an air of probability. All
this we may allow to be possible. But what
are we to think of the Montanism of our
author? was that also fictitious? A¥hat could
induce a member of Semler's New Roman
Society, who comes forward at one time as
the Apologist for Christianity and the vehe-
74
ment champion of Orthodoxy, to assume at
another the character of a Separatist from the
Church? This fact appears to be wholly irre-
concileable with Semler's theory. It should
also be observed, that the few notices of Ter-
tuUian's personal history which occur in his
works are not introduced with any parade or
in order to answer a particular purpose, but
in that incidental manner which has usually
been deemed most strongly indicative of truth.
Semler next proceeds to consider Jerome's
account of Tertullian, on which he remarks
that, ^^^ had Jerome been able to discover more
particulars of our author's life, he would cer-
tainly have inserted them. This is by no
means clear; for the extreme conciseness with
which he has drawn up his notices of Eccle-
siastical writers proves, that he made no
laborious researches into the history of their
lives, but contented himself with such infor-
mation as happened to fall in his way.
^^^ Semler further conjectures, that even the
particulars in Jerome's brief account were not
^^ Haec Hieronymus ; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque
discere potuisset ad historiam Tertulliani facientia, haud dubie
hie omnino perscripsisset. Sect. 2.
'■''^ Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjee-
turis reperisse ex variis horum scriptorum locis. Sect. 2.
75
derived from independent sources, but col-
lected from Tertullian's works. This may be
partly true ; he might have inferred from dif-
ferent passages that Tertullian was born in
Africa, resided at Carthage, and flourished
during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla.
But, not to mention the story respecting Cy-
prian's admiration of Tertullian, for which he
gives his authority, whence did he learn that
Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church
until he reached the middle age of life, and
was extremely old when he died ? It may be
doubted whether the generality of readers,
unless they had previously learned the fact
from some other source, would infer, from the
perusal of the works now extant, that Ter-
tulhan had ever been admitted to the order
of priesthood.
Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's
account, which begins thus : Tertullianus pres-
byter nunc demum primus post Victorem et
ApoUonium Latinorum ponitur. The obvious
meaning of these words is, that Jerome had
at length, after enumerating so many Greek
authors, arrived at the place which Tertullian's
name was to occupy ; he being the first Latin
Ecclesiastical writer after Victor and Apollo-
nius, of whom Jerome had before spoken.
76
^^^Semler thinks that the more accurate state-
ment would have been, that TertuUian was
the first presbyter who used the Latin lan-
guage, and that this was in fact Jerome's
meaning; an assertion in which few of his
readers will, I conceive, be disposed to acqui-
esce. But how, asks Semler, can TertuUian
be called the first presbyter who used the
Latin language, when he himself says that he
composed several treatises in Greek? I must
confess myself at a loss to discover the slight-
est inconsistency between the two statements.
If an author composes three treatises in Greek,
and two or three and twenty in Latin, may
he not with propriety be classed among Latin
writers ? It is probable that Jerome had never
met with Tertullian's Greek compositions ; it
is nearly certain that Eusebius had not.
" But, continues Semler, in the beginning of
the Treatise de Testimonio Anim^e, the author
aUudes to certain Christian writers, who had
employed profane literature, and appealed to
'^7 Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et narrasset
accuratius, TertuUianus Latinorum presbyter primus est ;
nempe id vult Hieronymus eorum hominum, qui Romas
Latino, lingua viti solebant, TertuUianus fuit primus presbyter.
At hie idem TertuUianus Grcecarum imdtarum Svriptionum
se auctorem dixit ; quomodo igitur Latinorum dicitur primus
esse Romanus presbyter? Sect. 10.
7T
the works of the Gentile poets and philoso-
phers in defence of Christianity. ^^^ This, he
contends, is a mere fiction of the author's brain.
In vain, he says, shall we seek in the history
of the Church for a confirmation of this state-
ment ; in vain try to discover any traces of
those learned works by which the early apo-
logists for Christianity asserted its cause. Had
such wTitings ever existed, they could not have
been unknown to Eusebius and Jerome ; who
are, however, entirely silent on the subject."
These are bold affirmations. Let us enquire
how far they are supported by proof. The
Ecclesiastical writers whom TertuUian men-
tions by name, are ^^^ Justin Martyr, Tatian,
Miltiades, and Irengeus. All of these wrote
Treatises in defence of Christianity against
Paganism. The works of Justin and Tatian
1^^ Coiificlinn est hoc argumentum universum declama-
torum more ; nisi putamus hujus generis scriptores, tarn an-
tiquoSj tam frugiferos^ adeo oblivioni statim addictos fuisse,
neglectosque et deperditos omnino; ut ne Eusebius quidem
vestigium vel notam talium scriptorum reperire potuerit, qui
in isto opere de Preparatione Evangelicci id omnino egit, quod
hie TertuUianus dicit siio jam tempore quosdam instituisse.
Eusebius vero nihil quicquam ejus rei didicit, nee Hiero-
nymus aliquid reperire potuit. Audemus, igitur, statuere
scriptorem talia nltro confiyixisse, ex suo ingenio rem illam
arbitratum. Sect. 10.
159 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. He also mentions
Clemens Romanus, and Hermas, but they do not appear to
have written in defence of Christianity.
78
are still extant, and prove their authors to have
been, as Lardner expresses himself respect-
ing the latter, ^^° " men of reading and well
acquainted with the Greek learning." We are
also in possession of the Apology of Athe-
nagoras, and the work of Theophilus against
Autolycus ; both of which were prior in time
to the Apology of Tertullian, and contain,
especially the former, frequent references to
profane literature, as well as arguments drawn
from the heathen philosophy, in defence of
Christianity. But the most extraordinary part
of Semler's statement is that which respects
Jerome ; among whose works is ^^^ an Epistle,
entitled ad Magnum Oratorem, and written
expressly to defend his own practice of mix-
ing together profane and sacred literature in
his writings. In this Epistle he appeals to
the authority of preceding Ecclesiastical writers
who had pursued the same plan ; mentioning
by name Quadratus and Aristides, who pre-
sented their Apologies to the Emperor Adrian,
and describing the work of the latter as almost
entirely ^*^- composed of opinions taken from
the philosophers. He adds, that Apollinarius,
Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian, Bardesanes, and
"'" Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 13.
'«! Ep. 84.
"•^ Contextum Philosophorum sententiis.
79
Iren£eiis, had carefully pointed out the different
philosophical sects to which the origin of each
heretical opinion then prevalent might be
traced. He states, that Cyprian had even been
censured, because in his work against Deme-
trianus he had confined himself entirely to
scriptural testimonies, the authority of which
Demetrianus did not acknowledge ; and had not
appealed to the Poets and Philosophers, whose
authority a Heathen could not have disputed.
The apologists for Christianity were well aware
that no writings, which did not bespeak an
acquaintance with the learning and philosophy
of the age, would gain a moment's attention
from a heathen philosopher; and they accord-
ingly adapted their mode of reasoning to the
temper and prejudices of the persons with
whom they had to deal. The remarks with
which Tertullian prefaces his Tract de Testi-
monio Animte, are meant as an apology for
deviating from the established course ; and ap-
pealing, not to the speculations of the Philoso-
phers, but to the testimony borne by the soul
of man in favour of the doctrines of Christianity.
" But ^^^ even, continues Semler, if such
works as those to which Tertullian is supposed
^^ Pamelii sententiam vel illud evertit ; Tertullianus Romae^
Carthagine, tot scriptorum libellos, qui inter Graecos satis
remoti ab istis urbibus vivebant, nancisci non potuit. Sect. 10,
80
to allude, had really existed, since they were
written in Greek and at places remote from
Rome and Carthage, he could not possibly
have procured them." Why not? Was the
communication between the different parts
of the Roman Empire so difficult, that years
must elapse before a work published in
Greece could be known at Rome or Car-
thage? Let us hear the opinion of Gibbon.
Speaking of the public roads, as they existed
in the time of the Antonines, he says ^*^Hhat
" they united the subjects of the most dis-
tant provinces by an easy and familiar inter-
course." With respect to the Christians in
particular, he "^ states that, by the institution
of provincial Synods, which took place to-
wards the end of the second century, a regu-
lar correspondence was in the space of a few
years established between the most remote
Churches. We find accordingly the Churches
of Vienne and Lyons well acquainted with
the state of the Asiatic Churches; and Ire-
n£eus, the Bishop of Lyons, acting the part of
a mediator between the latter and the Roman
Pontiff, in the dispute which arose respecting
the celebration of Easter.
The mention of Irenaus leads me to con-
'^* Chapter I. p. 51. Ed. 4to.
'«* Chapter XV. p. 4-91 .
81
sider another of Semler's objections. ^^^ " Who,
he asks, can read the works of Irenseus which
are now extant, without being convinced that
the author was alike deficient in talent and
information ? Yet Tertullian has designated him
as a minute enquirer into all kinds of learning
(or doctrine). Does not this grossly inapplicable
eulogium clearly bespeak the sophist and de-
claimer ?" To this objection we reply, that we
are scarcely competent to form an opinion re-
specting the talent of Ireneeus from a work which,
with the exception of part of the first Book
and some scattered fragments, is extant, not
in the original, but in a barbarous Latin trans-
lation. From the portions of the original which
still remain, we should infer that he possessed
one of the most useful qualifications of an
author — that of being able to write perspi-
cuously upon a very obscure and unpromising
subject. What ground, moreover, is there for
supposing that Tertullian, in pronouncing this
eulogium upon Irenaeus, referred only to the
^^^ Quis autem sine taedio et stomacho legat istam decla-
mationem^ " Irenaeus, omnmm doctrinarum ciiriosissimus ex-
plorator?}" Nos certe statuimus, hoc encomium monstro
non cavere. Ea, quae nobis supersunt, Irenaei profecto hominis
ingenium humile et parum excultum prae se ferunt ; ista vero
Tertulliani nostri scripta sic turgent rerum fere omnium
copia et varietate, ut in ipsum hoc maxime conveniat hunc
scriptorem id diligenter egisse, ut omnivm doctrinarum cvri-
osissimus explorator videretur. Sect. x.
F
single work, now extant, against the Gnostics ?
Eusebius^*^^ gives a list of other works written
by him ; and uniformly speaks of him as a
person to whose authority great weight was
attached, in all Ecclesiastical concerns.
But ^^^ TertuUian, it seems, was not content
with praising ; he also borrowed from Irenasus,
and that too without acknowledgement. His
Treatise against the Valentinians is not merely
an imitation ; it is in many places a translation
of the first book of that author's work ; yet he
gives not the slightest intimation of the source
from which he has drawn so largely. How
are we to account for this extraordinary fact?
Only, as Semler would persuade us, by adopting
167 Hist Eccl. L. V. c. 26.
1''^ Jam novae rei alius superest observatio, quae non parum
facit ad illustrandam hujus suspicionis rationem. Ista enim
Irenaei, quae sunt nostris in manibus^ scripta, si comparantur
cum his TertuUiani nostril mirifice conveniunt. Scimus autem
Tertullianum istum esse illorum primum qui Irenaei nomen
recitant inter scriptores ; nempe omniwn doctrinarum curi~
osissirmim exploratorem dicebat Irenasum noster TertuUianus.
Si vero ille Irenaeus Lugduni scripsit istos libros adversus
haereses, quomodo TertuUianus isto jam tempore hoc (1. hos)
Hbros oculis et manibus usurpavit suis? Quo autem jure
sic fecit TertuUianus, ut ex Graeco illo textu Irenaei sub-
legei'et sua et Latine repeteret, quae ille creditur scripsisse
Graece? Atque sic quidem, ut ne nominaverit quidem
Irenaeum, quern tamen Latine exscribebat ? Viderint Lectores
quid statuendum putent de ista causa : nobis certe non vide-
tur monstro carere. Sect. xii.
83
his theory, that there existed a chib of authors
who *sent forth their own productions into the
world under borrowed names ; and appeared
at one time as the Greek Irenseus, at another
as the Latin TertuUian.' But if this were so,
whence arises the great inequaUty which Semler
himself has discovered between them ? How
comes it that, while the works of TertuUian
exhibit ^^^ such an extent and variety of know-
ledge; those of Irenseus, according to Semler,
betray a miserable poverty of intellect and
learning ?
The close resemblance between TertulUan
and Iren^us in the case alluded to, may, in our
opinion, be satisfactorily accounted for. The
design of the first book of Irenseus, and of Ter-
tullian's Treatise is precisely the same — to ex-
plain the doctrine of the Valentinians respecting
the generation of i^ons : and thus, the com-
mon subject of the two writers would natu-
rally lead them to pursue the same order, and
almost to use the same language. JNIost strange,
indeed, is Semler's assertion, that TertuUian
has not even named ^'" Irenseus ; whom he has
^^^ See the quotation from Section x. in note l66.
^70 Nee undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias
quas tot jam viri sanctitate et proestantia insignes, nee solum
nostri Antecessores sed ipsorum Haeresiarcharum contemporales,
instructissimis volmninibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt : ut
J" 2 Justinus
84
named, even in the very passage which Semler
quotes, in conjunction with Justin, Miltiades,
and Proculus. He there states that all these
writers had refuted the Valentinians ; and de-
clares that it is his earnest wish to imitate
them, not only in this work of faith (the refu-
tation of heresy) but in all others. He has,
therefore, told his reader, as plainly as he
could, that in this Treatise he is only an imi-
tator: and his occasional deviations from the
statement of Iren^eus convince me that he did
not borrow from him alone, but also from
the other writers whom he has mentioned.
Semler, however, has other objections in
reserve, founded on this very passage from the
Tract against the Valentinians. ^^^ "How hap-
Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum
Sophista, ut Irenseus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus ex-
plorator, ut Proculus noster virginis senectae et Christiana?
eloquentiae dignitas : quos in omni opere fidei, quemadmodum
in isto, optaverim assequi. Avit si in totum haereses non
sunt, ut qui eas pellunt finxisse credantur, mentietur apos-
tolus prapdicator illarum. Porro si sunt, non aliae erunt quam
quae retractantur. Nemo tam otiosus fertur stylo, ut mate-
rias habens fingat. Adv. Valentin, c. 5.
I'l Section iv. note 27. Miltiades vero? Ecquid tandem
illud est, Ecclesiarum Sophista? quid tandem est? Puta-
musne TertuUianum legisse aliquid hujus Miltiadis ? Miltiadis
aliquas scriptiones Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. v. c. I7.) ex
Rhodone nominat contra Montanum, Priscillam et MaximUlam :
contra gentes et Judaeos ; sed contra Gnosticos aut Haereticos
nihil. Cur ergo hie excitatur, quasi scripserit adversus Valen-
tinianos ?
85
pens it, that Tertullian alludes to and speaks
respectfully of JNIiltiades, who, as we learn from
Eusebius, composed a work expressly against
the Prophecy of Montanus ? " This question will
perhaps be best answered by another. Would
not a forger of writings in TertuUian's name
carefully have avoided such an appearance of
inconsistency? The fact appears to be per-
fectly reconcileable with the history and cha-
racter of Tertullian, as far as they can be
collected from his writings ; since, ^'^ at the
very time when he was defending Montanus
against the Church, he constantly professed his
agreement with the Church in all fundamental
articles of faith. It is wholly irreconcileable
with Semler's theory.
" But ^^^ what are we to think of the extra-
tinianos ? Though Eusebius may not have mentioned or seen
any work of Miltiades against the Gnostics, such a work
may have been known to Tertullian. So this note stood in
the first edition. I have since met with a passage in which
Eusebius, on the authority of an anonymous author, speaks of
Miltiades as having written against the Heretics, kui aheXcpwv
ite Tivwv e'cTTi jpafx/jiuTa Trpeaj^vTepa Ttov L^ktojOO? ypovuiv, a
€K6?t/oi TTfloV Ta kdvr] VTrep t>;? a\t]deia^ Kiit ttoo? Ta? tote ntpe<Tei<;
ejpaxlyav' \ejia 3e Iovctt'ivov, kul MiXTiaooi;, kui TaTiavov, Kat
3\\r]p€VTo<;, k-ai trepoov irXetovoap iv ok uTraat deoXoyeTTUi 6 Kpia-
t6<;. Eccl. Hist. L. V. c. 28.
^^^ De Jejuniis, c. 1.
^'^ Section iv. note 2?. Semler introduces the passage
quoted in note 170, by the following words : " Ipse hie scriptor
videtur (sicut dici solet) se prodere sicut sorex: nam hoc
ipso
86
ordinary reason assigned by Tertullian for in-
troducing the names of Miltiades and the rest ?
He supposes that he may be charged with
inventing the strange opinions which he im-
putes to the Valentinians ; and thinks it neces-
sary to guard himself against the charge, by
appeahng to the authority of Justin INIartyr, &c.
Have we not here a strong indication of the
mere sophist and declaimer, aware that he is
about to advance statements for which there
is no foundation in fact, and anxious to anti-
cipate the feehng of incredulity which their
improbability would naturally excite?" That
this construction should be put upon the pas-
sage by Semler is not surprising. His theory
required that he should so interpret it. But
in me it excites no surprise that an author,
who was about to detail opinions so extravagant
as those entertained by the Valentinians, should
apprehend that his readers might suspect him
of attempting to impose upon them the fictions
of his own brain as the religious tenets of
others. In the Tract de Baptismo, we find
ipso libro adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. sic scribit. He then
gives the passage at length, and subjoins, Totus hie locus
videtur aliquid monstri prodere. Si omnino Romae alibique
vivebant homines haeretici, eos igituv non solus Tertullianus
noverat : Christian! alii similiter hanc Htereticorum causam
sciebant. Itaque non intelligimiis qua ratione amoliatur hie
scriptor earn suspicionem, qua dici ipse possit sibi finxisse
materias.
87
TertuUiaii offering a similar apology for the
extravagance of ^^^an opinion which he under-
takes to refute, and affirming with great solem-
nity that he had himself heard it advanced.
Semler ^"'grounds another argument in sup-
port of his theory, on the fact, that a consider-
able portion of the third book against ^larcion,
is repeated almost word for word in the Trea-
tise against the Jews. But the difficulties
arising out of this fact are not greater on the
supposition that TertuUian was the real author
of both the works, than ' on the supposition
that they were composed by others in his
name. I know no reason why an author should
be precluded from repeating the same argu-
ments in the same words, when an occasion
presents itself on which they are equally ap-
plicable. Such was the case which we are
now considering. Both Marcion and the Jews
denied, though on different principles, that
Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old
^^•^ The opinion was proposed in the form of a dilemma.
The Apostles did not receive Christian baptism, inasmuch
as they were baptized with the baptism of John. Either,
therefore, the Apostles have not obtained salvation, or Christian
baptism is not of absolute necessity to salvation. After stating
the opinion, TertuUian adds, Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi,
ne quis me tam perditum existimet, ut ultro exagitem, libi-
dine styli, quae aliis scrupulum incutiant, c. 12.
^'^ Section ix.
Testament. Both, therefore, were to be re-
futed by shewing that the prophecies respect-
ing the Messiah were actually accomplished
in him ; and this is the object of the two pas-
sages in which we find so close a resemblance.
When Tertullian had the argument ready stated
and arranged to his hand, it would surely have
been an egregious waste of time to amuse him-
self in varying the language : especially as
the passages in question consist entirely of
expositions of Prophecies. He does, however,
make such alterations as the difference of the
circumstances under which he is writing appears
to require. It should be observed, that the
Treatise adversus Jud^os is expressly quoted
by ^^'^ Jerome, as the work of Tertullian.
It would be foreign from the immediate
object of this volume, to discuss the '"'reasons
assigned by Semler for asserting, that the works
now extant under the names of Justin and
Irenasus contain manifest plagiarisms from
Clemens Alexandrinus, and that they are con-
sequently spurious. He admits that they are
quoted as genuine by ^'^Eusebius; and this
circumstance alone will probably, in the opinion
''** In his Comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel.
^'^' Section xiv. xv. xvi.
^'8 Hist. Eccl. L. V. c. S. L. iv. c. 18.
89
of sober critics, outweigh a thousand conjec-
tures unsupported by positive evidence.
I have devoted so much time to the
examination of Semler's Dissertation, not on
account of ^'^its intrinsic value, which I am
far from estimating highly, but out of regard
to the distinguished place which has been
assigned him among Biblical critics. His object
evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin,
Ireneeus, and Tertullian : but he does not fairly
and openly avow it; he envelopes himself in
a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious language,
designed to insinuate more than it expresses.
The reader finds his former opinions unsettled,
yet is not told what he is to substitute in
their place; and is thus left in a disagreeable
state of doubt and perplexity.
Had Semler contented himself with saying,
that Tertullian, in his Tract against the Valen-
tinians, had done nothing more than copy the
statements of preceding writers, and conse-
quently could not be deemed an independent
witness to the tenets of those Heretics — had
he said, with respect to our author's writings
^^^ The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertation is,
in my opinion, that which relates to Tertullian's quotations
from Scripture, and to the Latin Version from which he
derived them ; to this I shall perhaps recur hereafter.
90
in general, that the natural vehemence of his
temper betrayed him into exaggeration, and
caused him to indulge in a declamatory tone,
which renders it often difficult to determine
to what extent his expressions are to be literally
understood, and his statements received as mat-
ters of fact — had Semler even gone further,
and contended that there was reasonable ground
for suspecting that ^^"Irenseus and Tertullian
had, either through ignorance or design, occa-
sionally misrepresented the opinions of the
Gnostics, and imputed to them absurdities
and extravagances of which they were never
guilty — had he confined his assertions within
these limits, they would probably have met
with the concurrence of all who are conversant
with the subject. But when he proceeds, upon
surmises such as we have been now consider-
ing and in opposition to the unanimous voice
of Ecclesiastical antiquity, to denounce the writ-
ings of Irenseus and Tertullian as the offspring
of fraud and imposture — as the productions of
men who had combined together for the pur-
pose of palming forgeries on the world — he over-
leaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism,
and opens a door to universal incredulity.
180 -^Yg should always bear in mind, that far the greater
portion of the work of Irenajus is extant only in a barbarous
Latin translation, which lies under lieavy suspicions of inter-
polation.
i
CHAP. II.
ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.
XlAViNG in the preceding chapter laid
before the reader an account of the Life and
Writings of Tertullian, we shall now proceed,
in conformity with the arrangement adopted by
Mosheim, to collect from his works such pas-
sages as serve to illustrate the external history
of the Church during the period in which he
flourished. ^In the first place then, he bears
explicit testimony to the wide diffusion of
Christianity in his day. To refute the charges
of disloyalty and disaffection to the Emperors
which had been brought against the Christ-
ians, he thus appeals to the patience with
which they bore the injuries and cruelties in-
flicted on them, - " Not," he says, " that we are
^ Obsessam vociferantur civitatem : in agris^ in castellis^
in insulis Christianos : omnem sexum, aetatem^ conditionenij
etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrimento
mcerent. Apology, c. 1.
^ Quid tamen de tarn conspiratis unquam denotastis, &c. ?
Apology, c 37.
92
destitute of the means of resistance, if our
Christian principles allowed us to resort to
them. Though we date our existence only
from yesterday, we have filled every part of
your empire; we are to be found in your
cities, your islands, your camps, your palaces,
your forum So great are our numbers, that
we might successfully contend with you in
open warfare ; but were we only to withdraw
ourselves from you, and to remove by common
consent to some remote corner of the globe,
our mere secession would be sufficient to accom-
plish your destruction, and to avenge our cause.
You would be left without subjects to govern,
and would tremble at the solitude and silence
around you — at the awful stillness of a dead
world." In another place Tertullian tells "^ Sca-
pula, the Proconsul of Africa, that if the per-
secution against the Christians were persisted
in, the effect would be to decimate the inha-
bitants of Carthage. * He elsewhere speaks also
^ Ac Scapulam, c. 5. In c. 2. speaking of the Christians,
he says, quum tanta hominum multitudo, pars pene major
civitatis cujusque, in silentio et modestia agimus.
* Tanta quotidie airario augendo prospiciuntur remedia
censuum, vectigalium, collationum, stipendiorum : nee unqiiam
usque adhuc ex Christianis tale aliquid prospectum est, sub
aliquam redemptionem capitis et sectae redigendis, quum tantae
multitudinis neniini ignota; t'ructus ingens meti possit. De
Fuga in Persecutione, c. 12.
93
of the immense revenue which might be col-
lected, if each Christian was allowed to pur-
chase the free exercise of his religion for a sum
of money.
After we have made all reasonable allow-
ance for any exaggeration into which TertuUian
may have been betrayed, either by the natural
vehemence of his temper, or by his anxiety
to enhance in the eyes of the Roman governors
the importance of the cause which he is plead-
ing, the above cited passages will justify the
belief that the Christians in his day composed
a numerous and respectable portion of the
subjects of Rome. Nor were the triumphs of
the Gospel confined within the limits of the
Roman Empire. ^" Christ is preached among
the barbarians" — is the incidental, and therefore
less suspicious expression of TertuUian. ^'' We
witness," he says, while arguing against the
Jews, " the accomplishment of the words of the
Psalmist, (as applied by St: Paul), ' their , '^"^f
sound is gone out into all the earth, and their | y^-
words unto the ends of the world.' For not
only the various countries from which wor-
^ Et apud barbaros enira Christus. De Corona, c. 12.
^ Adversus Judaeos, c. 7- Quern exaudierunt omnes gentes,
id est, cui omnes gentes crediderunt, cujus et praedicatores
Apostoli in Psalmis David ostenduntur, &c.
94
shippers were collected at Jerusalem on the
day of Pentecost, but the most distant regions
have received the faith of Christ. He reigns
among people whom the Roman arms have
never yet subdued : among the different tribes
of Getulia and Mauritania, — in the furthest
extremities of Spain, and Gaul, and Britain, —
among the Samaritans, Dacians, Germans, and
Scythians, — in countries and islands scarcely
known to us by name." The language is de-
clamatory ; yet such a representation would not
have been hazarded, unless it had been realized
to a considerable extent, in the actual state of
Christianity.
In speaking of the numerous converts
continually added to the Church, and of
the extension of its limits, TertuUian con-
tents himself for the most part with simply
stating the fact. Convinced of the divine origin
of the Gospel, he ascribed the triumphs of the
cross to the power of God bringing to pass in
the fulness of time the events which had been
foretold by the Prophets ; without deeming it
necessary to go in quest of secondary causes of
the rapid progress of Christianity. But though
he has not expressly directed his attention to
the developement of the means, which the
Almighty was pleased to employ in the es-
95
tablishment of the empire of the Gospel, we
may collect from his writings much interesting
information on the subject.
The success which attended the preaching
of the Apostles, and their immediate successors,
is doubtless to be principally ascribed to the
supernatural powers, by the exercise of which
they proved their divine commission. But the
writings of Tertullian furnish little reason for
supposing, that the preachers of the Gospel in
his day were indebted for their success to the
display of similar powers. He asserts indeed
that Christians possessed^ the power of expel-
ling Daemons, of curing diseases, of Miealing
the wounds occasioned by the bites of serpents :
but he casts a doubt upon the accuracy of his
own statement by ascribing to Christians in
general those extraordinary gifts which, even
7 Edatur hie aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quem dae-
mone agi constat. Jussus a quoUhet Christiano loqui, Spiritus
ille tarn se daemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi Deum
de falso. Apology, c. 23. See also cc. 37, 43. Quod calcaS
Deos nationum, quod daemonia expellis, quod medicinas facis,
de Spectaculis, c. 29- de Testimonio Animae, c. 3. ad Sca-
pulam, c. 2. de Coi'ona, c. 11. de Idololatria, c. 11.
^ Nobis fides praesidium, si non et ipsa percutitur difE-
dentia signandi statim et adjurandi et unguendi bestiae
calcem. Hoc denique modo etiam Ethnicis saepe subvenimus,
donati a Deo ea potestate quam Apostolus dedicavit, quum
morsum viperae sprevit. Scorpiace, c. 1.
96
in the days of the Apostles appear to have
been confined to Them, and ^to the Disciples
upon whom they laid their hands.
The miraculous powers conferred upon the
Apostles were the credentials, by which they
were to prove that they were the bearers of
a new Revelation from God to man ; and thus
to mark the commencement of a new sera in
the order of the divine dispensations. ^"We
might, therefore, infer from the purpose for
which they were conferred, that they would in
^ It is not intended by this remark to convey the idea
that all upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were
endowed with miraculous powers ; but that the imposition
of hands was the mode in which the Apostles communicated
those powers to others. See Acts vi. 6. (compared with vi. 8.
and viii. 6.) viii. 17, 18. xix. 6.
^" A view somewhat similar seems to have been taken by
Pascal in the following extract from his Pensees, which has
been pointed out to me by a learned friend. Jesus Christ
a fait des miracles, et les Apotres en-suite, et les premiers
Saints en on fait avissi beaucoup : parce que les Propheties
n'etant pas encore accomplies et s'accomplissant par eux,
rien ne rendoit temoignage que les Miracles. II etoit predit
que le Messie convertiroit les nations. Comment cette pro-
^hetie se fut-elle accomplie sans la conversion des nations.''
et comment les nations se fussent-elles converties au Messie,
he voyant pas ce dernier efFet des Propheties qui le prouvent ?
Avant done qu'il fut mort, qu'il fut resuscite, et que
les nations fussent converties, tout n'etoit pas accompli.
Et ainsi il a fallu des miracles pendant tout ce tems-la.
Maintenant il n'en faut plus pour prouver la verite de la
Religion Chretienne : car les Propheties accomplies sont un
miracle subsistant. Diverses preifves de Jesus Christ, c. l6.
97
process of time be withdrawn. That they have
been witlidrawn is a fact which few Protestants
will controvert, though great difference of opi-
nion prevails respecting the precise period to
which we must refer this important alteration
in the circumstances of the Church. Gibbon
has endeavoured to convert what he terms the
insensibility of the Christians to the cessation
of miraculous gifts, into an argument against
their existence at any period. " So " extra-
ordinary an event must," he argues, " have ex-
cited universal attention ; and caused the time
at which it happened to be precisely ascertained
and noted. But in vain do we consult Eccle-
siastical History, in the hope of assigning a
limit to the period during which supernatural
powers subsisted in the Chur^ \ : we find pre-
tensions to them advanced in every age, and
supported by testimony no less weighty and
respectable than that of the age which preceded
it." The inference, which he manifestly intends
his reader to draw, is that, as pretensions to
miraculous gifts had been asserted in all ages,
and continued to be asserted even at the time
when he wrote and every reasonable man was
convinced of their cessation, those pretensions
were in all ages equally unfounded.
" Chap. XV. p. 477. Ed. 4to. We have given only the
purport of Gibbon's observations.
G
98
The argument is plausible, and is urged with
the author's wonted ingenuity and address. Yet
the supposition, that miraculous powers were
gradually withdrawn from the Church, appears
in a great measure to account for the uncer-
tainty which has prevailed respecting the period
of their cessation. To adopt the language of
undoubting confidence on such a subject, w^ould
be a mark no less of folly, than presumption ;
but I may be allowed to state the conclusion
to which I have myself been led, by a com-
parison of the statements in the book of Acts,
with the writings of the Fathers of the second
century. My conclusion then is, that the power
of working miracles was not extended beyond
the disciples, upon whom the Apostles con-
ferred it by the imposition of their hands.
As the number of those disciples gradually
diminished, the instances of the exercise of
miraculous powers became continually less fre-
quent ; and ceased entirely at the death of
the last individual on whom the hands of the
Apostles had been laid. That event would,
in the natural course of things, take place
before the middle of the second century : at
a time when, Christianity having obtained a
footing in all the provinces of the Roman
Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon
its first teachers had performed their appropriate
I
99
office — that of proving to the world that a
New Revelation had been given from heaven.
What then would be the effect produced upon
the minds of the great body of Christians by
their gradual cessation ? INIany would not ob-
serve, none would be willing to observe it ;
for all must naturally feel a reluctance to
believe that powers, which had contributed so
essentially to the rapid diffusion of Christianity,
were withdrawn. They who remarked the ces-
sation of miracles, would probably succeed in
persuading themselves that it was only tem-
porary, and designed by an all-wise Providence
to be the prelude to a more abundant effusion
of supernatural gifts upon the Church. Or if
doubts and misgivings crossed their minds, they
would still be unwilling openly to state a fact,
which might shake the stedfastness of the
friends, and would certainly be urged by the
enemies of the Gospel, as an argument against
its Divine Origin. They would pursue the
plan which has been pursued by Justin ^lartyr,
Theophilus, Irenaus, &c. ; they would have
recourse to general assertions of the existence
of supernatural powers, without attempting to
produce a specific instance of their exercise.
The silence of Ecclesiastical history, respecting
the cessation of miraculous gifts in the Church,
is to be ascribed, not to the insensibility of
g2
100
Christians to that important event, but to the
combined operation of prejudice and policy —
of prejudice which made them reluctant to
believe, of policy which made them anxious
to conceal the truth.
Let me repeat, that I offer these observations
with that diffidence in my own conclusions,
which ought to be the predominant feeling in
the mind of every enquirer into the ways of
Providence. I coUect from passages already
cited from the book of Acts, that the power
of working miracles was conferred by the hands
of the Apostles only ; and consequently ceased
Jlk VW' with the last disciple on whom their hands
were laid. ^^I perceive in the language of the
^^ In confirmation of this remark, I refer the reader to
the following passages of Tertullian's works. In the Tract
de Pudicitia, he is contending that the Church possesses
not the power of pardoning certain offences; but foreseeing
that the example of the Apostles, who had pardoned those
offences, might be objected to him, he thus anticipates the
objection. " Itaque si et ipsos beatos Apostolos tale aliquid
indulsisse constaret, cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine, com-
peteret, non ex disciplina, sed ex potestate fecisse." The
meaning is, that the Apostles pardoned those offences, not
in the ordinary course of Church-Discipline, but by a peculiar
power vested in themselves. " Nam et mortuos suscitave-
runt, quod Deus solus: et debiles redintegraverunt, quod
nemo nisi Christus : immo et plagas inflixerunt, quod noluit
Christus ; non enim decebat eum saevire qui pati venerat.
Percussus est Ananias et Elymas, Ananias morte, Elymas caeci-
tate, ut hoc ipso probaretur Christum et haec facere potuisse.
Sic
101
Fathers, who lived in the middle and end of
the second century, when speaking on this sub-
ject, something which betrays, if not a con-
viction, at least a suspicion, that the power
of working miracles was withdrawn, combined
with an anxiety to keep up a belief of its con-
tinuance in the Church. They affirm in general
terms, that miracles were performed, but rarely
Sic et prophetae caedem et cum ea moechiam poenitentibus
ignoverant, quia et severitatis documenta fecerunt. Exhibe
igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica (f. legendum Apo-
stolica et Prophetica) exempla, et (f. ut) agnoscam divinitatem,
et vindica tibi delictorum ejusmodi remittendorum potestatem.
Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus es, nee imperio prae-
sidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere ? qui
neque Prophetam^ nee Apostolum exhibens, cares ea virtute
cujus est indulgere, c 21. It is evident that the whole argu-
ment proceeds on the supposition, that the miraculous powers,
which had been exerted by the Prophets and Apostles, no
longer subsisted ; since, if they did subsist, the individual
possessing them might exercise the Apostolic or Prophetic
privilege of pardoning the offences in question. Again in
c. 22. Sic enim Dominus potestatem suam ostendit : " quid
cogitatis nequam in cordibus vestris ? Quid enim facilius est
dicere Paralytico, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, aut surge et
anibula? Igitur ut sciatis filium hominis habere dimitten-
dorum peccatorum in terra potestatem, tibi dico, Paralytice,
surge et ambula" (Matt, ix.) Si Dominus tantum depotestatis
suae probatione curavit, ut traduceret cogitatus et ita impe-
raret sanitatem, ne non crederetur posse delicta dimittere;
non licet mihi eandem potestatem in aliquo sine iisdem pro-
bationibus credere. In the Tract de Praescriptione Haereti-
corum, where Tertullian calls upon the Heretics to declare
what miracles had been wrought by the founders of their
several sects, it is worthy of remark that he does not appeal
to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in
his own day, c. 30. See also c. 44.
102
venture to produce an instance of a particular
miracle. Those who followed them were less
scrupulous, and proceeded to invent miracles;
very different indeed in circumstances and cha-
racter from the miracles of the Gospel, yet
readily believed by men who were not dis-
posed nicely to examine into the evidence of
facts which they wished to be true. The suc-
cess of the first attempts naturally encouraged
others to practise similar impositions upon the
credulity of mankind. In every succeeding age
miracles multiplied in number, and increased
in extravagance; till at length, ^^by their fre-
quency, they lost all title to the name, since
they could no longer be considered as deviations
from the ordinary course of nature.
But to return to Tertullian. The only spe-
cific instances which he mentions, of the exercise
of supernatural powers, relate to the exorcism
of daemons. He is contending in ^Hhe Apo-
logy, that the gods of the heathen are no other
than daemons; of which assertion he offers the
following proof. "■ Bring," he says, "before your
tribunals a man possessed with a dsemon: the
evil spirit, if commanded by a Christian, will
speak and confess himself a deemon. In like
" Gibbon, c. xxviii. p. 99. Ed. 4to.
^* c. U3. quoted in note 7.
103
manner produce a person supposed to be in-
spired by one of your deities : he too will not
dare to give a false reply to a Christian, but
will confess that his inspiration proceeds from
a daemon." In the "Tract de Spectaculis, we
find a story of a female who went to the
theatre, and returned possessed by a dcemon.
The unclean spirit, when asked by the exor-
cist how he dared to assault a Christian, replied
"I was justified in so doing, for I found her
on my own ground ^^" Surely if miraculous
powers still subsisted in the Church, the writ-
ings of Tertullian would have supplied some
less equivocal instances of their exercise.
Gibbon ^''has animadverted on the evasions
of JNIiddleton respecting the clear traces of
visions, to be found in the Apostolic Fathers.
^^ Nam et exemplum accidit. Domino teste, ejus raulieris
quae theatrum adiit et inde cum da^monio rediit. Itaque in
exorcismo quum oneraretur immundus Spiritus quod ausus
esset fidelem adgredi. " Constanter et justissime quidem,
inquit, feci : in meo earn inveni," c. 26".
^^ See also the Tract ad Scapulam, c; 4. Nam et cujus-
dam notarius, quum a daemone praecipitaretur, liberatus est;
et quorundam propinquus et puerulus. Et quanti honesti
viri, de vulgaribus enim non dicimus, aut a daemoniis aut
valetudinibus remediati sunt ! In the Tract de Exhortatione
Castitatis, c. 12. sub fine, is a story of a man who married
a second wife under the idea that she was barren; but she
proved pregnant ; preternaturally, as our author would in-
sinuate. See also two stories in the Tract de Anima, c 51.
^^ Chap. XV. note 71.
104
Yet it appears to me that JNIiddleton might
have admitted their existence, without any
detriment to the main position of his Essay.
His object was to prove, that, after the Apo-
stolic age, no standing power of working mira-
cles existed in the Church — that there was no
regular succession of favoured individuals upon
whom God conferred supernatural powers; which
they could exercise for the benefit of the
Church of Christ, whenever their judgement,
guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit,
told them that it was expedient so to do.
This position is perfectly compatible with the
belief that God still revealed himself in dreams
to pious members of the Church, for their
especial comfort and instruction. The distinc-
tion between the two cases has been expressly
pointed out by Middleton himself. AVhen,
however, we examine the visions recorded in
Tertullian's writings, we shall feel great dif-
ficulty in believing that they were revelations
from heaven. ^'^He mentions a Christian female
to whom visions were frequently vouchsafed
in the time of divine service. They related for
the most part to points which had formed the
subject of previous discussion. On one occa-
sion, a question having arisen respecting the
soul, it was exhibited to her in a corporeal state.
'« De Anima, c. Q.
105
He ^^ tells another story of a female, who saw in
a dream a linen cloth, on which was inscribed,
with accompanying expressions of reprobation,
the name of an actor whom she had heard
that very day at the theatre : TertuUian adds,
that she did not survive the dream five days.
*"An unfortunate man, whose servants, on the
occasion of some public rejoicing, had, without
his knowledge, suspended garlands over his
doors, was for this involuntary offence, severely
chastised in a vision : '^ and a female, who had
somewhat too liberally displayed her person,
was thus addressed by an angel in a dream. Cer-
vices, quasi applauderet, verberans : " Elegantes,
inquit, cervices, et merito nudse." It should be
observed, that all these visions are introduced
in confirmation of some opinion for which Ter-
tuUian is at the time contending. His enthu-
siastic temper readily discovered in them indica-
tions of a Divine Origin : the unprejudiced reader
will probably come to a different conclusion.
But though miraculous gifts might have
ceased in the Church, the Almighty might
still interpose for its protection, and for the
advancement of its interests, by especial and
^^ De Spectaculis, c. 26.
20 De Idololatria, c. 15.
^' De Virginibus velahdis, c 17.
106
visible manifestations of his power. An instance
of such interposition is recorded in the writ-
ings of Tertullian, which is generally known
by the name of the Miracle of the Thundering
Legion. He asserts in "Hhe Apology, as well
as in '^the Address to Scapula, that Marcus
Antoninus became a protector of the Christians ;
because during his expedition into Germany,
he together with his army was preserved from
perishing with thirst, by a seasonable shower
of rain, procured by the prayers of his Christian
soldiers. In support of his assertion, he appeals
to a Letter of the Emperor, in which the
deliverance of the army was ascribed to this
cause ; he does not, however, affirm that he
had himself seen the letter. The story has
been repeated by subsequent writers; and has
received, as might be expected, considerable
additions in the transmission. "^ Not only were
the Roman soldiers preserved by the seasonable
22 At nos e contrario edimus protectorem^ si literae
M. Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris requirantur^ quibus illam
Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus
impetrato imbri discussam contestatur, c. 5.
2'' Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanica expeditione^
Christianorum militum orationibus ad Deinn factis, imbres
in siti ilia impetravit, c. 4.
2* Hist. Eccl. Eusebii, L. v. c. 5. Apollinarius, who
was prior to Tertullian, appears to have mentioned the storm
of thunder and lightning.
107
shower ; but the army of the enemy was de-
stroyed by a storm of thunder and lightning
wliich accompanied it.
That during the German war the Roman
army suffered severely from want of water,
and was relieved from a situation of great
peril by a seasonable shower of rain, is a fact
which does not rest on the single authority of
Tertullian. It is recorded by several profane
writers, and confirmed by the indisputable
testimony of the Antonine Column. Nor was
Tertullian singular in regarding the event as
preternatural : the heathen historians did the
same. But while Tertullian ascribes the deli-
verance of the Emperor to the prayers of his
Christian soldiers, "^Dion Cassius gives the
credit of it to certain magical rites performed
by an Egyptian, named Arnuphis ; and on the
Antonine column it is attributed to the im-
mediate interposition of Jupiter Pluvius. This
latter circumstance completely disproves Tertul-
lian's statement respecting the existence of a
letter, in which the Emperor ascribed his deli-
verance to the prayers of his Christian soldiers —
a statement indeed neither reconcileable with his
general character, nor with the harsh treatment
experienced by the Christians during his reign.
'-' See the Epitome of Dion by Xiphilinus. Marcus Anto-
ninusj p. 246. C Ed. H. Staph. 1568.
Referring the reader to ^^Lardner for a fuir
account of all that has been said by learned
men on the subject of this story, I shall con-
tent myself with remarking that, as told by
Tertullian, it contains nothing miraculous. The
Roman army was reduced to great extremity —
the Christian soldiers who were present put
up prayers to God for deliverance — and a sea-
sonable shower of rain relieved the army from
its perilous situation. Tertullian indeed wishes
his reader to infer that the shower was the con-
sequence of the prayers of the Christian soldiers ;
that, unless they had prayed, the shower would
not have fallen. But this is to assume an
acquaintance with the designs of Providence,
which man can obtain only by immediate Reve-
lation. The pious mind, persuaded that the
course of this world is ordered by the Divine
governance, naturally has recourse to prayer
in the hour of danger : and after the danger is
passed, it pours forth its gratitude to God for
having so ordered events as to admit of a com-
pliance with its petitions. But it presumes not
^t fj' to ascribe such efficacy to its prayers as would
imply that God had been induced by them to
alter the course of his government. To represent
events, which are in themselves of a character
strictly natural, a storm for instance, or an
^^ Heathen Testimonies, Marcus Antoninus, Sect. 3.
109
earthquake, as produced by an especial inter-
position of divine power, exerted in compliance
with the prayers of men, is to speak the lan-
guage, not of genuine piety, but of super-
stition. Yet such was the language of Tertul-
lian's day. We find in his writings numerous
instances of the same disposition to ascribe events
to the immediate interference of the Almighty.
^^The Christians in Africa had been deprived
of their burial grounds ; Tertullian represents
a total failure of the harvest, which occurred
shortly after, as a punishment inflicted upon
the Pagan inhabitants for this act of injus-
tice. ^^He accounts in a similar manner for
an extraordinary quantity of rain which had
fallen in the year preceding that in which his
Address to Scapula was written. He speaks
of flames which appeared to hang by night
over the walls of Carthage, and of an almost
total extinction of the sun's light at Utica,
and discovers in them infallible presages of the
impending wrath of Heaven. To the same
wrath he imputes the calamities which had
befallen those Roman governors who had been
^"^ Sicut et sub Hilariano praeside, quum de areis sepul-
turarum nostrarum adclamassent, "■ Arece non s'mt," Areae
ipsorum non fuerunt; messes enim suas non egerunt, c. 3.
Our author plays upon the double meaning of the word
Area which signifies a threshing-floor, as well as an enclo-
sure. Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
'^ Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
110
particularly active in their persecution of the
Christians.
I shall take this opportunity of offering
a few remarks upon another fact, not of a mi-
raculous nature, related by TertuUian. He says,
in ''the Apology, that the Emperor Tiberius,
having received from Palestine an account of
those supernatural events which proved the
Divinity of Christ, proposed to the Senate that
he should be received among the deities of
Rome — that the Senate rejected the proposal —
that Tiberius retained his opinion, and menaced
all who brought accusations against the Chris-
tians. ^° In a subsequent passage Tertullian states
■^^ Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in
seculum introivit, annuntiata sibi ex Syria Palestina, quae
illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad Sena-
tum cum prasrogativa sufFragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse pro-
baverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus peri-
culum accusatoribus Christianorum, c. 5. In this passage
Pearson would read " quia non in se probaverat/' for " quia
non ipse probaverat," and interpret the sentence thus : The
Senate rejected the proposal, because Tiberius had not approved
a similar proposal in his own case — had himself refused to
be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning,
even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes,
" Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab Imperatore consecra-
retur, nisi a Senatn probatus," shews that ipse refers to
Senatus : the Senate refused, because it had not itself approved
the proposal; and so the passage was translated in the
Greek Version used by Eusebius.
^ Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua con-
scientia Christianus, Ca>sari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit. Sed et
Ca?sares
Ill
that the account was sent to Tiberius by Pilate,
who was in his conscience a Christian ; and
adds an expression which implies that worldly
considerations alone prevented Tiberius from
believing in Christ. The story is repeated by
^^ Eusebius, who appeals to Tertullian as his
authority for it. ''- Lardner, after a detailed ex-
amination of the objections which have been
made to its truth, pronounces it deserving of
regard. ^^ Mosheim also seems to be of opinion
that it ought not to be entirely rejected. Gib-
bon treats it as a mere fable ; but some of his
arguments appear to ine far from convincing.
One is founded on a misrepresentation of Ter-
tullian's statement : ^* " We are required," says
Gibbon, " to believe that Tiberius protected the
Christians from the severity of the laws many
years before such laws were enacted, or before
the Church had assumed any distinct name or
existence." Now Tertullian says not a word
about any protection, from the severity of the
laws, afforded by Tiberius to the Christians ;
Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent
seculo necessarii;, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares^
c. 21.
3^ Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c. 2.
^ Heathen Testimonies, c. 2.
^ Ecclesiastical History, Cent. I. c. 4.
^ Chap. xvi. p. 556. Ed. 4to.
112
he merely says, that Tiberius threatened all
who accused them. This threat appears to me
to have referred to the inveterate hostility ma-
nifested by the Jews against Christ and his
Disciples ; which had come to the emperor's
knowledge through the account transmitted by
Pilate. Tertullian could not intend to say that
any laws against the Christians were in force
during the reign of Tiberius ; since he has de-
clared ^^more than once that Nero was the first
emperor who enacted any such laws. I must,
however, confess my own opinion to be that
the story is liable to just suspicion. It rests
entirely on the authority of Tertullian. How
happened it that so remarkable a fact, as a
public proposal from the Emperor to the Senate
to receive Christ among the Gods of Rome,
escaped the notice of every other writer?
Justin Martyr, who ^'^on two different occasions
appeals to what he calls the Acts of Pilate, in
confirmation of the Gospel -narrative of our
Saviour's sufferings and miracles, is silent re-
specting the proposal of Tiberius to the Senate.
1
But to proceed with the information sup-
plied by TertuUian's works respecting the
^ Apology, cc. 5. 21. ad Nat. L. i. c. ?• Scorpiace, c. 15.
^ Apol. I. pp.76. C. 84. C. The Acts of Pilate here referred
to were the daily transactions of his government, registered in
a book, a copy of which was probably sent to Rome.
113
causes which contributed to the rapid growth
of Christianity, during the latter part of the
second century. We have seen that they fur-
nish no ground for ascribing the success of its
teachers at that period to the exercise of
miraculous powers. They enable us, however,
to ascertain, that by the pious zeal and dili-
gence of its professors, powerful engines had
been set at work to promote the diffusion of
the Gospel. Of these, '^Mosheim has noticed
two : the translation of the New Testament into
different languages, and the composition of nu-
merous Apologies for the Christian Faith. The
writings of Tertullian, which contain quotations
from nearly all the Books of the New Testa-
ment, ^^ render it highly probable that a Latin
translation existed in his day. By such a trans-
lation the history and doctrines of the Gospel
would be rendered accessible to a large portion
of the subjects of the Roman empire, who had
•■'^ Century II. Part I. c. i.
^ Semler indeed insinuates that the works, extant under
Tertullian's name, contain the first specimens of a Latin trans-
lation. " Itaque videmur hie ipsa primordia Latino; Transla-
tionis occupare et deprehendere." And again, " Aut illud
scivit (TertuUianus) tarn pauca esse adhuc Evangelii Latini
exemplaria (nulla forte alia, quam hoc primura, suum ipsius)
&c." Sect. 4. Yet he asserts that Tertullian, or whoever the
author might be, never used a Greek MS.; De eo enim satis
jam certi sumus, etsi solent viri docti aliter statuere, hunc
scriptorem oculis suis manibusque nunquam usurpasse Grae-
cum ullum codicem Eva?igelioru7n aut Epistolartnn, &c. Ibid.
H
114
previously derived their notions of the New
Religion only from report; and that perhaps
the report of enemies, anxious to misrepresent it.
They were now enabled to judge for them-
selves, and to perceive how admirably all its
precepts are adapted to promote the well-being
of society, and to diffuse universal happiness.
The favourable impression, produced upon the
minds of men by the perusal of the Sacred
Books, was doubtless confirmed and increased
by the numerous Apologies for Christianity, to
which Mosheim alludes. Among these the
Apology of Tertullian has always held a dis-
tinguished place ; and there is perhaps no better
mode of conveying to the mind of the reader
an accurate notion of the general condition of
the Christians in the second century — of the
difficulties with which they had to contend,
and of the principles on which they acted —
than by laying before him a brief summary
of its contents. It will be necessary, however,
to offer by way of preface a few remarks
respecting what may be called the Legal Posi-
tion of the Christians at that period ; or the
point of view in which they were regarded
by the Roman laws.
Mosheim''^ says, that "in the beginning
3" Century II. Part 1. c 2.
115
of the second century there were no laws in
force against the Christians ; for the Senate
had annulled the cruel edicts of Nero, and
Nerva had abrogated the sanguinary laws of
his predecessor Domitian." ^" Gibbon also
infers from Pliny's celebrated letter to Tra-
jan, that, when the former accepted the govern-
ment of Bithynia, " there were no general laws
or decrees of the Senate in force against the
Christians; and that neither Trajan nor any
of his virtuous predecessors, whose edicts were
received into the civil and criminal jurispru-
dence, had publicly declared their intentions
concerning the new Sect." If, however, we
can attach any weight to the statements of
TertuUian, the conclusions both of Gibbon
and INIosheim are erroneovis. In " the first
Book ad Nationes, TertuUian expressly says,
that, while all the other edicts of Nero had
been repealed, that against the Christians alone
remained in force. In the ^"Apology, after
having stated that Nero and Domitian were
^ Chap. xvi. p. 540. Ed. 4to.
**' Et tamen permansit, omnibvis erasis, hoc solum institu-
tum Neronianum, &c. c 7- Compare the Apology, c. 4.
Sed quoniam, quum ad omnia occurrit Veritas nostra, pos-
tremo legum obstruitur auctoritas adversus earn, &c.
^ c. 5. TertuUian says that Domitian's persecution was
of short duration, and that the Emperor himself put a stop
to it.
h2
116 '
the only emperors who had persecuted the
Christians, he says, ^^as we have already seen,
that Marcus Antoninus became their protector
in consequence of the miraculous deliverance
of his army in the German expedition. ^^"Not,"
he adds, "that the emperor abrogated the
punishment enacted against them ; but he indi-
rectly did away its effect, by denouncing a hea-
vier punishment against their accusers. What
then," our author proceeds, " are we to think of
laws which none but the impious, the unjust,
the vile, the cruel, the trifling, the insane
enforce? of which Trajan partly frustrated the
effect by forbidding all enquiries to be made
after Christians ? which neither Adrian, though
a searcher out of all new and curious doc-
trines, nor Vespasian, though the conqueror of
the Jews, nor Pius, nor Verus, called into oper-
ation ? " The whole tenor of this passage mani-
« p. 106.
** Sicut non palam ab ejvismodi hominibus pcenam dimo-
vit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusato-
ribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore. Quales ergo leges i^tce,
quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii, injusti, turpes, truces,
vani, dementes ? quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est, vetando
inquiri Christianos; quas nullus Hadrianus, quanquam curi-
ositatum omnium explorator ; nullus Vespasianus, quanquam
Judaeorum debellator ; nullus Pius, nullus Verus impressit.
Apol. c. 5. Quoties enim in Christianos dessevitis, partim ani-
mis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes ? c. 37- Quis deni-
que de nobis alio nomine queritur ? quod aliud negotium
patitur Christianus, nisi sua? secta' ? Ad Scapulam, c. 4.
117
festly assumes the existence of laws which,
though generally allowed to slumber by the
justice and humanity of the emperors, might
yet at any moment be converted into instru-
ments wherewith to injure and oppress the
Christians. It is evident also from ^^ Pliny's
letter and Trajan's answer, that the only offence
laid to their charge by the informers was their
religion ; and that, in the estimation both of the
emperor and the proconsul, the mere profession
of Christianity constituted a crime deserving
of punishment.
But whether there were, or were not,
any laws in force, expressly directed against
the Christians, it is certain that their situ-
ation was most precarious. It appears indeed
to have depended in a great measure on the
temper and disposition of the governor of the
province in which they lived. If he happened
to be rapacious, or bigotted, or cruel, it was
easy for him to gratify his favourite passion, by
enforcing against the Christians the penalties of
laws, originally enacted without any reference
*^ Pliny's words are, Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani ;
confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus:
perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecun-
que esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et inflexibilem
obstinationem debere puniri. L. x. Ep. 97- Trajan answers,
Conquirendi non sunt; si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi
sunt.
118
to them ; such, for mstance, as '^^ Trajan's edict
against companies and associations, and the
''^law which forbade the introduction of any
new Deity, whose worship had not been ap-
proved by the Senate. *^ If on the contrary he
was just and humane, he discountenanced all
informations against them, suggested to them
the answers which they ought to return when
brought before the tribunals, and availed him-
self of every pretext for setting them at liberty.
Thus while in one part of the empire they
were suffering the most dreadful persecution,
in another they were at the very same moment
enjoying a certain degree of ease and security.
""^For even the power of the governors was
^^ See Pliny's Letter above cited, and the Apology, cc.
38, 39, 40. where our author complains of the injustice of
classing the Christians among the illegal' associations, illi-
citae factiones. See also the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13. Nisi
forte in Senatus-consulta et in Principum mandata, coitionibus
opposita, delinquimus.
^"^ See the Apology, c. 5. quoted in note 29. of this Chapter,
^' In the Address to Scapula, c. 4. are recorded the names
of several governors, who displayed great lenity in their
treatment of the Christians ; but the latter appear to have
regarded the evasions, suggested by the kindness of their
judges, with distrust, as the devices of Satan to shake their
stedfastness and to betray them into a criminal compromise
of their faith. See the Apology, c. 27- Scorpiace, ell.
■^^ Quoties etiam, praeteritis vobis, suo jure nos inimicum
vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis } Apology, c. 37. Neque
enim statim et a populo eris tutus, si officia militaria rede-
meris. De Fuga in Persec. c. 14. Odisse debemus istos con-
ventus et coetus Ethnicorum, vel quod illic nomen Dei
blasphematur.
119
not always sufficient to ensure their safety, or
to prevent them from falling victims to the
angry passions of the populace ; at all times dif-
ficult to be repressed, but rising to an un-
governable pitch of fury at the celebration of
the public games and festivals. On these oc-
casions the intimidated magistrates too often
deemed it expedient to yield to the clamorous
demands of the multitude ; and to gratify their
sanguinary impatience by suspending the tardy
forms of law, and delivering the Christians to
instant death.
The Apology of Tertullian is, *" as has been
already observed, addressed to the governors of
Proconsular Africa, and we learn ^^from the
commencement that their attention and jea-
lousy had been excited by the increasing num-
ber of the Christians ; but that, instead of
being induced to enquire into the real nature
of a religion which attracted so many proselytes,
they suffered themselves to be hurried away by
their prejudices, and condemned it unheard.
^' So great indeed w^as their ignorance, that
they mistook even the name of the new sect;
blasphematui*;, illic in nos quotidiani leones expostulantur,
inde persecutiones decernuntur, inde tentationes emittuntur.
De Spectaculis, c. 27-
^ Chap. I. p. 52. '1 c. 1. ^2 c. 3.
120
calling those who belonged to it, not Chris-
tiani, but Chrestiani. ^^ TertuUian exposes,
with great power of argument and eloquence,
the injustice of punishing Christians merely
because they were Christians ; without en-
quiring whether their doctrines were in them-
selves deserving of hatred and punishment.
^*He complains that in their case alone all the
established forms of law were set aside, and all
the rules usually observed in the administration
of justice violated. Other criminals were heard
in their own defence, and allowed the assistance
of counsel; nor was their own confession
deemed sufficient to their condemnation. The
Christian, on the contrary, was simply asked
whether he was a Christian ; and either his
sentence was pronounced as soon as he had ad-
mitted the fact ; or such was the strange infatu-
ation of the judges, the torture was inflicted in
order to compel him to retract his confession
and deny the truth : whereas in all other cases,
torture was applied in order to extract the truth,
and to compel the suspected party to confess his
guilt. TertuUian dwells for some time upon
the gross injustice of these proceedings ; as well
as upon the inconsistency exhibited by Tra-
jan in his letter to Pliny ; in which, at the very
moment that he forbade all search to be made
^^ c. 1. ^'^ c. 2. Compare ad Scapulam, c. 4.
121
after the Christians, he ordered them to be
punished as malefactors when brought before
the tribunals.
The Apology furnishes many striking proofs
of the unreasonableness and blindness of the
hatred, which the enemies of the Gospel had
conceived against its professors. ^^The Chris-
tians were accused of the most heinous crimes ;
of atheism, infanticide, of holding nocturnal
meetings in which they abandoned themselves
to the most shameful excesses. In vain did
they challenge their opponents to make good
these horrible charges. In vain did they urge
the utter improbability that any body of men
should be guilty of such atrocious, such unna-
tural acts ; especially of men, the fundamental
article of whose belief was that they should here-
after be summoned before the judgement-seat
of God, there to give an account of the deeds
done in the flesh.^*^ " You are determined,"
says Tertullian, " to close your eyes against
the truth, and to persist in hating us with-
out a cause. You are compelled to witness the
salutary influence of Christianity, in the reform-
^^ cc. 1, 7, 8. One of the opprobrious appellations applied
to the Christians was " Tertium Genus," the precise mean-
ing of which Tertullian does not appear himself to have under-
stood. Ad Nationes, L. i. cc. 1, S, 19. See also Scorpiace,
c 10. De Virgin, vel. c 7. ^^ c. 3.
122
ed lives and morals of those who embrace it ;
but you quarrel with the effect, however be-
neficial, in consequence of your hatred of the
cause from which it proceeds. Even virtue
ceases in your estimation to be virtue, when
found in a Christian : and you are content that
your wives shall be unchaste, your children dis-
obedient, and your slaves dishonest, if they are
but careful to abstain from all communication
with this detested sect."
Tertullian ^^ alludes to an ancient law,
which prohibited even the emperor from
introducing the worship of any new Deity,
unless it had been previously approved by
the Senate. As the worship of Christ had
not received this preliminary sanction, the
Christians, by the profession of their religion,
manifestly offended against the law ; and
Tertullian speaks as if this was the prin-
cipal ground of the accusations against them.
It was not, however, their sole offence : they
were charged, not only with introducing a new
deity, but with abandoning the gods of their
ancestors. Tertullian replies, that the accusa-
tion came with an ill grace from men, who
were themselves in the daily habit of dis-
regarding and violating the institutions of
^^ cc 5, 6. Seep. 118.
123
antiquity ; but lie does not attempt to deny its
truth. ^^ On the contrary, he boldly maintains
that the Christians had done right in re-
nouncing the worship of Gods, who were in
reality no gods ; but mortals to whom divine
honours had been ascribed after death, and
whose images and statues were the abode of
evil spirits, lurking there in ambush to destroy
the souls of men.
The^^ absurdity and extravagance of the
Heathen JNIythology open to Tertullian a wide
field for the exercise of his eloquence and wit :
and while at one time he ironically apologises
for the readiness with which the magistrates
and people gave credit to the horrible reports
circulated against the Christians, on the ground
that they believed stories equally horrible re-
specting their own Deities ; at another he
warmly inveighs against the gross inconsistency
of imputing to a Christian as a crime, that
which was not deemed derogatory to the cha-
racter of a God.
But ^° the prejudice and bigotry of the ene-
mies of the Gospel induced them, not only to
believe the most atrocious calumnies against
^ cc. 10, 11, 22, 23, 27- "^ cc. 12, 13, 14, 15.
«« c. 16.
124
its professors, but also to entertain the most
erroneous and ridiculous notions respecting the
objects of Christian worship. Not content with
falling into the double error, first, of confound-
ing the Christians with the Jews, and next of
receiving as true the idle tales related by
*^^ Tacitus respecting the origin and fortunes of
the Jewish people, they persisted in accusing
the Christians of worshipping the head of an
ass: although, as our author justly observes,
^*the Roman historian had himself furnished
the means of disproving his own statement;
by relating that, when Pompey visited the
temple of Jerusalem, and entered the Holy of
Holies, he found there no visible representation
of the Deity. Since they covdd give credit
to so palpable a falsehood, we cannot be sur-
prized at their believing that the Sun and the
cross were objects of worship in the New Reli-
gion— a belief, to which the forms of Christian
devotion might appear to an adversary to lend
some countenance. In replying to these calum-
nies, ^''Tertullian takes the opportunity of stating
in spirited and eloquent language, the Christian
notions of the Deity ; and of insisting upon
the genuineness and antiquity of the Jewish
Scriptures, by which the knowledge of the
'51 Hist. L. V. c. 4. 62 Higt L V. c. p.
63 cc. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
125
one supreme God, of the creation of the world,
and of the origin of mankind, had been pre-
served and transmitted from age to age. ^* The
superior antiquity of Moses and the Prophets to
the poets and legislators of Greece is repeatedly
urged by our author, as an irrefragable proof,
(weak as the argument may appear to us) of
the superior claim of the Mosaic institutions
to be received as a revelation from heaven.
It has been remarked that the treatment
of the primitive Christians formed a solitary
exception to that system of universal tolera-
tion, which regulated the conduct of the Roman
government towards the professors of other
religions. ^^ Gibbon appears to have assigned
the true reason of this deviation from its usual
policy, when he observes that while all other
people professed a national religion, the Chris-
tians formed a sect. The .Egyptian, though he
deemed it his duty to worship the same birds
and reptiles to which his ancestors had paid their
adorations, made no attempt to induce the in-
habitants of other countries to adopt his deities.
In his estimation the different superstitions of
the heathen world were not so much at vari-
ance that they could not exist together. He
respected the faith of others, while he preferred
^* c. 47. "•' Chap. xvi. p. 523. Ed. 4to.
126
his own. But Christianity was from its very
nature a proselyting religion. The convert not
only abandoned the faith of his ancestors, and
thereby committed an unpardonable offence in
the eyes of a Gentile ; but also claimed to him-
self the exclusive possession of the truth, and
denounced as criminal every other mode of
worship. When we consider this striking dis-
tinction between the character of Christianity,
and of every other form of religion then exist-
ing, we shall feel less surprise that it was
regarded by the ruling powers with peculiar
feelings of jealousy and dislike, or that it was
excepted from the general system of toleration.
^^In vain did Tertullian insist upon the right
of private judgement in matters of faith ; in
vain expose the strange inconsistency of tole-
rating the absurd superstitions of vEgypt, and
at the same time persecuting the professors of
a religion, which inculcated the worship of one,
pure, spiritual, omniscient, omnipotent God, —
a God in every respect worthy to receive
the adorations of intelligent beings. By thus
asserting that the God of the Christians
was the only true God, he unavoidably de-
stroyed the effect of his appeal to the under-
standing, the justice, and the humanity of the
Roman governors.
**'' cc. 24, 28. ad Scap. c 2.
127
Sometimes the Christians fell into an error
not uncommon with very zealous advocates ;
they urged arguments which were easily re-
torted upon themselves, and were even con-
verted into pretences for persecuting their
religion. ^^We have seen that they were in
the habit of accounting for events by the
immediate interposition of Providence : of
ascribing favourable events to their own prayers,
and calamities to the divine displeasure, ex-
cited by the cruelties inflicted upon them.
*^^The Pagans, in answer, appealed to the con-
tinually increasing power and glory of Rome,
during the seven centuries which preceded
the birth of Christ; and contended that this
long series of prosperity was to be attributed
solely to that piety towards the gods, which
had always formed a striking feature in the
national character. ^^ " But how," they asked,
"are we to account for the calamities by which
the empire has been visited, since the odious
sect of Christians appeared ? How, but by their
impiety and crimes, which have drawn down
upon us the wrath of Heaven ? By tolerating
their existence we have in fact become par-
takers of their guilt. Let us then hasten to
repair our error ; and to appease the displeasure
of the gods by utterly rooting out their enemies
*' p. 109. ^^ cc. 25, 26. ^^ c. 40.
128
from the earth." The stated returns of the
public games and festivals were, ^"as has been
already observed, the occasions on which the
blind and inhuman zeal of the deluded popu-
lace displayed itself in all its ferocity. Every
feeling of compassion was then extinguished ;
and the cry of " Christianos ad Leonem"
resounded from every part of the crowded
amphitheatre.
Another ^^ ground of accusation against the
Christians was, that they refused to sacrifice
to the gods for the safety of the Emperor.
TertuUian admits the fact ; but answers that
their refusal arose, not from any feeling of
disrespect or disaffection, but from the well-
grounded conviction that the gods of the hea-
then were mere stocks and stones, and con-
sequently incapable of affording the Emperor
protection. " Far from being indifferent to his
welfare, we put up daily petitions in his behalf,
to the true, the living, the eternal God; in
whom kings reign, and through whose power
they are powerful. To that God we pray, in
full confidence that he will hear our prayers,
and grant the Emperor a long life, a peaceful
reign, and every public and private blessing."
V Do not," TertuUian adds, " trust merely to my
'''' p. 11<)- "' c. 29, 30, 31, 32, 3S, 34.
129
assertions: consult our sacred books: you will
there find that we are expressly enjoined to
pray for kings and those in authority."
As ^- the Christians cautiously abstained from
every act which in the least approximated to
idolatry, the seasons of public festivity were
to them seasons of the most imminent danger.
Their abhorrence of every species of excess,
their refusal to join in obstreperous or indecent
expressions of joy, to illuminate their houses
in the day-time, or to hang garlands over their
doors, were construed by their adversaries into
certain marks of disloyalty. Tertullian answers
this charge by appealing to the uniform tenor
of their conduct ; " a less equivocal proof," he
adds, "of our affection towards our Sovereign,
than those outward demonstrations of joy
"^^ which have been displayed in our own time,
by men who at the very moment were plotting
his destruction. As our religion teaches us to
disregard and despise the honours and riches of
this w^orld, we are not liable to be led astray
by those feelings of avarice and ambition, which
impel others to disturb the public tranquillity ;
and if you would take the trouble of inform-
ing yourselves of what passes in our assem-
7-^ cc. 3.5, 36. 38, 39. 7^ Ad Scapulam, c 2.
I
130
blies, and at our love-feasts, far from finding
reason to view them with jealousy as dan-
gerous to the State, you would acknowledge
that their necessary tendency is to increase
our love towards God and towards our neigh-
bour; to make us better men and better sub-
jects."
But^"* though the enemies of the Gospel
might be compelled to allow that a Christian
was a peaceable, they still accused him of
being an unprofitable citizen. The charge,
however, if we may judge from Tertullian's
answer, resolved itself principally into this, that
the Christians brought no offerings to the
Temples ; and contributed nothing towards de-
fraying the expenses of the public games, or
to the support of those trades which were more
immediately connected with the pomps and cere-
monies of idolatry. In his remarks upon this
charge, TertuUian expressly affirms that the
Christians in his day did not affect a life of
solitude and abstraction ; but dwelt in the
world, and laboured in their several callings
and occupations, like other men. In like man-
ner, they disclaimed all singularity of dress or
diet ; freely using the gifts of Providence, but
74 cc. 42, 43, 44, 45.
131
careful not to abuse them. " They indeed,"
says Tertullian, " who minister to the vicious
and criminal passions of mankind — pimps, assas-
sins, and fortune-tellers — may complain with
truth that the Christians are unprofitable to
them. But all who think that the best man
is the most useful citizen, must admit the
claim of the Christian to that character, whose
religion teaches him that, not only his actions,
but his very thoughts must be pure; and
who regulates his conduct by a reference, not
to the imperfect laws of man, the penalties
of which he might hope to evade, but to the
perfect law of that God, from whom nothing
can be hid, and whose vengeance it is impos-
sible to escape."
Unable '^ either to fix any stain upon the
morals of the Christians, or to substantiate
the charges of irreligion and disloyalty against
them, their enemies proceeded in the last place
to undervalue Christianity itself, and to repre-
sent it as a mere species of philosophy. " The
philosophers," they said, " inculcate innocence,
justice, patience, sobriety, charity ; and what
do the Christians more ?" " Be it so," is Tertul-
lian's reply : " why then do you deny to us alone
75 c. 46.
1 2
132
the indulgence which you extend to every
other sect? But look at the effects of Chris-
tianity, and you will be forced to confess that
it is something more than a species of philo-
sophy ; how otherwise can you account for
the altered lives and morals of its professors —
a change which philosophy has never yet pro-
duced in its votaries ?"
The'^ conclusion of the Apology points
out to us one cause of the rapid growth of
Christianity, which has been overlooked by
Mosheim — the admirable courage and constancy
with which the Christians bore the torments
inflicted upon them by their persecutors.
" Proceed," says TertuUian to the provincial
governors, " proceed in your career of cruelty ;
but do not suppose that you will thus accom-
plish your purpose of extinguishing the hated
sect. We are like the grass ; which grows the
more luxuriantly, the oftener it is mown.
7" c. 50. In the Scorpiace, our author argues, as if suf-
ferings, voluntarily endured in the defence of a religion, prove
not merely the sincerity of the sufferer's persuasion, but also
the truth of the religion. Caeterum pati oportebat omnem
Dei praedicatorem et cultorem qui ad Idololatriam provocatus
negasset obsequium, secundum illius quoque rationis statum,
qua et praesentibus tunc et posteris deinceps commendari veri-
tatem oportebat, pro qua fidem diceret passio ipsorum Defen-
sorum ejus, quia nemo voluisset oecidi, nisi compos veritatis,
c. 8.
133
*rhe blood of Christians is the seed of Chris-
tianity. Your philosophers taught men to
despise pain and death by words; but how
few their converts compared with those of the
Christians, who teach by example ? The very
obstinacy with which you upbraid us is the
great propagator of our doctrines. '^For who
can behold it, and not enquire into the nature
of that faith which inspires such supernatural
courage? Who can enquire into that faith,
and not embrace it ? who can embrace it, and
not desire himself to undergo the same suffer-
ings in order that he may thus secure a par-
ticipation in the fullness of the divine favour ?"
I cannot^* quit this part of my subject with-
out briefly noticing Gibbon's remarks on the
Apologies published by the early Christians,
in behalf of themselves and their religion.
He admits that they expose with ability the
absurdities of Polytheism; and describe with
eloquence and force, the innocence and suffer-
ings of their brethren. But when they at-
tempt to demonstrate the divine origin of
Christianity, then in his opinion they entirely
fail ; and the only feeling, which they excite
in the mind of the reader, is regret that the
^^ Compare ad Scapulanij c. 5.
'"' Chap. XV. near the end.
134
cause was not defended by abler advocates. He
particularly blames tliem for insisting more
strongly upon the predictions which announced,
"^ than upon the miracles which accompanied
the appearance of the Messiah. But in these
remarks the Historian seems to me to proceed
upon the erroneous supposition, that the Apo-
logy of Tertullian, and other works of a similar
nature, were designed to be regular exposi-
tions of the evidences of Christianity. Such
an idea never entered into the writer's mind.
His immediate business was to defend Chris-
tianity against the attacks of its enemies — to
correct their misrepresentations, and to refute
their calumnies — to persuade them that it was
not that combination of folly and crime which
they supposed it to be — that in a word they
were bound to examine, before they con-
demned it. The object, therefore, at which he
principally aimed was, not to marshal its evi-
dences, but to give a full and perspicuous ac-
count of its doctrines and moral precepts. Yet
'^ In the third Book against Marcion, Tertullian assigns
the reason why he considers the evidence of miracles, as
not alone sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity.
Christ himself, he says, warned his Disciples that many would
come in his name, shewing signs and wonders. (Matt. xxiv. 24.)
It was, therefore, necessary to the complete establishment of
his pretensions, that he should not only work miracles, but
should in all respects fulfil the predictions of the prophets
respecting his character and office, c 3.
135
when lie explains the notion of the Supreme
Being, entertained by the Christians, he adverts,
though concisely, to the grounds on which their
belief was founded. ^° He shews that the tes-
timony, borne to the existence of an Almighty
Creator of the Universe, by his visible works
without, and by the voice of conscience within
us, is confirmed by the Jewish Scriptures ; the
claims of which to be received as a divine
revelation he rests upon their superior anti-
quity, not only to the literature, but even
to the gods of Greece, and upon the actual
accomplishment of many of the prophecies
contained in them. When again he proceeds
to explain those doctrines which are more pe-
culiarly Christian, he ^^says that Christ was
proved to be the Word of God, as well by
the miserable state to which, agreeably to the
prophecies of the Old Testament, the Jewish
nation was reduced in consequence of its rejec-
tion of him, as by the miracles which he
wrought during his residence upon earth. I
know not what further evidence of the di-
vine origin of Christianity Tertullian could be
expected to produce, in a work designed to
explain what it was, not to prove whence it
^^ Apology, cc. 17, 18, 19, 20.
«' c. 21.
136
was derived. But had the latter been his
professed object, are we competent to decide
upon the train of reasoning which he ought
to have pursued in order most readily to ac-
complish it? Arguments, which appear to us
the most forcible, might have been thrown
away upon the persons whom he was address-
ing ; and we may surely give him credit for
knowing by what means he was most likely
to produce conviction in their minds. He
has frequent recourse to the argument ad
hom'mem ; which, however lightly it may
weigh in the estimation of the dispassionate
and reflecting reader of the present day,
was not without its effect in silencing the
clamours of malice and of ignorance. They
who think with ^"Daille, that the exquisite
wisdom and transcendant beauty of the rule
of life prescribed in the Gospel constitute
the strongest and surest proof of its divine ori-
gin, will also think that Tertullian, by simply
stating the doctrines of Christianity, and ap-
pealing to the Scriptures in confirmation of
his statement, adopted the most efficacious
mode of extending its influence.
^- La Sagesse exquise et I'inestimable beautc de la disci-
pline meme de Jesus Christ est, je I'avoue, le plus fort et le
plus siir argument de sa Verite. Quoted by Dr. Hey in his
Lectures, Book L end of c 13.
I
137
We have seen that the persecutions in-
flicted on the Christians, far from retarding,
contributed, in the opinion of Tertullian, to
accelerate the progress of the Gospel. The
Church was not insensible to the advantages
which its cause derived from the intrepid con-
stancy of its members ; but it was too well
aware of the infirmity of human nature not
to know, that even the sincerest conviction of
the truth of Christianity might not always be
sufficient to support the convert in the hour
of danger. In order, therefore, to excite his
courage, the sufferings of martyrdom were in-
vested with peculiar privileges and honours. It
can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the
original signification of the word Martyr is " a
Witness ; " and though in later times the appel-
lation has been generally confined to those who
proved the sincerity of their faith by the sacri-
fice of their lives, in the time of Tertullian **^ it
was used with greater latitude, and comprehend-
ed all whom the profession of Christianity had
exposed to any severe hardship, such as impri-
sonment, or loss of property — those who are
now usually distinguished by the name of *^Con-
^ Thus in the Tract de PrEescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3.
Si etiam Martyr lapsus de regula fuerit.
^* Tertullian sometimes applies the term Confessor to one
who was imprisoned on account of his religion. Et quum
in
138
fessors. To this lax use of the term martyr
must be chiefly ascribed the erroneous persua-
sion which has been so carefully cherished by
the Chiurch of Rome, respecting the number of
martyrs, strictly so called ; for though it may
have been greater than ^^Dodwell was willing
to allow, it is certain that his opinion approaches
much nearer to the truth than that of his op-
ponents.
We shall, however, form a very inadequate
idea of the sufferings endured by the primi-
tive Christians, if we restrict them to the
punishments inflicted by the magistrates, or
to the outrages committed by a blind and in-
furiate populace. Many, who escaped the sword
and the wild beasts, were destined to encoun-
in carcere fratrem vult visitari, Confessoris imperat curam.
Scorpiace, ell.
^ TertuUian, we believe, mentions only five Martyrs by
name: St. Peter, who was crucified, and St. Paul, who was
beheaded at Rome during Nero's persecution ; De Praescrip-
tione Hsereticorum, c. 36. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c 5. Scor-
piace, cap. ult. Perpetua, of whose martyrdom an account is
still extant under the title of Passio Perpetuae ac Felicitatis ;
De Anima, c. 55. Rutilius, who, having for some time avoided
persecution by flight, and even, as he conceived, secured
his safety by the payment of a sum of money, was suddenly
seized, and, after undergoing severe torments, cast into the
flames; De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 5. and Justin; adv.
Valentinianos, c 5. Tertullian relates also that St. John the
Evangelist was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, and
came out unhurt. Dc Pra^script. Hserct. c. 36.
1S9
ter trials of the severest kind ; though their
sufferings attracted not the public attention.
When we consider the species of authority
exercised by heads of families in those days,
and the hatred by which many were actuated
against Christianity, we may frame to our-
selves some notion of the condition of a wife,
a child, or a slave, who ventured to profess
a belief in its doctrines. ^^ This alone was
deemed a sufficient cause for repudiating a
wife, or disinheriting a son ; and Tertullian
mentions "by name a governor of Cappado-
cia, who avenged the conversion of his wife
by persecuting all the Christians of the pro-
vince. So heinous indeed was the offence, that it
^* cancelled all obligations. He who committed
it became at once an outcast from society,
and was considered to have forfeited his claim
to the good offices of his nearest kinsman ;
^^ Uxorem jam pudicam maritus, jam non zelotypus,
ejecit : filium jam subjectum pater, retro patiens, abdicavit:
servum jam fidelem dominus, olim mitis, ab oculis relegavit :
ut quisque hoc nomine emendatur, ofFendit. Apology, c. 3.
*^ Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
^ In the first Tract ad Nationes, Tertullian says that
informations were frequently laid against the Christians by
their slaves, c. 7- Quid? quum domestici eos vobis pro-
dant ? omnes a nullis magis prodimur : quanto magis, si
atrocitas tanta sit quae justitia indignationis omnem famili^
aritatis fidem rumpit.
140
nor were instances wanting, *Mf TertuUian's
expressions are to be literally understood, in
which a brother informed against a brother,
and even a parent against a child.
Yet amidst the trials and afflictions to which
he was subjected the convert was not entirely
destitute even of earthly consolation. The af-
fection and esteem of the Brethren in some
degree compensated the loss of his former
friends, the alienation of his kindred, and the
contempt and insults of the world. We in
the present day can form only a faint concep-
tion of the intimacy of that union which sub-
sisted between the primitive Christians, and
was cemented by a community of danger, as
well as of faith and hope. ^°The love which
*^ I speak doubtfully, because there is something in our
author's mode of expressing himself which leads me to
suspect, that no such instances had actually fallen within his
own knowledge ; but that he inferred that they had occurred,
because our Lord had declared that they would occur. Quum
autem subjicit, Tradet autem frater fratrem, et pater Jilium
in mortem, et insurgent Jilii in parentes et mortijicahunt eos ;
manifeste iniquitatem istam in caeteros pronuntiavit, quam in
Apostolis non invenimus. Nemo enim eorum aut fratrem
aut patrem passus est traditorem, quod plerique jam nostri.
Dehinc ad Apostolos revocat : El eritis odio omnibus prop-
ter nomen meum : Quanto magis nos, quos a parentibus
quoque tradi oportet ! Scorpiace, c. 9. Sed et fratres nostros
et patres et filios et socrus et nurus et domesticos nostros
ibidem exhibere debebis, per quos traditio disposita est, c. 1 0.,
^ Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligunt. Apology, c. Sg.
141
they bore to each other excited the astonish-
ment, though it could not subdue the hosti-
lity of their heathen persecutors. But they
naturally regarded, with feelings of peculiar
affection and respect, those members of the
Church who were called to suffer in its
cause. The Christian, when imprisoned on
account of his religion, was supported by the
reflection, that his brethren anxiously watched
over his fate, and that no exertion would be
wanting on their part to mitigate its severity —
^^ that he should be maintained during his con-
finement by their voluntary contributions —
that ^' devout females would flock to his
prison to kiss his chains, and ^^ penitents to
obtain through his intercession a speedier re-
storation to the communion of the Church.
If he escaped with life, he knew that he
should become the object of the most reverential
regard — that he should be held up by the
Church as an example to all its members, and
•*" Apology, c. 39. Ad Martyres, cc. 1.2. De Jejuniis, c. 12.
^ Quis in carcerem ad osculanda vincula Martyris reptare
patietur ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4.
^ Quam paceni quidam in Ecclesia non habentes a Marty-
ribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Ad Martyres, L. i.
After Tertullian had seceded from the Church, he denied that
it possessed the power of pardoning crimes of a heinous
nature : and ridiculed the notion that attention ought to be
paid to the intercession of a martyr. De Pudicitia, c. 22.
14a
possess ^^ a prior claim to its dignities and
honours. If he was destined to lose his life,
he had been taught that martyrdom was a
^^ second and more efficacious baptism — ^^ that
it washed away every stain — and that, while
the souls of ordinary Christians passed the in-
terval between their separation from the body
and the general resurrection in a state of in-
complete enjoyment, that of the martyr was
^' secure of immediate admission to the perfect
happiness of Heaven.
When such were the privileges conferred,
both in this and in the next world, by suffer-
ing for the faith of Christ, it is not surprising
that men of an ardent and enthusiastic temper
should aspire to the crown of martyrdom, and
eagerly encounter persecution. Nor can it be
dissembled that ^^ some of the early fathers, in
^* Sed alium ex martyrii prcerogativa loci potitum indigna-
tus. Adv. Valentinianos, c 4. See de Fuga in Persecutione,
c. 11.
^^ De Patientia, c. 13. Scorpiace, c 6. sub fine. De Pudi-
citia, c. 9. sub fine, c. 22. De Baptismo, c I6.
^ Apology, sub fine. Omnia enim huic operi delicta
donantur.
^ Nemo enim, peregrinatus a corpore, statim immoratur
penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii prcerogativa, Paradise scilicet,
non inferis, deversurus. De Resur. Carnis, c. 43. Scorpiace,
c. 12. Ad ipsum divinae sedis ascensum. De Patienti4, c. 13.
^ Denique cum omni saevitia vestra concertamus, etiam
ultro erumpentes, magisque damnati quam absoluti gaudemus.
Ad
143
their anxiety to confirm the faith of the con-
vert, and to prevent him from apostatizing in
the hour of trial, occasionally spoke a language
calculated to encourage men to make that gra-
tuitous sacrifice of life, to which the sober de-
cision of reason must annex the name and
the guilt of suicide. It may be asked, per-
haps, " what surer mark there can be of that
love of God, in which consists the perfection
of the Christian character, than an earnest
desire to be removed from this world of vanity
and sin, and to be admitted to the immediate
perception of the Divine Presence ? ^^ When
Tertullian says, that the Christian's only con-
cern respecting this life is, that he may as
speedily as possible exchange it for another,
in what does his language differ from that of
St. Paul, who tells '""the Philippians that he
has a desire to depart, and to be with Christ ? "
But this desire was tempered and controlled in
the mind of the Apostle by a feeling of implicit
resignation to the will of God. He must
Ad Scapulam, c. 1. Absit enim ut indigne feramus ea nos
pati quae optamus, c. 2. See also c. 5.
^^ In primis, quia nihil nosti'a refert in hoc aevo, nisi de
eo quam celeriter excedere. Apology, c. 41.
^^ c. 1. V. 23. Tertullian refers more than once to this
very passage. Cupidi et ipsi iniquissimo isto saeculo eximi, et
recipi ad Dominum, quod etiam Apostolo votum fuit. Ad
Uxorem, L. i. c. 5. Ipso Apostolo festinante ad Dominum.
De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 12. See also de Speetaculis, c. 28.
144
abide in the flesh so long as his ministry could
be useful to the Philippians ; and it was not
for him to determine for how long a period
his usefulness would continue. Though he
was prepared — though he longed for the
summons to depart, he did not venture to
anticipate it ; and far from courting mar-
tyrdom, he employed all warrantable methods
of preserving his life. TertuUian himself,
^"^ in the Apology, discriminates accurately
between the case of a Christian who volun-
tarily denounces himself, and that of one
who, when brought before the magistrate, pro-
fesses his gladness that he is called to suffer
on account of his faith. He supposes a heathen
to ask, " Why do you complain of being perse-
cuted, when it is your own wish to suffer?" His
answer is, " No doubt, we wish to suffer ; but
in the same manner that a soldier wishes for
the battle. He wishes to obtain the spoil and
glory consequent upon victory ; but would
gladly avoid the danger to which he will be
exposed, though he does not shrink from it.
101 Ergo, inquitis, cur querimini quod vos insequamur, si
pati vultis, quum diligere debeatis per quos patimini quod
vultis .'' Plane volumus pati ; verum eo more, quo et hel-
ium nemo quidem libens patitur, quum et trepidare et
periclitari sit necesse ; tamen et praeliatur omnibus viribus,
et vincens in praelio gaudet qui de praelio querebatur, quia
et gloriam consequitnr et praedam^ c. 50.
145
So we, though we endure your persecutions in
the hope of finally obtaining the reward of our
fidelity, would gladly avoid them, could we do
so consistently with our allegiance to Christ."
While however we condemn that immoderate
anxiety to obtain the honours of martyrdom,
which appears to have been too prevalent among
the primitive Christians, let us not involve,
in one indiscriminate censure, all who either
became their own accusers before the magis-
trates, or refused to save themselves by flight,
or by any other innocent means, from the cer-
tain death which awaited them. The moral
character of the act must depend upon the
motive by which it was dictated. The name
of suicide is justly applied to that voluntary
sacrifice of life, which originates in distrust of
the goodness, or impatience of the visitations
of God— in disgust at the world — or in a pre-
sumptuous desire to seize, before the appointed
time, the rewards reserved in heaven for the
faithful followers of Christ. But who can fail
to discern the clear distinction between these
cases and the noble refusal of Socrates to save
his life by escaping from prison? a refusal
dictated by a feeling of reverence for the laws
of his country, and a conviction that he was
bound to obey them even unto death. In like
K
146
manner it may be presumed that, when the
primitive Christians voluntarily presented them-
selves before the tribunal of the magistrate,
they were frequently actuated by a more jus-
tifiable motive than the desire of securing the
honours of martyrdom. They might hope to
arrest the violence of an angry governor, by con-
vincing him of the inutility of persecuting men
who, far from dreading or avoiding any punish-
ments which he could inflict, came forward
to meet them. They might hope to excite
a feeling, if not of compassion, at least of
horror, in his mind; by shewing him that he
must wade through a sea of blood in order
to accomplish his purpose. Such is the con-
struction put by "^ Lardner upon the conduct
of the Asiatic Christians; who during a per-
secution presented themselves in a body before
the tribunal of ^°^ Arrius Antoninus, the pro-
consul. He regards as an act of well-timed,
as well as generous, self-devotion, that which
^^ Heathen Testimonies. Observations on Pliny's Letter.
Sect. vii.
^^ Learned men are not agreed respecting the indivi-
dual of whom this story is told. Lardner supposes him to
have been the maternal grandfather of Antoninus Pius,
■who was proconsul of Asia during the reign of Nerva
or Trajan. Gibbon supposes him to have been Antoninus
Pius himself, who was also proconsul of Asia. Casaubon
fixes upon an Arrius Antoninus, who was murdered during
the reign of Commodus. MUi Lampridii Commodus, p. 870.
147
'"^Gibbon produces as an instance of the in-
discreet ardour of the primitive Christians.
His view is, in my opinion, confirmed by the
context; ^''^for TertuUian introduces the story
by observing that the Christians voluntarily
presented themselves, in order to convince the
governors that they were not afraid of death ;
and afterwards calls upon Scapvila, the Proconsul
of Africa, whom he is addressing, to reflect
how many thousands he would destroy, and
what utter ruin he would bring upon Car-
thage, if he persisted in his cruel intentions.
Whatever might be the motive which dic-
tated the act, its effect certainly was to
put an end to the persecution. Antoninus,
after he had ordered a few to be led away to
punishment, either influenced by compassion,
or observing that the resolution of the sur-
vivors was unshaken, dismissed them with the
exclamation, " Miserable men ! if you wish to
die, have you not precipices or halters?"
We find, as we might expect from the
change which took place in Tertulhan's opi-
nions, some inconsistency in his language re-
specting the conduct to be pursued by Christians
in times of persecution. As he advanced in
i«4 Chap. xvi. p. 552. Ed. 4to.
105 ^jj Scapulaiti, c. 5.
K 2
148
life, his notions became continually more severe.
We have ^"^ already observed that, in the Tract
de Patientia, he speaks as if it were allowable
for a Christian to consult his safety by flight.
But in the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione —
which was written after his secession from the
Church, and is described, perhaps too harshly,
by Gibbon, as a compound of the wildest fana-
ticism and most incoherent declamation — he
denounces flight in time of persecution as an
impious attempt to resist the divine will.
107 « Persecutions," he argues, " proceed from God,
for the purpose of proving the faith of Christ-
ians : ^'''^the attempt, therefore, to avoid them
is both foolish and wicked; foolish, because
we cannot escape the destiny assigned us by
God; wicked, because by fleeing from perse-
cution, we appear to set ourselves in opposi-
tion to his will, and to accuse him of cruelty.
^°® Our Saviour, it is true, said to his disciples,
' When they persecute you in one city, flee
to another.' But this injunction applied only
to their particular circumstances : had they
been cut off in the very outset of their mi-
*•* See the passage quoted in chap. i. note 79- Compare
ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 3. Etiam in persecutionibus melius est ex
permissu fugere de oppido in oppidum, quam comprehensum
et distortum negare. Atqui isti beatiores^ qui valent beati tes-
timonii confessione non excidere.
i"7 c. 1—5. »•» c. 4. "» c-d. Matt, x 23.
149
nistry, the Gospel could not have been diffused
throughout the world. ^'"The same reason will
account for the conduct of Christ, in with-
drawing himself from the fury of the Jews.
His bitter agony in the garden, which is urged
in defence of flight in time of persecution,
was designed to refute by anticipation the here-
tical notion that he had neither a human body
nor soul : and his prayer to God — ' Let this
cup pass from me' — will not justify us in en-
deavouring to flee from danger, since he im-
mediately subjoined, ' Not my will, but thine
be done'."
Allusion ^^^ has already been made to a pas-
sage in the Tract which we are now consider-
ing; where Tertullian speaks of the immense
revenue which might be collected, if each
Christian was allowed to purchase the free
exercise of his religion for a sum of money."^
This measure indeed had not been resorted
to as a source of revenue to the state; but
it had suggested itself to the avarice of the
provincial governors as an excellent expedi-
ent for replenishing their private coffers; and
we find that not only individuals, but whole
Churches were in the habit of purchasing ex-
emption from persecution. ^^^Tertullian, as
™ c. 8. m note 4. of this chapter.
"^ c. 13. "3 c, 11. ad fin.
150
might be expected, condemns this practice in
the strongest terms. " Christians," he says, " who
have been redeemed with the precious blood
of Christ, may not redeem their lives with
money. If such a practice was to become uni-
versal, no instance of martyrdom could occur.
God would no longer be glorified by the suf-
ferings of his faithful servants, and thus one
end of the Christian dispensation would be
defeated."
Two of Tertullian's Treatises relate expressly
to the subject of martyrdom. One of them,
entitled ad Martyres, is a brief address to cer-
tain Christains who had been cast into prison
on account of their religion ; pointing out to
them various topics of consolation, and ex-
horting them to courage and constancy under
their suiferings. It might be supposed, that
the duty of preparation for the cruel fate which
awaited them would have left them neither
time nor inclination to engage in disputes with
each other." ^ They appear, however, to have
disagreed in prison ; and part of Tertullian's
Address is taken up in warning them not to
allow the enemy of their salvation to gain a
triumph by their dissensions. Their disputes
appear from our author's expressions to have
been of a personal character. Our Reformers
151
in Queen Mary's days, when confined in prison,
and expecting to be brought to the stake, wrote
and dispersed Tracts against each other on the
doctrine of Predestination.
With respect to the other Tract, entitled
Scorpiace, we have abeady observed that it was
directed against the Gnostics and Valentinians,
who denied tliat a Christian was under any
obligation to encounter martyrdom.^^^ " God,"
they said, " cannot desire the death of the inno-
cent; nor can Christ who died for man, wish
man to die in turn for him." The aim, there-
fore, of our author, is to shew, that it is the
bounden duty of Christians to endure the se-
verest sufferings, rather than do any act which
can be construed into a participation in idolatry.
^'^The heinousness of that sin in the sight of
God is proved by the numerous denunciations
in the Old Testament against it; and by the
severe punishments inflicted on the Israelites,
for adopting the rites of their idolatrous neigh-
bours. ^^^ But when God forbids us to commit
idolatry, he evidently forbids us to shrink from
any danger to which we may be exposed by our
"^ c. 1. See chap. I. p. 58. "** cc. 2, 3.
"^ c. 4. This notion is carried to the utmost pitch of
extravagance, in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 22.
152
refusal to commit it ; to shrink for instance
from martyrdom, if we should be called to so
severe a trial of our faith. "^This conclusion
our author supports by references to the ex-
ample of Daniel, and the three Jews who were
thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchad-
nezzar, for refusing to bow down to the golden
image. "''He appears, however, to have been
aware that these references would have little
weight with the Gnostics and Marcionites, who
denied that the God of the Old Testament was
the supreme God. ^'""He contends, therefore,
that, when God calls men to suffer for the
Gospel, far from deserving, as the Valentinians
insinuated, on that account to be censured as
cruel, he affords a striking proof of his good-
ness, by enabling us to vanquish in turn the
enemy of our salvation by whom Adam was
vanquished.
From the Old Testament Tertullian pro-
ceeds to the New; and ^'^ argues, that one prin-
cipal object of our Saviour's discourses to his
disciples was to confirm their faith, and prepare
them cheerfully to encounter the persecutions
which awaited them. The interpretation which
the apostles put upon the words of Christ is,
''« c. <S. i'9 c. 5.
^^ C. 6. ^21 J. c,_j2.
153
he adds, manifest both from their writings and
their conduct. ^"The former are full of allu-
sions to the dangers and difficulties to which
the professors of the Gospel would be exposed,
and of exhortations to support them with con-
stancy; ^^^and with respect to the latter, the
violent deaths of many of the first Disciples
sufficiently proved that they did not think
themselves at liberty to shrink from martyr-
dom.
Some of the evasions, suggested by the
Valentinians for the purpose of enabling the
convert at once to save his life and satisfy
his conscience, affiard amusing instances of the
deception which men continually practise on
themselves.^'* " Our Saviour's words," they
argued, " are. He who denies me before men,
him will I deny before my Father. Christ does
not say. He who denies that he is a Christian ;
this, therefore, may be denied without in-
curring the penalty of exclusion from heaven."
The heathen magistrates appear to have been
aware of this equivocation : for after the party
accused had denied that he was a Christian,
they compelled him also to deny and blas-
^22 CC. 12, 13, 14. 123 c, 15,
^" c. 9. Matt. X. 33.
154
pheme Christ. ^^^The Valentinians also con-
tended that, as St. Paul enjoins Christians to be
subject to the higher powers, without limiting
the injunction, he meant that they were to obey
the magistrate, even when commanded to abjure
Christianity. ^^^ Another of their fancies was,
that, when Christ directed his followers to con-
fess Him before men, he alluded to a confession
to be made, not before the race of men existing
upon earth — the vile work of the Demiurge —
but before those to whom the name of men
really belongs, the Valentinian Powers and
^ons. It must, however, be admitted that
Tertullian occasionally displays no less dexterity
than his opponents, in misinterpreting Scripture
and wresting it to his own purpose. ^"^Thus
he says, that the fear, which according to St.
John, is cast out by perfect love, is the fear
of persecution.
Though we attempt not to justify the lan-
guage used by many of the Fathers on the
subject of martyrdom, we cannot forbear ob-
serving that a reference to the circumstances
of the times will probably induce us to mode-
'25 c. 14. Rom. xiii. 1. i2(i j. jq
'2^ c. 12. 1 John iv. 18. The same interpretation is
repeated in the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. Q.
155
rate our censure of them for using it. They
lived when the profession of Christianity was
attended with the greatest danger — when the
Christian was liable at any moment to be
dragged by the malice or avarice of his neigh-
bours before the tribunal of the magistrates;
and to be offered the dreadful alternative of
renouncing his faith, or dying a cruel and
ignominious death. They knew how greatly
the cause of the Gospel was either promoted
or injured by the behaviour of its professors
under this severe trial. They resorted, there-
fore, to every argument which was in their
opinion calculated to prepare the mind of the
convert for the arduous conflict ; and to enable
him to subdue the natural apprehension of
pain and death. But unhappily, instead of ad-
hering closely to the example ^"^of the Apo-
stles, and instructing their brethren to encoun-
ter persecution, not merely with firmness, as
the lot to which they were especially called
by their profession, but with cheerfulness and
joy, since they thereby became partakers in
their Blessed Master's sufferings — instead of
confining themselves to these sound and rea-
sonable topics of exhortation, they represented
martyrdom as an object to be ambitiously
sought ; forgetting that, although resignation to
i^« 1 Pet. iv. 12.
156
the will of God, and a patient enduring of
the afflictions with which he is pleased to visit
us, are the surest signs of a genuine piety, to
go as it were in quest of suffering, and to
court persecution, is in reality to tempt Him ;
and bespeaks an impatient and presumptuous
temper, most foreign from the Christian cha-
racter.
We^^^ have seen that Tertullian complains
of the total disregard of the established forms
of law manifested by the heathen magistrates
in their proceedings against the Christians.
They appear also, in the punishments which
they inflicted, to have been more intent upon
gratifying their own ferocity, or that of an
exasperated populace, than upon complying
with the edicts of the Emperor. ^^Trom a
passage in the Address to Scapula, we may con-
clude that death by the sword was the punish-
ment appointed in the case of the Christians:
but Tertullian says that in many instances
129 p. 120.
130 Pj.q tanta innocentia, pro tanta probitate, pro justitia,
pro pudicitia, pro fide, pro veritate, pro Deo vivo (f. vivi)
cremamur, quod nee sacrilegi, nee hostes publici, verum nee
tot majestatis rei pati solent. Nam et nunc a Praeside
Legionis et a Praeside Mauritaniac vexatur hoc nomen, sed
gladio tenus, sicut et a primordio mandatum est animadverti
in hujusmodi, c. 4. Compare ad Nationes, L. i. c. 18.
Incendiali tunica. And ad Marty res, c. 5. In tunica ardente.
157
they had been burned — " a severity of punish-
ment," he adds, " to which even criminals con-
victed of sacrilege or treason are not doomed."
Nor were the governors content with inflict-
ing bodily sufferings on their unhappy victims.
Those more refined and ingenious torments,
which ^^' Gibbon supposes to have existed only
in the inventions of the monks of succeeding
ages, were, if we may believe TertuUian, ac-
tually resorted to in his day. ^^' The Primitive
Christians scrupulously complied with the decree
pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in
abstaining from things strangled and from
blood ; when, therefore, they were exhausted by
long fasting, food containing blood was offered
to them, in the hope that they might be seduced
into an act of disobedience. ^^^ TertuUian states
also that attempts were frequently made to
overcome the chastity of the female martyrs;
and that, instead of being exposed to the wild
beasts, they were consigned to the keepers of
the public stews, to become the victims either
of seduction, or of brutal violence.
^^^ Chap. xvi. p. 544. Ed. 4to.
'"'^ Apology, c. 9- De Monogamia, c. 5. Et libertas
ciborura et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit.
^^ Nam et proxime ad Lenonem damnando Christianam,
potius quam ad Leonem, confessi estis labem pudicitiae apud
nos atrociorem omni poena et omni morte reputari. Apology,
sub fine. See also de Pudicitia, c 1.
158
I shall proceed to notice some other facts
mentioned by Tertullian; which, though they
do not relate immediately to the history of
his own times, are yet worthy of observation.
^^* In the Tract against the Jews, he says that
Christ sviffered in the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
in the Consulship of Rubellius Geminus and
Fusius Geminus, in the month of March, at
the time of the Passover, on the eighth of
the calends of April, on the first day of un-
leavened bread. ^^^He had previously said that
Augustus survived the birth of Christ fifteen
years ; and that Christ suffered in the fifteenth
year of Tiberius Caesar, being then about thirty
years of age. It is allowed that the consul-
ship of the Gemini corresponded to the fifteenth
year of the reign of Tiberius ; and as we know
from St. Luke's Gospel that our Saviour began
to preach in that year, those writers who con-
tend that his ministry lasted only for a single
year, refer to Tertullian as maintaining that
opinion. To these passages, however, has been
^^ c. 8. sub fine. Compare c. 10. sub fine.
^^ Post enim Augustum, qui supervixit post nativitatem
Christi, anni 15 efficiimtur : cui successit Tiberius Caesar, et
imperium habuit annis 22, mensibus 7, diebus 20. Hujus
quintodecimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos habens
quasi 30 quum pateretur, c. 8. Tertullian affirms also, that
Christ was born in the forty-first year of the reign of
Augustus, of which he dates the commencement from the
death of Cleopatra.
159
opposed another, ^''^from the first Book against
Marcion ; in which it is said that Christ was
revealed in the twelfth year of Tiberius. The
correct inference, therefore, appears to be that
TertuUian believed our Saviour's ministry to
have continued for three years, but mistook
the year in which he was revealed for the
year in which he suffered. As it forms no
part of my plan to discuss the difficulties
attending the chronology of our Saviour's life,
I shaU content myself with referring the reader
to ^^^Mr. Benson's work on that subject.
Tertullian^^^ more than once speaks of a
^^ c. 15. At nunc quale est ut Dominus a 12 Tfberii
Caesaris revelatus sit? In a subsequent chapter TertuUian
speaks as if the ministry of Christ had commenced in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ; but he then appears to be
stating the opinion of Marcion. Anno 15 Tiberii, Christus
lesus de coelo manare dignatus est, Spiritus Salutaris, c I9.
So in L. iv. c. 7- Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani,
proponit (Marcion) eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae
Capharnaum, utique de coelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante
descenderat.
^^7 c. vii. Sect. i. p. 274.
^^ Cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de
domo ? de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum
Dominicae nativitatis Romana Archiva custodiunt ? ad Mar-
cionem, L. iv. c. 7- We must bear in mind that TertuUian
is arguing with an heretic, who affirmed that Christ was
not born at all, but descended upon earth a perfect man.
Again, c. 19. Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc
(f. tunc) in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum. And c. 36.
Vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus adhiic tunc fortasse
pendentibus.
160
census taken during the reign of Augustus ; the
documents relating to which were preserved
in the Roman archives, and, according to him,
afforded incontestable evidence of our Lord's nati-
vity. He states, however, that this census was
taken by Sentius Saturninus ; and consequently
appears to contradict the account given by St.
Luke, who ascribes it to Cyrenius. In this,
as in the former case, I shall not attempt to
examine the solutions of the difficulty, which
have been proposed by different learned men ;
but shall refer the reader to ^^^ Lardner. One
circumstance, however, seems worthy of obser-
vation. ""TertuUian uniformly appeals to the
census as establishing the descent of Christ
from David through JNIary ; whose genealogy
he also supposes to be given ^^Mn St. Matthew's
pendentibus. See also de Carne Christi, c. 2. Molestos semper
Gaesaris census. In the Treatise de Pallio, c. 1. Sentius
Saturninus is mentioned as having presided at the ceremonies
which attended the admission of Carthage among the Colonies
of Rome.
139 Credibility of the Gospel History. Objections against
Luke ii. 1, 2. considered.
^*'^ Ex stirpe autem Jesse deputatum, per Mariam scilicet
inde censendum. Fuit enim de patria Bethlehem, et de domo
David, sicut apud Romanos in censu descripta est Maria,
ex qua nascitur Christus. Adv. Juda?os, c. 9- Compare adv.
Marc. L. iii. cc 17- 20. L. iv. c 1. c. 36. Qui vult videre
lesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. See also
L. V. c. 1. and c 8. where there is a very fanciful appli-
cation of Isaiah xi. 1. Compare de Carne Christi, c. 21.
^*' De Carne Christi, c. 22.
161
Gospel. "^In the Apology, Tertullian states
that the miraculous darkness at our Lord's cru-
cifixion was denied by those who did not
know that it had been predicted, and there-
fore could not account for it ; " yet," he adds,
*' it is mentioned in your, i. e. the Roman ar-
chives." "^Gibbon thhiks, that, instead of
archivis vestris, we should adopt the reading
of the Codex Fuldensis, arcanis vestris; and
understand the reference to be to the Sibylline
Verses, which relate the prodigy exactly in the
words of the Gospel. It is certain that "^ Ter-
tullian speaks of the Sibyl as a true prophetess ;
but we "Miave just seen that he occasionaUy
appeals to documents in the Roman archives
in confirmation of his statements, and I observe
that Semler retains the reading archivis.
I will conclude my remarks on the exter-
nal History of the Church, as illustrated by
the writings of Tertullian, with briefly advert-
^*^ Eodem momento dies, medium orbem signante sole,
subducta est. Deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque
super Chrislo prsedictum non scierunt; ratione non depre-
hensa, negaverunt. Et tamen eum mundi easum relatum
in archivis vestris. c. 21.
**^ Chap. XV. note 194.
^^^ Ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 12. sub fine. The verses there
quoted may be found in the Apology of Athenagoras. c. 26>
De Pallio, c. 2. See Salmasius in loco.
^*^ See note 138 of this Chapter.
L
162
ing to the few notices which can be collected
from them, respecting the condition of the Jews
in his time. "^ He describes them as dispersed
throughout the world ; having neither God nor
a fellow-mortal for their king ; not allowed to
set foot upon their native land; reduced, in
a word, to a state of the lowest degradation.
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II.
By the kindness of the Rev. Samuel Hey,
Rector of Steeple Ashton, and of Dr. Richard
Hey, of Hertingford-Bury, I have been put
in possession of twelve Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History, read by their brother — the Rev. Dr.
John Hey, late Norrisian Professor of Divi-
nity in the University of Cambridge — in the
•*^ Dispersi, palabundi, et cceli et soli sui extorres vagantur
per orbem, sine homine, sine Deo rege, quibus nee adve-
narum jure terram patriam saltern vestigio sal'utare conceditur.
Apology, c. 21. Compare adv. Judaeos, c 3. Unde Israel
in novissimo tempore dignosci haberet, quando secundum sua
merita in sanctam civitatem ingredi prohiberetur. See also
c. 13, and de Pudicitia, c. 8. Ecclesiastical writers some-
times speak as if Adrian's prohibition applied only to the
precincts of Jerusalem or ^lia ; at others, as if it extended
to the whole territory of Judaea. See Gibbon, c. xv. note ip.
and the note of Valesius ad Eusebii Eccl. Hist. L. iv. c. 6.
.Justin Martyr, Apology I. p. 84. B.
168
Chapel of Sidney College, in the years 1768
and 1769. Two of them relate to the miracles
of the Primitive Church; and I willingly
take this opportunity of confirming my own
opinion on this interesting subject, by that
of one of the most acute, most impartial, and
most judicious Divines of modern times. The
reader, in perusing the following extracts,
should bear in mind, that at the time when
Dr. Hey wrote, the controversy excited by
Dr. Middleton's Essay was still fresh in the
recollections of men.
After some preliminary remarks, Dr. Hey
observes : " the authors on both sides of this
question, concerning the reality of the mira-
culous powers in the Primitive Church, seem
to have looked too far before them ; and to
have argued the point with too much regard
to the consequences which were likely to follow
from its being determined in this manner or
in that. Those who defend the pretensions of
the Fathers, do it through fear, least, if they
should appear indefensible, the cause of Chris-
tianity should suffer by the condemnation of
its early propagators. Those who accuse the
Fathers of superstition, weakness, or falsehood,
consider what indelible disgrace they shall bring
upon Popery by shewing the impurity of the
L 2
164
sources from which all its distinguishing doc-
trines have taken their rise. But why, in
searching after the truth, should we give the
least attention to any consequences whatsoever ?
We know with certainty beforehand, that error
of every kind, if it is not an evil in itself,
is always productive of evil in some degree
or other; and that to distinguish truth from
falsehood, is the likeliest method we can take
to make our conduct acceptable to God and
beneficial to man. Nothing can be more
groundless than the fears which some men
indulge, least the credit of Christianity should
suffer along with the reputation of several of
its professors ; or more weak than considering
that a sufficient reason for defending the vera-
city of the Fathers at all events. There are
some miracles recorded in Ecclesiastical His-
tory, which are too childish and ridiculous for
any one to believe ; and there are some indis-
putable records of the vices of the Christians,
and more particularly of the Clergy : so that,
if Christianity can suffer by such objections
(for which there is no kind of foundation in
reason) it has already suffered, even in the
estimation of those who think the objections
of weight. All agree (at least all Protestants)
that there have been pious frauds and forged
miracles, as well as that the sacred order have
165
been in some ages extremely vicious. The only
difference then is in the degree of this charge,
or rather about the century with regard to
which it ought to take place; but what dif-
ference can such a circumstance as that make
in respect of the divine origin of Christianity ?
We may, therefore, without fear or scruple,
enter upon the discussion which I have been
proposing, and probe every apparent wound
with resolution and accuracy.
But as all reasoning on subjects of this nature
must have its foundation in facts (for we can
no more argue upon points of history with-
out ascertaining facts, than upon points of phi-
losophy without experiments) the first part of
our business is to collect from Ecclesiastical
writers narratives of those miracles wrought,
or pretended to be wrought, in the Christian
Church, which seem to be most worthy of
our attention, and most likely to afford our
judgement ground for a determination.
Previous, however, to such enumeration, it
will be proper to mention a circumstance of
importance, viz. that for fifty years after the
ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made
any pretensions to the possession of miraculous
powers. We have already spoken in a former
166
Lecture, of those Fathers who are called the
Apostolic, of Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
^ Hermas ; now it is an historical truth not to
be omitted, that not one of those pious men,
though they were the principal governors of
the Church, and the immediate successors of
the Apostles in that government (as well as
their companions and friends) ever speaks of
himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary
powers of nature : they all endeavour to incul-
cate the morality and religion of the Gospel,
but that merely as men, possessed indeed of
the sense and meaning of the sacred writers,
but entirely void of their extraordinary power.
This fact, though not wholly uncontroverted, is
veiy nearly so ; some ambiguous expressions con-
cerning the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit
have been, not without great violence, extended
to signify an extraordinary communication with
the Deity — but no one has so much as pre-
tended that such communication was ever meant
to answer any further end, than that of
strengthening the weakness of human nature
against the terrors of persecution. I only affirm,
however, that none of the Apostolic Fathers
speaks of himself as endued Avith a power of
working miracles ; we must not absolutely say
' Hennas had visions. Noic of Dr. Heji.
167
that no miracles have ever been said to be
wrought about the time they lived ; because
there is a very celebrated letter extant from
the Church of Smyrna, giving an account of
the martyrdom of Polycarp, which is said to
have been attended with circumstances suffi-
ciently miraculous. This account I shall beg
leave to repeat from an eminent writer."
Having given an extract from this letter,
as well as from the account of the martyrdom
of Ignatius, Dr. Hey proceeds : " These mira-
cles are mentioned because they are said to
have been performed concerning those two
Apostolic Fathers, who never ventured to as-
sume the power of performing any themselves."
After briefly noticing the miracle of the
thundering legion, of which he observes that
" there seems sufficient reason for being cautious
about ranking it amongst the genuine miracles
performed in favour of the Christian religion,"
he adds the following remarks : " Though the
Apostolic Fathers stand clear of all imputa-
tions of vanity or falsehood on the score of
claiming miraculous powers, yet those whom
we mentioned next in order, when we consi-
dered the subject of studying the writings of
the Fathers, declare openly that such were in
their time indisputably exercised in the Church.
168
I mean Justin JNIartyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus
Bishop of Antioch, and Tertullian. We might
add Origen, and indeed every other writer after
them till the Reformation ; and there is no effort
of the divine power so great which they do not
boast of having exerted. Of all sorts of mira-
cles ever performed, one would expect men to
be the most cautious of assuming the power of
raising the dead: and yet Irenasus says that
this was frequently done on necessary occasions :
and that men so raised had lived amongst them
many years. Ireneeus only affirms this in ge-
Qieral, without mentioning any particidar in-
stance, and it is somewhat strange that no
instance was ever produced in the three first
centuries, insomuch that the heathens gave no
credit to the affirmations of the Fathers upon
this head. ^"Tantum enim," says Irenseus, "ab-
sunt ab eo ut mortuum ipsi excitent, ut ne qui-
dem credant hoc in totum posse fieri." There is
not, however, the same want of instances with
2 The whole passage is as follows : Tantum autem absunt
ab eo ut mortuum excitent, quemadmodum Dominus excitavit,
et Apostoli per orationem, et in fraternitate stepissime propter
aliquid necessarium, ea quae est in quoque loco Ecclesia uni-
versa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam,
reversus est Spiritus mortui et donatus est homo orationibus
sanctorum, ut ne quidem credant hoc in totum posse fieri.
L. ii. c. 5Q. Again, c. 57- Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus,
et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis
multis. Instead of the Henthcns, Dr. Hey should have said
the Heretics, for of them Irenaeus is speaking.
169
regard to the other branches of miracles said
to have been performed in the Church, namely,
seeing visions, prophesying, healing diseases,
curing da?moniacs, and some others."
Dr. Hey passes in tlie second of the two
Lectures to what he terms the later miracles
of the Church ; those which are said to have
been wrought in the interval between the esta-
blishment of Christianity by the civil power,
and the time at which he wrote : and having
remarked that many of them were proved to
be impostures, he supposes with respect to
others, the question to be asked — " whether
those should not be credited which have been
strongly attested, and their falsity never
proved ? "
" In answer to this," he proceeds, " we may
observe, in the first place, that to any one
who has been conversant in history, and has
seen the credulity of some, and the pious frauds
of others, .the want of regard to conscience in
promoting the views of a party, whether civil
or religious, with the many actual violations
of truth which have been fully exposed, it is
absolutely impossible to believe the common
run of miraculous stories ; no evidence can
equal the prior probability Avhich we have of
170
their falsehood. Then there are many relations
of preternatural events which no one believes,
(or perhaps a very trifling party), though they
have been attested with all possible formality
and exactness. The Abbe Paris is mentioned
by every one on this subject : he only died in
1735; the variety of miracles which were said^
to have been performed at his tomb is truly
surprising in an improved age : but not less
so the strength, the precision, the regularity of
the attestations of them, taken before magis-
trates of the greatest gravity and authority.
Mons. de Montgeron, a person of eminent rank
in Paris, published a select number of them
in a pompous volume in quarto, which he dedi-
cated to the King, and presented to him in
person ; being induced to the publication of
them, as he declares, by the incontestable evi-
dence of the facts : by which he himself, from
a libertine and professed Deist, became a sincere
convert to the Christian faith. And yet no
one now believes these facts ; the Jesuit party
never owned their belief of them, for the Abbe
was a Jansenist, and the miracles were to
support the interests of the Jansenists : though
the Jesuits profess to believe the miracles of
the Fathers which we have been relating, and
which are not near so well attested as those
of the Abbe Paris.
171
If tlien some of the ecclesiastical mira-'
cles are to be disheUeved, and the later,
which we are to disbelieve, are better at-
tested than the early, in what century shall
we draw the line between the credible and
incredible? it is a difficult matter, and the
difficulty cannot but affect the general credit
of Church miracles, if joined to other col-
lateral proofs of the fallibility of their evi-
dence.
There is another remarkable instance, in
which the greatest number of witnesses, and
the firmest temporary opinion concerning the
truth of the facts, have not been able to per-
petviate an error ; and that is the affair of witch-
craft. No miraculous fact in the Church has
ever been better proved, if so well, as the super-
natural operations of witches. All the nations
of Christendom have so far taken their powers
for granted, as to provide legal remedies against
them, — nay even capital punishments for their
supposed crimes. At this time there subsist in
this University one, if not several foundations
for annual sermons, to be preached against
them. It is shocking to think of the number
of poor wretches who have suffered cruel deaths
on account of this superstition: and yet there
does not now seem to remain the least trace
172
of it amongst liberal people, or indeed ^ in any
rank whatsoever. If we consider how an in-
credulous person, during its existence, would
be blamed for opposing the united sense of all
Christian nations, — the testimony of numbers
of impartial people, — the purport of the wisest
laws ; we shall at least contract a candid indul-
gence towards those Avho are unable to believe
the relations of St. Jerome. In short, as Dr.
Middleton says, " the incredibility of the thing
prevailed, and was found at last too strong
for human testimony."*
Far different from those we have been
speaking of are the miracles of the Gospel;
rational, benevolent, seasonable, of extensive use,
disinterested, free from superstition and morose-
ness, promoting good morals, called out by the
greatness of the occasion in a series, coincident
with the purposes of God manifested in prior
revelations of his will. ^ Nor would even these
^ We are afraid that Dr. Hey here over-rates the intel-
ligence of the people of this country.
* Dr. Middleton does not seem to fall far short of
Mr. Hume on Miracles. ISote of Dr. Hey.
^ A miracle to me can only be what I judge is done with,
and cotdd not be done without, divine power: I am liable
to be deceived both as to what is done, and what can be done :
every miracle therefore must be scrutinized by every man ;
and
173
have justly gained the assent of mankind, had
the internal evidence of the Gospel plainly con-
tradicted the external^ — had the precepts which
it promulgated been evidently unworthy of the
Deity, and productive of the misery of human
nature, instead of meriting the angelic eulogium
which they received when the heavenly choir
sang, "Glory to God, — peace on earth, -and
good-will towards men."
and the nature and tendency of it called in to assist the
judgement as to the fact, and the powers of man, &c. under
the laws of nature. Note hy Dr. Hey, written in 1783.
CHAP III.
ON THE STATE OF LETTERS AND PHILOSOPHY.
JMosHEiM commences bis internal history
of the Church in each century with an account
of the state of letters and philosophy. In the
second century his observations principally re-
late to the new system of philosophy ; or to
speak more accurately, to that mixture of Pla-
,tonism and Christianity which was introduced
by Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria. On this
subject the writings of Tertullian afford no in-
formation. Not that he was unacquainted with
the tenets of the different sects — his works
on the contrary shew that he had studied them
with diligence and success: or that he enter-
tained that mortal enmity to philosophy and
letters which Mosheim imputes to the Mon-
tanists in general — ^for he appears even to have
thought that the philosophers, who opposed
' Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de Veritate sapiebat,
Deos negans, &c. Apology, c. 46. Taceo de Philosophis,
quos, superbia severitatis et duritia disciplinre ab omni
timore secures, nonnullus etiam afiBatus Veritatis adversus
Deos erigit. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 10.
^75
the polytheism of their countrymen, were in
some measure inspired by the spirit of truth :
— "but he clearly saw, and has, in his contro-
versial writings against the heretics, pointed
out the pernicious consequences, to the interests
of Christianity, which had resulted from the
attempt to explain its doctrines by a reference
to the tenets of the philosophers. ^ " They
indeed by a lucky chance might sometimes
stumble upon the truth, as men groping in
the dark may accidentally hit upon the right
path : but the Christian, who enjoys the benefit
of a revelation from heaven, is inexcusable, if he
commits himself to such blind and treacherous
guidance."
Although, however, the writings of Ter-
tullian afford us no assistance in filling up the
^ Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academiae
et Ecclesiae ? quid Haereticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio
de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum
in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicurrl,
et Platonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt.
Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum lesum, nee
inquisitione post Evangelium. De Prasscriptione Haeretic.
c. 7- He traces the origin of all the heresies by which the
peace of the Church was disturbed to the heathen philosophy :
Ipsae denique haereses a Philosophia subornantur. Ibid. Cum
Philosophis — Patriarchis, ut ita dixerim, Haereticorum. De
Anima, c. 3. See also c. 18, and the Apology, c. 47-
^ De Anima, c. 2. Nonnunquam et in tenebris ^ditus
quidam et exitus deprehenduntur caeca felicitate.
176
outline sketched by Mosheim of the state of
learning and philosophy in tlie second century,
an examination of his own philosophical or
metaphysical notions will, we trust, supply some
curious and not uninteresting information. We
will begin, therefore, with the Treatise de Tes-
timonio Animas : the object of which is to prove
that the soul of man bears a natural testimony
to the truth of the representation, given in
Scriptm'e, of the Divine nature and attributes.
^ In a short exordium, Tertullian points out
the inconsistency and perverseness of the hea-
then, who usually paid a blind deference to
the decisions of the Philosophers; but re-
nounced their authority at the very time when
they approached most nearly to the truth —
when their doctrines most closely resembled
those of Christianity. He then proceeds to
address the soul; enumerating at the same
time the opinions entertained by the philo-
sophers respecting its origin. ^ " Stand forth,"
he says, " O soul, whether, as the majority of
"* Compare the Apology, c 46.
* Consiste in medio, Anima, seu divina et aeterna res es,
secundum plures phllosophos, eo magis non mentiens; seu
minime divina, quoniam quidem mortalis, ut Epicuro soli
videtur, eo magis mentiri non debens; seu de coelo exciperis
seu de terra conciperis ; seu numeris, seu atomis coucinnaris ;
seu cum corpore incipis, seu post corpus induceris ; unde unde
et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale, sensus et
scientiae
177
philosophers affirm, thou art divine and immor-
tal, and therefore incapable of falsehood ; or
whether, according to the solitary opinion of
Epicurus, thou art not divine, because mortal,
and therefore under a stricter obligation to
speak the truth ; whether thou art brought
down from heaven, or taken up from the
earth ; whether thou art formed from numbers
or from atoms; whether thine existence com-
menced with that of the body, or thou wast
subsequently introduced into the body : what-
ever thine origin, and in whatever manner thou
makest man a rational animal, capable of sense
and knowledge — stand forth." — " I do not,
however," he adds, " address myself to the
soul in an artificial state, such as it becomes
after it has been tutored in the schools of
philosophy ; but to the soul in its natural state,
possessing only that knowledge which it has
either within itself, or learns immediately from
its Creator."
The*^ testimony which, according to Ter-
tullian, the soul bears to the unity of God, con-
sists in exclamations like the following, which
scientiag capacissimum, c. 1. In c. 4. are briefly enumerated
the opinions of the different philosophers respecting the state
of the soul after death.
<* c. 2.
M
178
burst fortli involuntarily from the mouths even
of Pagans, in common conversation ; " God
grant that it may be so" — " If God will." " How
happens it," asks our author, still addressing
the soul, " that instead of naming any one of
the numerous Deities who are the objects of
heathen worship, you use the word Deiis ; and
thus unconsciously bear testimony to the ex-
istence of one supreme God ?" "In like manner
the soul evinces its knowledge of the attributes
of God, of his power and goodness, by exclaim-
ing, " God bless you ; God is Good ; I commend
you to God; God sees all things; God will
repay :" as it evinces its knowledge of the
author of evil, by the execrations which it
pronounces against daemons. ^ By the fear also
of death, by its innate desire of fame, and by
involuntary expressions of feeling respecting
the dead, it declares its consciousness that it
shall exist in another state, and its anticipation
of a future judgement.
" Such^ is the testimony which the soul bears
to the unity and attributes of God, and to the
reality of a future state of retribution. Such
the language which it speaks, not in Greece
only, or at Home, but in every age and in
every clime. Common to all nations, this lan-
"' c. 3. ** c. 4. " cc. 5, 6.
179
suaffe must have been derived from a common
source ; must have been dictated by nature,
or rather by the God of nature ; by Him who
created the soul. But you will say perhaps,
that these exclamations, which burst as it were
involuntarily from the lips, are not the result
of a consciousness in the soul of its Divine
Author, impressed upon it by himself; but are
merely habitual modes of speech used in
common conversation, ahnost without meaning,
and transmitted either by written or oral tra-
dition. Be it so. Whence then were they
derived by the man who first used them ?
The notion must have been conceived in the
soul, before it was delivered to the tongue, or
committed to writing. To account for the
general use of these expressions by saying
that they have been handed down by writ-
ten tradition, is in fact to trace them to God
himself: for the earliest writings in the world
are the Jewish Scriptures, of which the authors
were divinely inspired. It matters little whe-
ther we say that this consciousness was im-
pressed immediately by God upon the soul ;
or that the soul acquired it through the me-
dium of his revealed Word."
The confirmation which the natural tes-
timony of the soul affords to the truth of
ai2
180
Christianity was evidently ^°a favourite topic
with Tertullian. He urges the same argument
in the ^^ Apology : and Milner in his History
of the Church, though little disposed to think
highly of our author, admits that he " scarce
^^ Compare De Anima, c. 41. De Carne Christie c. 12.
De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 3. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 10.
^^ c. 17' I insert the whole chapter as highly deserving
the reader's attention. Quod colimus Deus unus est, qui
totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, cor-
porum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit,
virtute qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum ma-
jesta:tis suae, unde et Graeci nomen mundo Kocr/xov accom-
modaverunt. Invisibilis est, etsi videatur; incomprehensi-
bilis, etsi per gratiam repra^sentetur ; inaestiraabilis, etsi
humanis sensibus aestimetur ; ideo verus et tantus est.
Caeterum quod videri communiter, quod comprehendi, quod
aestimari potest, minus est et oculis quibus occupatur, et
manibus quibus contaminatur, et sensibus quibus invenitur.
Quod vero immensum est, soli sibi nbtum est ; hoc est quod
Deum a'stimari facit, dum aestimari non capit. Ita eum vis
magnitudinis et notum hominibus objicit et ignotum. Et haec
est summa delicti nolentium recognoscere quem ignorare non
possunt. Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus
continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus oblectamur, etiam
quibus exterremur — vultis ex animae ipsius testimonio com-
probemus } quae licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institu-
tionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidinibus et concupis-
centiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exancillata, quum tamen
tesipiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine,
et sanitatem suam potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine,
quia proprio Dei veri. Deus inagnus, Deus botius, et qziod
Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem quoque contestatur
ilium. Deus videt, et Deo commendo, et Deus inihi reddet.
O testimonium anima? naturaliter Christianae ! Denique pro-
nuntians hsec, non ad Capitolium, sed ad coelum respicit.
Novit enim sedem Dei vivi ; ab illo et inde descendit.
181
remembers a finer observation made by any
author in favour both of the natural voice of
conscience, and of the patriarchal tradition of
true religion ; for both may fairly be supposed
concerned."
In the short preface to the Tract of which
we have been speaking, Tertullian assigns the
cause of his frequent recurrence to this mode
of reasoning. To press the enemies of the
Gospel with arguments drawn from profane
literature was, he says, useless; though they
allowed the premises, they were always ready
with some pretext for evading the legitimate
conclusion. To bring forward arguments
founded on Scripture was still more unavail-
ing; they did not admit its authority. How
then were they to be convinced, or at least
silenced? ''By an appeal to the testimony
'^ The following are selected from numerous passages in
which Tertullian appeals to this testimony. Tractandum et
hie de revelationis qualitate, an digne cognitus sit (Deus),
ut constet an vere ; et ita credatur esse, quem digne constiterit
revelatum. Digna enim Deo probabunt Deum. Nos defi-
nimus Deiun primo natura cognoscendum, dehinc doctrina
recognoscendum. Natura, ex operibus ; doctrina, ex prasdica-
tionibus. Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 18. Compare L. ii. c. 3. Adv.
Valentinianos, c. 20. Denique ante legem Moysi scriptam
in lapideis tabulis, legem fuisse contendo non scriptam, quae
naturaliter intelligebatur et a Patribus custodiebatur. Nam
unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia
praecedebat? Adv. Judaeos, c. 2. De Virginibus vel. cc 1. l6".
Nos
182
borne to the existence of one supreme God,
by the natural voice of Conscience and by
the works of Creation. To this testimony,
therefore, Tertullian appeals : and in thus ap-
pealing, far from thinking that he could be
accused of pursuing a course derogatory to the
honour, or injurious to the interests of the
Gospel, he conceived that he was offering the
strongest evidence in confirmation of its truth ;
by shewing that the revelation, which God has
been pleased to make of himself, in his visible
works and in the soul of man, is in perfect
harmony with that contained in his written
word.
But though approved, as we have seen, by
Milner, TertuUian's reasoning will be far, we
suspect, from commanding universal assent in
the present day. Since the publication of Dr.
Ellis's work, entitled " The Knowledge of
Divine things from Revelation," it has become
Nos unum Deum colimus, quem omnes naturaliter nostis;
ad cujus fulgura et tonitrua contremiscitis : ad cujus beneficia
gaudetis. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. Si enim anima;, aut divina aut a
Deo data est, sine dubio datorem suum novit. De Testim.
Anima?, c 2. Quum etiam ignorantes Dominum nulla excep-
tio tueatur a poena, quia Deum in aperto constitutum, et vel
ex ipsis coelestibus bonis comprehensibilem ignorari non licet,
quanto cognitum despici periculosum est ! De Poenitentia,
c. 5. De Spectaculis, c. 2. De Corona Militis, c. 6. Ad
Nationes, L. ii. c. 5.
183
the fashion with many to treat, not merely as
vain and idle, but even as presumptuous and
almost impious, every attempt to prove the ex-
istence and attributes of God from the visible
works of Creation, or from the internal consti-
tution of man. " Unless," we are told, " the
idea of a God had in the first instance
been communicated to the mind ; unless God
had himself taught it to our first parents, and
it had thus been transmitted through succeed-
ing generations ; no contemplation of the works
of creation — no induction from the phenomena
of the natural and moral world could ever have
enabled mankind to discover even his exist-
ence. But as soon as we are taught that there
is a Creator necessarily existent and of infinite
perfections, our understandings readily admit
the idea of such a Being ; and we find in the
natural world innumerable testimonies to the
truth of the doctrine."
Now we are ready to grant, that man never
did by reasoning a jiosferiori discover the exis-
tence of God; or ^^in AVarburton's words, that
" all religious knowledge of the Deity and of
man's relation to him was revealed, and had
descended traditionally down (though broken
^'^ Doctrine of Grace, Book iii. c. 2. Warburton is speak-
ing in tile persoii of an opponent of Natural Religion.
184
and disjointed in so long a passage) from the
first man." Still this concession does not, in
our estimation, affect the only important part
of the question; which is not, whether man
ever did, ivithout 'premous intimation of a Su-
'preme Being, reason from the works of Cre-
ation to the existence of a Creator ; but
whether, if he had so reasoned, he would
have reasoned correctly.
When, however, it is affirmed that man
not only never did, but never coidd so have
reasoned, we must be permitted to examine
the arguments by which the assertion is sup-
ported. Why then could not man discover
the existence of God from the contempla-
tion of the works of creation, &c. ? " Because,
it is said, between matter and spirit, things
visible and invisible, time and eternity, beings
finite and beings infinite, objects of sense
and objects of faith, the connexion is not
perceptible to human observation." And we
are, therefore, to conclude that, unless we had
been taught that there is a spiritual, invi-
sible, eternal, infinite Being, we never could
have arrived at the knowledge of that Being.
Yet the same writers contend that the fact
is no sooner proposed, than it commands
the assent of the miderstanding. What then
185
are the grounds on which that assent is
given ? The mere statement cannot alone be
sufficient to produce conviction. The truth
is, that tlie understanding assents, because the
fact proposed agrees with our previous ob-
servations— with the previous deductions of
reason. Reason tells us that there are in the
nature of man faculties for the existence
of which we cannot account by any mo-
dification of matter known to us — thought,
memory, invention, judgement. Reason tells us
that no bounds can be set to time or space —
hence we are led to admit the existence of
a spiritual, eternal, infinite Being. The rea-
soning is equally valid, whether we apply it
in confirmation of a fact which has been re-
vealed to us ; or without any previous reve-
lation infer that fact from it. The latter is
doubtless by far the more difficult operation :
but we are now speaking only of its possibility
or impossibility. The ^^same series of proofs
by which we establish a known truth, might
surely have conducted us to the knowledge
of that truth.
^* To borrow an illustration from science. For how
long a period were the ablest mathematicians employed in
endeavouring to effect the passage from finite to infi-
nite, or from discrete to continuous, in geometry ? The
discovery was at length made, and therefore was at all
times possible.
186
Let us suppose a sceptic to ask why we
believe the existence of God: what must be
our reply ? According to the writers whose
opinions we are now considering: "This truth
was originally made known by revelation."
But if the sceptic proceeded to deny, as he
probably would, the authority of the revelation,
by what arguments must we endeavour to con-
vince him? The answer is, "we must neces-
sarily refer him to those testimonies, which the
natural and moral phenomena of the world abun-
dantly supply, of a Creator all-wise, powerful,
good." It is admitted then by the very answer
that those testimonies are sufficient to prove to
the sceptic the existence of God ; and is not
this in fact to give up the point in dispute?
Perhaps, however, there may be some who
will foresee this inevitable consequence of re-
ferring the sceptic to testimonies drawn from
the natural and moral world ; and will answer,
"We can prove the authority of the revelation
by historical investigation. We possess certain
records, the gemnneness of which we have ascer-
tained ; these declare that at a certain time a
revelation was made from Heaven ; and that
the person who was sent to make it, attested
the truth of his mission by miracles." Perhaps
the sceptic will reply, that no human testimony
187
can establish the credit of a miracle. How is
this objection to be answered but by a refer-
ence to the natural world ? by shewing that
what we call the course of nature, from which
a miracle is said to be a deviation, is in fact
only a system appointed by the God of nature ;
and consequently liable to be suspended or
altered according to his pleasure ? Or perhaps
the sceptic may say, that pretensions to mira-
culous powers have abounded in all ages; and
that, as such pretensions have in the majority
of instances been shewn to be false, we may
reasonably conclude that they were so in all.
To meet this objection, we must refer to the
criteria of miracles, which are all deductions
of human reason ; and shew that the purposes,
for which the miraculous powers are said to
have been exerted, were consonant to just con-
ceptions of the Divine Nature and Attributes :
and those, conceptions derived from sources
extraneous and independent of the Revelation
itself. For we must not, in the first instance,
say, that we obtain the knowledge of the
nature and attributes of God from a revelation,
and then prove the truth of that revelation by
a reference to the knowledge so obtained.
But is not this, it will be asked, to consti-
tute human reason the judge of the Divine
188
dispensations ? Is it not to say that man, blind
and ignorant man, can certainly determine what
ought and what ought not to proceed from
God ? By no means. It is only to compare
one set of facts with another; to compare the
conceptions of the Divine nature, which we
derive from the perusal of the Bible, with those
which we derive from the contemplation of
the phenomena of the natural and moral
world. If the written word and the visible
world both proceed from the same author, they
cannot but agree in the testimony which they
bear to his character and attributes.
Men, it is true, have not unfrequently been
induced by the love of paradox, by the desire
of obtaining a reputation for superior talent
and acuteness, or by other motives of a si-
milar description, to assert the all-sufficiency
of human reason, and to deny the necessity
of a revelation. Hence many good and pious
Christians have run into the opposite extreme,
and been disposed to regard all, who have
recourse to reason and the light of nature in
the investigation of religious truth, as little
better than infidels ; puffed up with a presump-
tuous conceit of their own knowledge, and sit-
ing in judgement on the fitness of the Divine
procedure. Yet what just ground is there
189
for these heavy accusations? Is not reason the
gift of God? Does not the light of nature
emanate from the author of nature ? from Him
who is the fountain of light? In what then
consists the presumption of endeavouring to
trace the Divine character and operations, by
means of that light, which God has himself
supplied? The knowledge of divine things
which we acquire by the proper exercise of
our various faculties on the phenomena of the
visible world, is as strictly the gift of God,
as that which we derive from the perusal of
his revealed word.
Warburton, in the 2d and 3d Chapters of
the third Book of the Doctrine of Grace, has
pointed out with his usual acuteness, the causes
in which the existing disposition to under-
value and condemn the argument a jmsferiori
originated. In their endeavours to defend our
holy religion, divines, instead of taking their
stand upon the firm basis of truth, have been
too apt to shift their ground, and think opi-
nions right in proportion as they were further
removed from those of the adversary with whom
they were immediately contending. Hence
they have continually run into extremes ; some-
times exalting human reason above all due
bounds ; at other times as unjustly depreciating
190
it. In the seventeenth century, fanaticism was
the error against which the clergy had prin-
cipally to contend ; and in order to place them-
selves at the greatest possible distance from
it, they took every opportunity of launching
forth into the praises of human reason, and
asserting its sufficiency to the discovery of
divine truth ; till the Gospel at length came
to be spoken of as a mere republication of
the religion of nature. The infidel was not
slow in availing himself of the advantage which
such unguarded expressions afforded him ; and
began to deny the necessity of revelation,
under the pretence that natural religion was
sufficient for every pui*pose. Our divines again
took the alarm; and, instead of endeavouring
to mark out the precise bounds of reason and
revelation, saw no better mode of extricating
themselves from the difficulty, than by run-
ning into the opposite extreme, and decrying
natural religion with as much vehemence as
their predecessors had extolled it. — To return
to TertuUian.
We have seen his opinion respecting the
testimony, borne by the soul of man, to the
unity and attributes of God, and to a future
state. Let us now examine his sentiments
respecting the soul itself; which are detailed
191
in the '^Treatise de Anima. After the body
or flesh ^^ of Adam had been formed out of the
^"diist of the earth, God breathed into his
nostrils the ^^ breath of life, and man became
a living soul. INIan, therefore, is composed of
two parts, (xdp^ and i/v^Vi Caro and "Anima,
^^ We have seen that our author wrote a distinct Treatise
on the Origin of the Soul, de Censu Animae, against Her-
mogenes, who contended that it was formed out of matter.
Chap. I. p. 64.
^^ c. 3. See, concerning the creation of man, de Resur-
rectione Carnis, cc 5. 7-
^^ TertuUian supposes the earth out of which man was
made, to have been in a humid state, having been lately
covered with water. De Baptismo, c. 3. Adv. Valentinianos,
c. 24. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 29- Qui tunc de /m«o formari
habebat. Adv. Praxeam, c 12. De limo caro in Adam. De
Anima, c. 27. For a definition of the body, see de Resur-
rectione Carnis, c. 35.
1** This breath Tertullian sometimes calls the substance
of God. A rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus
(homo), sed etiam ex substantia ipsius animatus. Adv.
Praxeam, c. 5. Compare adv. Marc. L. ii. cc. 5, 6. Quoquo
tamen, inquis, modo substantia Creatoris delicti capax inve-
nitur, quum afflatus Dei, id est, anima, in homine deliquit.
c. 9. The objection here stated was urged, not only by
the Marcionites, but also by Hermogenes. See de Anima,
c. 11.
^^ Tertullian sometimes uses the word Spiritus to desig-
nate the Soul. See de Baptismo, cc. 4. 5. De Poenitentia,
c. 3. Siquidem et caro et Spiritus Dei res ; alia manu ejus
expressa ; alia afflatu ejus consummata. De Spectaculis, c 2.
Et tamen et coi-pore et spiritu desciit a suo institutore.
In another passage in the same Tract, c 13. Spiritus and
Anima are joined together, and appear to be synonymous,
unless the former means the breath. Quae non mtestinis
trans igvuitur.
192
flesh and soul ; and the term soul, according to
TertuUian, includes both the vital and intel-
lectual principles, the latter of which was after-
wards distinguished by the name vou^. Animus
or Mens. He describes '^^ vov^, or Animus, as
co-existent and consubstantial with the soul, yet
distinct from it, as a minister or deputy is
from his principal; being the instrument by
which the soul acts, apprehends, moves. For
that the pre-eminence, principalitas, is in the
soul, Anima, not in the mind, Animus, is evi-
transiguntur, sed in ipso Spiritu et Anima digeruntur. See
also c. 17- sub fine, and de Anima, cc. 10, 11. But gene-
rally, TertuUian uses the word Spiritus to designate the Holy
Spirit ; the communication of whose influence constitutes the
Spiritual Man, Trceu/xariKo?, in contradistinction to the animal
man, \//u;^if<o9. Qui non tantum aninnae erant, verum et spiritus,
c. 26. In c. 41. we find the Spirit clearly distinguished from
the soul. Sequitur animam nubentem Spiritui caro, ut dotale
mancipium, et jam non animae famvda, sed Spiritus. Using
the word Spiritus in this sense, he calls the soul suifectura
Spiritus (Quia sufFectura est quodammodo Spiritus Anima.
Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 28.) the substance on which the Spirit acts,
or its instrument ; and in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis,
c 40. he says, that the inward man is renewed per suggestum
Spiritus. See also de Monogamia, c. 1.
20 Proinde et animum, sive mens est, vovv apud Gra?cos,
non aliud quid intelligimus, quam suggestum animae inge-
nitum et insitum et nativitus proprium, quo agit, quo sapit,
quem secum habens ex semetipsa se commoveat in semetipsa.
c. 12. Again, in the same chapter, near the end. Nos
autem animum ita dicimus animae concretum, non ut sub-
stantia alium, sed ut substantia officium. Again in c. 18.
Putabis qiiidem abesse animum ab anima, siquando animo
ita afficimur, ut nesciamus nos vidisse quid vel audisse, quia
alibi
193
dent from the language of common life. We
^^ say that a rich man feeds so many souls, not
so many minds; that a dying man breathes
out his soul, not his mind; that Christ came
to save the souls, not the minds of men.
" The " Scriptures then," TertuUian pro-
ceeds, "prove, in opposition to Plato, that
the soul has a beginning. They prove also,
in opposition to the same philosopher, that
the soul is corporeal." '^On this last point
great difference of opinion existed; some phi-
losophers, maintaining, with Cleanthes, that, as
alibi fuerit animus : adeo contendam, iramo ipsam animam
nee vidisse, nee audisse, quia alibi fuerit cum sua vi^ id
est, animo. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40. Porro Apostolus
interiorem hominem non tarn animam, quam mentem atque
animum intelligi mavult, id est, non substantiam ipsam, sed
substantiae saporem.
2> c. 13. 22 c. 4,
^ c. 5. TertuUian also ascribes a body to the Spirit.
Licet enim et animae corpus sit aliquod, suae qualitatis, sicut et
spiritHs. Adv. Marc. L. v. c. 15. See also c. 10. Et si habet
aliquod proprium corpus anima vel spiritus, ut possit videri
corpus animale animam significare, et corpus spiritale spi-
ritum: and adv. Praxeam, c. 7- Quis enim negabit Deum
corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus
sui generis in sua effigie. He remarks in general, Omne,
quod est, corpus est sui generis ; nihil est incorporale, nisi
quod non est. De Carne Christi, c. 11. Nisi fallor enim,
omnis res aut corporalis aut incorporalis sit neeesse est; ut
concedam interim esse aliquid incorporale de substantiis
duntaxat, quum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei cujusque. Adv.
Hermogenem, c. 35.
N
194
there could be no mutual action of things cor-
poreal and things incorporeal upon each other,
and as the soul and body certainly do act upon
each other, the soul must be corporeal. '* Plato,
on the contrary, contended, that every body
must be either animale, animated by a soul,
in which case it will be set in motion by some
internal action; or inanimale, not animated by
a soul, in which case it will be set in motion
by some external action ; but the soul falls
under neither of these classes, being that which
sets the body in motion. To this Tertullian
replies, that undoubtedly the soul can neither
be called animale nor inanimale ; still it is a
body, though sui generis. It is itself set in
motion by external action ; when, for instance,
it is under the influence of prophetic inspira-
tion ; and it sets bodies in motion, which it
could not do if it were not a body. Plato
further argued that the modes, in which we
arrive at the knowledge of the qualities of
things corporeal and things incorporeal, are per-
fectly distinct. The knowledge of the former
is obtained through the bodily senses, sight,
touch, &c. ; of the latter, of benevolence for
instance, or malevolence, through the intel-
lectual senses : the soul, therefore, is incorpo-
real. Tertullian denies the correctness of this
^* c. 6.
195
distinction ; and contends, on the contrary, that,
as the soul is advertised of the existence of
things incorporeal, of sounds, colours, smeEs,
through the medium of the corporeal senses,
the fair inference rather is, that the soul is
corporeal. " Still it must be allowed that the
soul and body have each its peculiar suste-
nance: the latter is supported by meat and
drink: the former by wisdom and learning."
Here Tertullian appeals to "'' medical authority ;
and contends that corporeal aliment is neces-
sary also to the well-being of the soul, which
would sink without it. Study does not feed,
it only adorns the soul : not to mention, he
adds, that the Stoics affirmed the arts and
sciences to be corporeal. "^ His last argument
is drawn from the Scriptures, which speak of
the torments endured by the soul of the rich
man, when in a state of separation from the
body — in that intermediate state in which the
soul remains until the general resurrection.
-'^ Soranus, the physician, whom Tertullian quotes by
name, appears to have been a materialist, and to have main-
tained the mortality of the soul.
^^ c. 7- Compare de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 17. There
is, however, some variation in TertuUian's language on this
subject. In the Apology, c. 48. he speaks as if the soul
could not suffer when separated from the body : Ideoque
repraesentabuntur et corpora, quia neque pati quicquam
potest anima sola sine stabili materia, id est, carne. See
also de Testimonio Animae, c. 4.
N2
196
But if tlie soul can suffer, it must be corpo-
real ; were it not corporeal, it would not have
that whereby it could suffer. "^Nor let it be
argued that the soul is incorporeal, because it
is invisible; all bodies have not the same pro-
perties ; that of invisibility is peculiar to the
soul. But though invisible to the eye of sense,
it is visible to the eye of the spirit; for
^^ St. John, when in the Spirit, beheld the souls
of the martyrs. The specimens already pro-
duced will give the reader a sufficiently accu-
rate idea of the arguments, by which the parties
in this dispute supported their respective opi-
nions ; we will, therefore, proceed at once to
state Tertullian's conclusion. ^^He ascribes to
the soul ^"a peculiar character or constitution,
boundary, length, breadth, height, and figure.
This conclusion he confirais by the testimony
of a Christian female, who was favoured with
a vision, in which the soul was exhibited to
her in a corporeal shape, and appeared a spirit;
not however an empty illusion, but capable
of being grasped by the hand, soft and trans-
parent, and of an ^ethereal colour, and in form
agreeing exactly with the human form. For
when God breathed into Adam the breath of
life, that breath, being diffused through every
^7 c. 8. -^ Apoc. vi. 9.
29 p g 30 j]^e Latin word is " habitum."
197
jpart and member of his body, produced an
interior man corresponding in all respects to.
the exterior.
Having shewn that the soul is corporeal,
^^ our author proceeds to maintain that it is
simple and uncompounded ; in opposition to
certain philosophers, who distinguished between
the soul and the spirit, Anima and Spiritus,
and made the latter a diiFerent substance from
the former ; the soul being according to them
the vital principle, the principle by which men
live — the spirit that by which they breathe.
Anatomists, they said, inform us that moths,
and ants, and gnats, have no organs of respi-
ration; they have the vital without the breath-
ing principle; those principles are consequently
distinct. ^"But TertuUian will not allow that
we can thus reason from an insect to an human
being. In the nature of man, life and breath
are inseparable. The distinction, therefore, be-
tween Anima and Spiritus, is only a distinc-
31 c. 10, 11.
^ In c. 19^ TertuUian distinguishes between the Vital
Principle in man, and in all other created things. Denique
arbores vivere, nee tamen sapere, secundum Aristotelem, et
si quis alius substantiam aniraalem in universa communicat,
quae apud nos in homine privata res est, non modo ut Dei
opus quod et caetera, sed ut Dei flatus quod haec sola, quam
dicimus cum omni instructu suo nasci.
198
tion of words, similar to that between Lux
and Dies, the light and the day. The spirit
or breath is an act or operation of the soul :
the sovd breathes. ^^We must not, however,
be led astray by the mere sound of words,
and confound the spirit, which from the very
birth of man is inseparably united to his soul,
with the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the
devil, which, though they act upon the soul,
are extraneous to it.
The ^^ simplicity of the soul necessarily im-
plies that it is indivisible. When, therefore,
the philosophers talk of the parts of the soul,
they speak inaccurately : they should say
powers, or faculties, or operations, as of
moving, acting, thinking, seeing, hearing, &c.
Because different parts of the body are, as
it were, allotted to the different senses, we
must not suppose that the case is the same
with the soul: on the contrary, the soul per-
vades the whole frame ; as in the hydraulic
organ of Archimedes one breath pervades the
^^ Erunt enim et aliae Spiritus species, ut ex Deo, ut
ex Diabolo, c 10. Compare c. 18. Ob haec ergo praestruximus
neque animum aliud quid esse, quam animfe suggestum et
structum : neque spiritum extraneum quid quam quod et
ipsa per flatum. Caeterum accessioni deputandum, quod aut
Deus postea, aut Diabolus adspiraret.
3* c. 14.
199
whole machine, and produces a variety of
sounds. ^^With respect to the seat of the
soul, the part of the body in which the prin-
ciple of vitality and sensation peculiarly re-
sides, TO rjycfxoviKov, principale, TertuUian places
it in the heart ; grounding his opinion upon
those passages of Scripture, in which man is
said to think, to believe, to sin, &c. with
the heart.
While, however, TertuUian denies that the
soul is divisible into parts, he ^^ admits Plato's
distinction respecting its rational and irrational
qualities ; though he explains the distinction
in a different manner. The soul of Adam, as
created by God and in its original and natu-
ral state, was rational. The irrational qualities
were infused by the devil, when he seduced
our first parents into transgression. Plato ap-
plied the terms QvfxiKov and eTnOvfxrjTiKov to the
irrational qualities of the soul ; but, says Ter-
tuUian, there is a rational, as well as irra-
^ Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 15. The ancient anato-
mists appear to have instituted experiments for the purpose of
ascertaining the seat of the soul, by removing those parts of
the body in which it has been usually supposed to reside.
Their conclusion was, that nothing certain could be pro-
nounced upon the subject; since choose what part you will as
the seat of the soul, animals or insects may be found, in which
the vital principle remains, after that part is removed.
3« c. 16.
200
tional, indignation and desire ; indignation at
sin, and desire of good.
The ^^ credit due to the testimony of the
senses was a question on which great diver-
sity of opinion existed among the philoso-
phers.^^ The Platonists contended that no
credit can be given to them, because in many
instances their testimony is at variance with
fact. Thus a straight oar immersed in the
water appears bent — a parallel row of trees
appears to converge to a point — the sky in the
horizon appears to be united to the sea. The
state of natural philosophy in TertuUian's days
did not enable him to give a correct explanation
of these appearances ; yet he seems to reason
correctly, when he says that, as causes can be
assigned why the appearances should be such
as they are, they constitute no ground for re-
jecting the testimony of the senses. To per-
sons suffering from a redvmdancy of gall all
things taste bitter; but the true conclusion is,
that the body is diseased, not that the sense
of taste is fallacious. TertuUian, however, does
not rely solely upon reasoning: he points out
37 c. 17.
■^ In the Tract de Corona, c. 5. TertuUian calls the senses
the instruments of the soul, by which it sees, hears, &c.
Compare the first Tusculan, c. 20. or 46.
201
the fatal consequences to the Gospel, which
will follow from admitting the notion of the
Platonists. If we cannot trust to the testimony
of the senses, what grounds have we for be-
lieving that Christ either lived, or wrought
miracles, or died, or rose again?
Closely ^^ connected with this notion re-
specting the fallacy of the senses was the
notion that the soul, so long as it is united
to the body, cannot attain to the '^^ hiowledgc
of the truth ; but must be involved in the maze
of opinion and error. The business, therefore,
of the wise man is to abstract the mind from
the senses, and to raise it to the contemplation
of those invisible, incorporeal, divine, eternal
ideas, which are the patterns of the visible
objects around us. Doubtless, answers Ter-
tullian, the distinction between things corpo-
real and things spiritual, things visible and
things invisible, is just ; and the soul arrives at
the knowledge of them through different chan-
nels ; being conversant with the one by means
of the senses, with the other by means of the
mind or intellect. But the knowledge obtained
39 C. 18.
^ The distinction between Scientia and Opinio must be
familiar to all who are acquainted with Cicero's Philosophical
Writings.
202
through the latter source is not more certain
than that obtained through the former.
In" opposition to those who affirmed that
the soul of the infant was *' destitute of intel-
lect, which they supposed to be subsequently
introduced — Tertullian contends, that all the
faculties of the soul are co-existent with it;
though they are afterwards more or less per-
fectly developed in different individuals, ^^ ac-
cording to the different circumstances of birth,
health, education, condition of life. But ob-
serving the great variety of intellectual and
moral characters in the world, we are apt to
conclude that it arises from some difference
in the original constitution of the soul ; whereas
that is always the same, though it is after-
wards modified by external circumstances. This
remark is particularly directed against the
"Valentinian notion that different seeds, ma-
terial, animal, or spiritual, are introduced
into the souls of men after their birth ; whence
arise the diversities of character discernible
among them. One necessary inference from
this notion is, that the character of the indi-
*^ cc. 19, 20, 21.
*^ In other words, that the infant possesses the vital, but
hot the intellectual, principle.
^^ Compare cc. 24 and 38. -* Compare c. 11.
203
vidual is immutably determined by the nature
of the seed infused into his soul ; whether
good or bad, it must always remain so. Our
author, on the contrary, argues, that the cha-
racter of God alone is immutable, because He
alone is self-existent : the character of a created
being must be liable to change, and will de-
pend upon the use which he makes of the
freedom of his will — a freedom which he derives
from nature. Tertullian, however, was far
from intending to assert the sufficiency of
man to form within himself by the mere ex-
ercise of his free-will a holy temper and dis-
position ; *^ he expressly states that the free-
dom of the will is subject to the influence of
Divine Grace. The following may be taken
as a correct representation of his meaning.
The character of man is not irrevocably fixed,
as the Valentinians affirm, by any qualities
infused into his soul subsequently to his birth.
The diversities of character observable in dif-
ferent individuals, and in the same individual
at different times, must be referred to the
operation of external circumstances, and to the
*^ Usee erit vis Divinae Gratiae, potentior utique natura^,
habens in nobis subjacentera sibi liberam arbitrii potestatem^
quod avre^ova-tov dicitur, quae quum sit et ipsa naturalis
atque mutabilis, quoquo vertitur, natura convertitur. Inesse
autem nobis to uvTe^ovaiov naturaliter, jam Marcioni osten-
dimus et Hermogeni;, c. 21.
204
different degrees in which Divine Grace in-
fluences the determinations of the will.
TertuUian^^ now recapitulates all that he
has said on the subject of the soul ; and affirms
that it derives its origin from the breath of
God — that it is ^^ immortal; corporeal; that it
has a figure ; is simple in substance ; possessing
within itself the principle of intelligence ; oper-
ating in different ways (or through different
channels) ; endued with free-will ; affected by
external circumstances, and thus producing that
infinite variety of talent and disposition ob-
servable among mankind ; rational ; designed to
rule the whole man; possessing ^^an insight
into futurity. Moreover, the souls of all the
inhabitants of the earth are derived from one
common source, the soul of Adam.
This ''^last point he proceeds to establish
by first refuting Plato's notions respecting
*'' c. 22. Definimus Animam, Dei flatu natam, immortal em,
corporalem, effigiatam, substantia simplicem, de suo sapien-
tem, varie procedentem, liberam arbitrii, accidentiis obnoxiam,
per ingenia mutabilem, rationalem, dominatricem, divinatri-
cem, ex una redundantem.
*7 Immortal in its own nature. Compare de Res. Carnis,
cc. 18, 34, 35.
*^ TertuUian here speaks of a natural insight into futurity ;
not of the spirit of prophecy, which is derived from the grace
of God. See cc. 24, 41. *^ c. 23.
205
the origin and pre-existence of the soul. — -
According to him, Plato said that the souls
of men are continually passing to and fro be-
tween heaven and earth ; that they originally
existed in heaven with God, and were there
conversant with those eternal ideas of which
the visible things below are only the images.
Hence during their residence on earth they do
not acquire any new knowledge ; but merely
recal to their recollection what they knew in
heaven, and forgot in their passage from hea-
ven to earth. Plato further argued, that the
heavenly powers, ^°the progeny of God, who
were entrusted by him with the creation of
man, and received for that purpose an immortal
soul, ^^ froze around it a mortal body. ^^ In
refuting these notions, Tertullian argues prin-
cipally upon the inconsistency of Plato ; who,
at the same time that he makes the soul
self-existent, and places it almost on an equa-
lity with the Deity, yet supposes it capable
of forgetting what passed in a previous state.
^^He alludes also to another philosophical no-
tion, that the soul is introduced into the
^ Genimina Dei.
^^ Mortale ei circumgelaverint corpus.
^2 c. 24.
^ c. 25. Perinde animam, extraneam alias et extorrera
uteri, prima aspiratione nascentis infantis adduci, sicut exspira-
tione novissima educi.
206
foetus after its birth ; being inhaled as it
were when the infant first draws breath, and
exhaled when man dies. ^^This notion he
conceives to be sufficiently refuted by the ex-
perience of every pregnant woman. His own
opinion is, that the soul and body are con-
ceived together; the womb of the mother
being impregnated at the same time by their
respective seeds, which, though different in
kind, are from the first inseparably united.
I must omit the arguments by which he
supports this opinion. They are of such
a nature that he feels himself obliged to apo-
logise for them, by saying that, as the busi-
ness of a controversialist is to establish his point,
he is sometimes under the necessity of sacri-
ficing modesty to truth. The conclusion is,
that when God formed Adam out of the dust
of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life, the seeds of the body and soul
were inseparably united together in him ; and
have been derived, in the same state of union,
from him to his posterity. Thus Tertul-
lian estabUshes his position, that the souls of
^ Respondete matres, vosque praegnantes, vosque puerpurae ;
steriles et masculi taceant; vestrae naturae Veritas quaeritur,
vestrae passionis fides convenitur, an aliquam in foetu sentiatis
vivacitatem alienam de vestro ? de quo palpitent ilia, micent
latera, tota ventris ambitio pulsetur^ ubique ponderis regio
mutetur ? &c.
207
all mankind are derived from one common
source, the soul of Adam.
Quitting ^^ Plato, Tertullian now passes to
the Pythagorean doctrine of the Metempsycho-
sis. I will mention one of his arguments
against this doctrine, on account of the in-
formation which it supplies respecting the
height to which cultivation and civilization
were then carried. '^^ " If the doctrine of the
Metempsychosis," he says, " is true, the num-.
bers of mankind must always remain the same ;
there can be no increase of population ; where-
as we know the fact to be otherwise. So
great is the increase that, although we are
continually sending out colonies, and penetrating
into new regions, we cannot dispose of the
excess. Every country is now accessible to
the traveller and the merchant. Pleasant farms
now smile, where formerly were dreary and
dangerous wastes — cultivated fields now oc-
cupy the place of forests — flocks and herds
have expelled the wild beasts — sands are
sown — rocks are planted — marshes are drained —
and where once was a single cottage, is now
a populous city. We no longer speak with
horror of the savage interior of the islands,
*•' c. 28. ^^ c. 30.
208
or of the dangers of their rocky coasts ; every
where are houses, and inhabitants, and govern-
ment, and civilized life. Still our population
continually increases, and occasions fresh grounds
of complaint : our numbers are burthensome
to the world, which cannot furnish us with
the means of subsistence: such is our state
that we no longer look upon pestilence, and
famine, and wars, and earthquakes, as positive
evils, but as remedies provided by Providence
against a greater calamity — as the only means
of pruning the redundant luxuriance of the
human race." Professor Malthus himself
could not have lamented more feelingly the
miseries resulting from an excess of popula-
tion ; or have pointed out with greater acute-
ness the natural checks to that excess.
I shall omit " TertuUian's other arguments
against the doctrine of the Metempsychosis,
as well as his observations respecting ^* the
difference of the sexes in the human species;
^^the state of the foetus in the womb; *^°the
growth of the soul to maturity; and ^Hhe cor-
*7 He occupies eight chapters from c. 28 to c. 36 in the
discussion of this doctrine, and in proving that Simon Magus
and Carpocrates founded some of their heretical notions
upon it.
•"^ c. 36. ^^ c. 37. ^'^ c. 38. «" cc. 39; 40, 41.
209
niption of human nature : to his remarks, how-
ever, on the last of these topics I shall hereafter
have occasion to refer. The next subject of
which he treats is ''"sleep. Having stated the
opinions of the different philosophers, he prefers
that of the Stoics, who defined sleep — ^^ a tem-
porary suspension of the activity of the senses.
^^ Sleep he conceives to be necessary only to
the body ; the soul, being immortal, neither
requires nor even admits a state of rest. In
sleep, therefore, ^^when the body is at rest,
the soul, which never rests, being unable to
use the members of the body, uses its own;,
and the dreamer seems to go through all the
operations necessary to the performance of
certain acts, though nothing is performed.
^^ Tertullian admits that there are well authen-
ticated accounts of persons who never dreamed
in the course of their lives. ^'Suetonius says
that this was the case with Nero ; and ^^ Theo-
pompus, with Thrasymedes. Our author men-
'^^ cc. 42, 43. ^3 Resolutionem sensualis vigoris.
^* Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 18. Arctius dicam, ne in
somnum quidem cadit Anima cum corpore, ne turn quidem
sternitm- cum carne. Etenim agitatur in somnis et jacti-
tatur ; quiesceret autem si jaceret.
''^ c. 45. We have seen in what sense TertuUian ascribes
members to the soul.
"•^ c. 44.
•^7 In Nerone, c. 46.
^^ See Plutarch, de defectu Oraculorum, c. 50.
o
210 _
tions also the story of "^^ Hermotimiis ; of
whom it was recorded that, when he slept,
his soul entirely abandoned and wandered
away from his body ; in this state (his wife
having revealed the secret) his body was
seized by his enemies, who burned it; and
his soul, returning too late, found itself de-
prived of its habitation. ^"^ Tertullian does not
attempt to reconcile these phenomena, with
his theory of the perpetual activity of the
soul ; but says that we must receive any so-
lution of them, rather than admit that the
soul can be separated from the body, except
by death : — or that the soul can sink into a
state of absolute rest, which would imply its
mortality. We have seen that Tertullian ap-
plies the word ecstasis — which he interprets
^^Excessus sensiis amentise instar — to the state
of the prophet's mind, when vmder the influ-
ence of inspiration. He applies the same
term to the state of the soul when dreaming ;
'"and evidently supposes that the knowledge
"^ See Pliny, Hist. Nat. L. vii. c. 52. Plutarch, de Daemo-
nio Socratis, c. 22. calls him Hermodorus.
70 fje says that the effect of fasting upon himself was, not
to make him sleep without dreaming (such an admission would
have been fatal to his theory) ; but to make him so dream that
he was not conscious of having dreamed. Jejuniis autem
nescio an ego solus plurimum ita somniem, ut me somniasse
non sentiam, c. 48 :— a subtle distinction.
71 c. 45. 72 c. 46.
211
of future events was frequently communicated
to it in dreams. ^* Some dreams, he adds,
proceed from God ; others from daemons ;
others are suggested by intense application of
the mind to a particular subject; others again
are so utterly wild and extravagant, that they
can scarcely be related, much less accounted
for or interpreted : these last are to be ascribed
peculiarly to the ecstatic influence.
From ^* sleep, the image of death, Ter-
tullian passes to death itself; which he. defines
the separation of the soul from the body.
75 « When we say," he continues, " that death is
natural to man, we speak with reference, not
to his original nature as given him by his
Maker ; but to his actual nature as polluted
by sin. Had Adam continued in his state of
innocence, this separation of the soul from
the body would never have taken place.
Sin introduced death, which even in its mildest
form is a violence done to our nature ; for
how can the intimate union between the body
and soul be dissolved without violence ?" ^'^ After
this separation from the body, the souls of the
mass of mankind descend to the parts below
the earth ; there to remain until the day of
7'' c. 47. 74 cc. 50, 51.
7^ c. 52. 76 c. 55.
o 2
212
judgement. The souls of the martyrs alonie
pass not through this middle state, but are
transferred immediately to heaven.
Tertullian '^ proceeds to enquire whether the
soul, after it has once passed into the lower
parts of the earth, can leave them and revisit
these upper regions. This question he deter-
mines in the negative ; arguing principally from
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But
the daemons who are continually labouring to
seduce us into error, though they cannot call
up the soul after death, yet can practise
illusions upon the senses; and by presenting
themselves under human forms, persuade men
that they are the ghosts of persons deceased.
Thus Saul was persuaded that he saw and con-
versed with Samuel. In like manner, Tertul-
lian refers to the agency of daemons the de-
ceptions practised by the dealers in magic;
who generally affected to call up the spirits
of such persons as had come to an untimely
end: taking advantage of the popular super-
stition, that the souls of men, cut off by a
violent death, hover about the earth until the
period has elapsed to which, had they not
been so cut off, their lives would have been
extended.
"7 cc. 56, 57.
213
But'* in what state, it may be asked,
does the soul remain during its abode in the
lower parts of the earth ? Does it sleep ?
" We have seen," answers TertuUian, " that sleep
is an affection of the body, not of the soul.
When united to the body, the soul does not
sleep; much less, when separate from the
body. No: the righteous judgements of God
begin to take effect in this intermediate state.
The souls of the good receive a foretaste of
the happiness, and the souls of the wicked of
the misery, which will be assigned them as
their everlasting portion, at the day of final
retribution."
Such are TertuUian's speculations upon the
origin, nature, and destiny of the soul. Should
the examination of them have appeared some-
what minute and tedious, it must be remem-
bered that the only mode of putting the
reader in possession of the state of philoso-
phy in any age is to exhibit to him the ques-
tions which formed the subjects of discussion,
and the manner in which they were discussed.
^^ c. 58. Compare de Res. Carnis;, c. I7., and the 40th of
King Edward's Articles. Qui animas defunctorum praedicant
usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas
asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extremo die cum illis
excitandas, ab Orthodoxa Fide, qua? nobis in Sacris Literis
traditur, prorsus dissentiunt.
214
The result of the examination must, we think,
be deemed favourable to our author's charac-
ter for talent and ingenuity. Many of the
questions proposed may appear trifling — many
of his arguments weak and inconclusive; the
questions, however, are not more trifling, or
the arguments more inconclusive, than those
which occur in the writings of the most cele-
brated philosophers of antiquity. It would be
the extreme of absurdity to compare the
writings of Plato and Tertullian, as composi-
tions; but if they are considered as speci-
mens of philosophical investigation, of reason-
ing and argument, he who professes to admire
Plato will hardly escape the charge of incon-
sistency, if he thinks meanly or speaks con-
temptuously of Tertullian.
In further illustration of our author's phi-
losophical opinions, we shall proceed briefly
to state his notions respecting the nature of
angels and daemons. ''^ He asserts, in the first
"^^ Apology, c. 22. Atque adeo dicimus esse substantias
quasdam Spiritales; nee nomen novum est. Sciunt daemo-
nes Philosophic Socrate ipso ad doemonii arbitrium expectante....
daemones sciunt Poetae ; et jam vulgus indoctum in usum male-
dicti frequentat. . . .Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit.
See also adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c 8. Sed adflatus Dei gene-
rosior Spiritu MateriaU, quo Angeli constiterunt. Apology,
c. 46. Quum secundum Deos Philosophi Daemones deputent.
De Anima, c. 1.
215
place, that there are spiritual substances, or
material spirits : this is not denied even by
the philosophers. ^^ These spiritual, or angelic
substances were originally created to be the
ministers of the Divine will; but some were
betrayed into transgression. ^^ Smitten with the
beauty of the daughters of men, they descend-
ed from heaven, ^^and imparted many branches
of knowledge, revealed to themselves, but
hitherto hidden from mankind : — the properties
of metals — the virtues of herbs — the powers
of enchantment — and the arts of divination
and astrology. Out of complaisance also to
their earthly brides, they communicated the
arts which administer to female vanity : — of
polishing and setting preciovis stones — of dy-
ing wool — of preparing cosmetics.
From^' these corrupt angels sprang daemons ;
a still more corrupt race of spirits, whose actu-
ating principle is hostility against man, and
^ Nos officia divina Angelos credimus. De Aniraa, c. 37-
Apology, c. 22. De Idololatria, c. 4.
^^ In proof of the alleged intercourse between the angels
and the daughters of men, Tertullian appeals to Genesis vi. 2.
de Virgin, vel. c. 7. and to the apocryphal book of Enoch. De
Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 3.
^^ De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c 2. L. ii. cc 4, 10. De
Idololatria, c. 9- Apology, c 35.
^ Apology, c. 22. Compare de Spectaculis, c 2.
216
whose sole object is to accomplish his destruc^
tion. This they attempt in various ways ; but
as they are invisible to the eye, their mischiev-
ous activity is known only by its effects. They
nip the fruit in the bud; they blight the
corn ; and, as through the tenuity and sub-
tlety of their substance they can operate on
the soul as well as the body, while they in-
flict diseases on the one, they agitate the
other with furious passions and ungovernable
lust. *^By the same property of their sub-
stance they cause men to dream. ^^ But their
favourite employment is, to draw men off, from
the worship of the true God, to idolatry.
^^ For this purpose they lurk within the statues
of deceased mortals ; ^^ practising illusions upon
weak minds, and seducing them into a belief
in the divinity of an idol. ^^In their attempts
^* De Anima, cc. 47, 49. Apology, c. 23.
^ Apology, cc. 23, 27. Compare tie Idololatria, cc. 3,
4, 15.
*•" De Spectaculis, cc 10, 12, 13, 23. where TertuUian
ascribes the invention of the games and scenic exhibitions
to the dcemons.
^ The illusions practised by the professors of magic
-were, according to our author, peculiarly the work of
daemons ; when for instance the object of the incantation was
to raise a dead man from the grave, a daemon presented
himself luider the figure of the deceased. De Anima, c. 57.
where the miracles performed by Pharaoh's magicians are
mentioned. See p. 212.
^ Apology, c. 22.
217
to deceive ' mankind, they derive great assist-^
ance from the rapidity with which they trans-
port themselves from one part of the globe to
another. They are thus enabled to know and
to declare what is passing in the most distant
countries ; so that they gain the credit of being
the authors of events of which they are only
the reporters. It was this peculiarity in the
nature of daemons which enabled them to com-
municate to the Pythian priestess what Crcesus
was at that very moment doing in Lydia,
In like manner, as they are continually pass-
ing to and fro through the region of the air,
they can foretel the changes of the weather;
and thus procure for the idol the reputation
of possessing an insight into futurity. When
by their delusions they have induced men to
offer sacrifice, ^^they hover about the victim;
snuffing up with delight the savoury steam,
which is their proper food. The daemons em^
ployed other artifices in order to effect the
destruction of man. ^''As during their abode
^ Ha?c enim daemoniorum pabula sunt. Ad Scapulam,
c. 2.
^ Apology, c. 22. Dispositiones etiam Dei, et hinc Pro-
phetis concio7iantibus exceperunt et iitinc lectionibus resonantibus
carpunt. c. 21. Sciebant qui penes vos fabulas ad destructio-
nem '^veritatis istius cermdas praeministraverunt. c. 47. Omnia
adversus veritatem de ipsa veritate constructa sunt, operanti-
bus aemulationem istam Spiritibus erroris. Ab his adulte-
ria hujusmodi salutaris disciplinac subornata; ab his qua;-
dam
218
in heaven they were enabled to obtain some
insight into the nature of the divine dispen-
sations, they endeavoured to pre-occupy the
minds of men, and to prevent them from
embracing Christianity ; by inventing fables
bearing some resemblance to the truths which
were to become the objects of faith under the
Gospel. Thus they invented the tales of the
tribunal of Minos and Rhadamanthus in the
infernal regions; of the river Pyriphlegethon,
and the Elysian Fields ; in order that when
the doctrines of a future judgement, and of
the eternal happiness and misery prepared for
the good and wicked in another life, should
be revealed, the common people might think
the former equally credible, the philosopher
equally incredible with the latter.
As the purpose for which the angels were
created was ^^ to execute the commands of
God, they who retain their original purity
dam etiam fabulae imraissae, quae de similitudine fidem
infirmarent veritatis, vel earn sibi potius evincerent: iit
quis ideo non putet Christianis credendum, quia nee
Poetis nee Philosophis : vel ideo magis Poetis et Philoso-
phis existimet credendum, quia non Christianis, &c. See
also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 40. and some very fan-
ciful instances in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 23.
^^ See note 80. The word Angel, as Tertullian remarks, is
descriptive, not of a nature, but an office. Angelus, id est,
nuntius ; officii, non naturae vocabulo. De Carne Christi, c 1 4.
219
still ^'occupy themselves in observing the
course of human affairs, and fulfilling the
duties allotted them : — thus, one angel is
especially appointed to preside ^^over prayer;
another ^' over baptism ; another ^^ to watch
over men in their dying moments, and as it
were to caU away their souls; ^'^ another
to execute the righteous judgements of God
upon wicked men. Tertullian states also, on
the authority of Scripture, that it is a part
of their office to appear occasionally to men;
in which case, according to him, they assume,
not only the human form, ''^but the human
body itself; by a peculiar privilege of their
nature, which enables them to create it out
of nothing. It is worthy of observation that
Tertullian, while he assigns to each angel a
^^ De Spectaculis, c. 27- Dubitas enim illo momento, quo
in Diaboli Ecclesia fueris, omnes Angelos prospicere de coelo,
et singulos denotare, &c. ?
^ Angelo adhuc Orationis astante. De Oralione, c 12.
9* Angelus Baptism! Arbiter. De Baptismo, c. 6.
^ De ipsius statim Angeli facie, Evocatoris animarum,
Mercurii Poetarum. De Anima, c. 53. sub fine.
'"' Et judex te tradat Angelo Executionis, et ille te in
carcerem mandet infennim. De Anima, c. 35.
»7 Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. Q. De Carne Christi, cc 3, 6.
Igitur quum relatum non sit unde surapserint carnem, relin-
quitur intellectui nostro non dubitare, hoc esse proprium
Angelicae potestatis ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere.
S20
particular office or department — as prayer,
baptism — vises a different language with respect
to dsemons; ^^ assigning to each individual his
attendant daemon : thus he accounts for the
story of the ^^Dsemon of Socrates.
I will conclude this chapter by a few re-
marks on Gibbon's representation of the opi-
nions entertained by the primitive Christians
respecting deemons. " It was," ^°° he says, " the
universal sentiment both of the Church and of
heretics, that the demons were the authors,
the patrons, and the objects of idolatry/'
That TertuUian ascribed to them the two
former characters is manifest from the fore-
going statement of his opinions. They were
the authors of idolatry ; because every evil
deed, every evil thought of man is the result
of their corrupt suggestions; and it was con-
sequently by their instigation that he was first
drawn aside from his allegiance to the one
true God, and induced to offer his adorations
to the creature instead of the Creator. They
■* Nam et suggessimus nullum peiie hominem carere
tlaemonio. De Anima^ c. 57-
^ Apology, c. 46. Sane Socrates facilius diverso Spiritu
agebatur ; si quidem aiunt dicmonium illi a puero adhjcsisse,
pessimum revera paedagogum. De Animti, c. 1. See also
cc. 25, 39.
^'^ Chap. XV. p. 4-60. Ed. dto.
221
were the patrons; because they promoted its
cause by practising illusions upon the senses of
mankind, and thus confirming their belief in
the divinity of the idol. But they were not,
at least in Tertullian's estimation, the objects.
^°^ He expressly says, that the objects of ido-
latry were dead men ; who were conceived to
be gods, on account of some useful invention
by which they had contributed to the comfort
and weU-being of man in his present life.
^°^ The daemons were content to lead man into
error, and to feed upon the savoury steam
arising from the sacrifices; without attempting
to propose themselves as the immediate objects
of worship.
^"^ Quando etiam error orbis propterea Deos praesumpserit,
quos homines interdum confitetur, quoniam aliquid ab uno-
quoque prospectum videtur utilitatibus et commodis vitae.
Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 11. See also the Apology, cc. 10, 11.
De Idololatria, c. 15.
1^ See de Corona, c. 10. where Tertullian is exposing
the absurdity of placing crowns on the heads of Idols : Sed
vacat totum, et est ipsum quoque opus mortuum, quantum in
idolis ; vivum plane quantum in daemoniis, ad quae perti-
net superstitio. To crown an Idol, the ostensible object of
worship, is useless ; since it can have no enjoyment of the
fragrance or beauty of the flowers. The daemons alone (who
lurk within the idols), profit by these superstitious practices.
CHAP. IV.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.
h OLLOWiNG Mosheim's arrangement, we
now proceed to enquire, what information can
be derived from the writings of Tertullian,
respecting the government and discipline of
the Church in his day. The edict of ^ Trajan,
ah-eady alluded to, proves the extreme jea-
lousy with which all associations were regarded
by the Roman Emperors. We cannot, there-
fore, be surprised that the intimate union which
subsisted between the professors of Christianity
rendered them objects of suspicion and distrust.
One point, at which Tertullian aims in his
Apology, is to convince the Governors, whom
he is addressing, of the injustice of their sus-
picions, by explaining the nature and pur-
poses of the Christian assemblies. ' " We form,"
he says, " a body ; being joined together by
a community of religion, of discipline, and of
' See chap. II. note 46. * c. 39.
223
liope. In our assemblies we meet to offer up
our united supplications to God — to read the
Scriptures — to deliver exhortations — to pro-
nounce censures, cutting off, from communion
in prayer and in every holy exercise, those
who have been guilty of any flagrant offence.
The older members, men of tried piety and
prudence, preside ; having obtained the dignity,
not by purchase, but by acknowledged merit.
If any collection is made at our meetings, it
is perfectly voluntary : each contributes accord-
ing to his ability, either monthly, or as often
as he pleases. These contributions we regard
as a sacred deposit; not to be spent in feast-
ing and gluttony, but in maintaining or bury-
ing the poor, and relieving the distresses of
the orphan, the aged, or the shipwrecked
mariner. A portion is also appropriated to
the use of those who are suffering in the cause
of religion: who are condemned to the
mines, or banished to the islands, or confined
in prison."
In this brief account of the Christian assem-
blies, ^ Tertullian appears to speak of the Pre-
^ Tertullian's words are, Praesident probati quique Seniores,
honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti : — which
Bingham translates. The Bishops and Presbyters, who preside
over us, are advanced to that honour only by public tes-
timony.
224
sidentship, as conferred solely in consideration"
of superior age and piety. It has, therefore,
been inferred, either that the distinction be-
tween the Clergy and the Laity was not then
generally acknowledged in the Church ; or at
least that its validity was not recognised by
our author. Attempts have been made to sup-
port the latter inference by an appeal to other
passages of his works; the full force of which
can only be perceived, by viewing them in
connexion with the subjects of which he is
treating.
We Miave already noticed, and shall again
have occasion to notice, Tertullian's sentiments
respecting a second marriage. They who main-
timony, L. iv. c. 3. Sect. 4. He assigns no reason for thus
translating the words probati qiiique Seniores. I am far
from intending to say that the Presidents were not Bishops
and Presbyters ; on the contrary, the following passage in
the first Tract ad Uxorem, c 7- when compared with 1 Tim.
iii. 2. and Titus i. 6. appears to limit the Presidency to
them. Quantum detrahant fidei, quantum obstrepant sanc-
titati nuptiae secundae, disciplina Ecclesiae et praescriptio
Apostoli declarat, quum digamos non sinit praesidere.
Compare also de Idololatria, c. ?. with de Corona, c. 3.
de Jejuniis, c. IJ. with 1 Tim. v. 17. But Bingham ought
surely to have explained why he affixed a sense to the words
so foreign from their literal meaning ; especially as in another
place, L. ii. c. 19. Sect. I9. he speaks of certain Seniores
Ecclesiae, who were not of the Clergy, yet had some concern
in the care of the Church.
4 Chap. I. p. 19.
225
tained its lawfulness, alleged the ^passages in
the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which
St. Paul enjoins that Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, shall be juta? yovaiKo^ avSpe^, — that is,
according to the interpretation generally re-
ceived in TertuUian's time, men who had been
only once married. They contended, there-
fore, that, as this restriction applied only to
the Clergy, Laymen were at liberty to con-
tract a second marriage. To evade this infer-
ence, TertuUian has recourse to the following
argument :^ — " Do not," he says, "suppose that
^ 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Titus i. 6. Bishops and Priests who
contracted a second marriage, were sometimes degraded.
Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. De
Exhort. Castit. c. ?• Compare de Monogamia, c. 11. Our au-
thor, however, complains that there was great laxity of dis-
cipline on this point. Quot enim et digami praesident apud
vos, insultantes utique Apostolo ? De Monogamia, c. 1 2.
^ De Exhort. Cast. c. 7- referred to in Chap. I. note 6.
I now give the whole passage. " Vani erimus, si puta-
verimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere. Nonne
et Laici Sacerdotes sumus.'' Scriptum est, Regniim quoque
nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter
Ordinem et Plebem constituit Ecclesias autoritas, et honor per
Ordinis consessum sanctificatus. — (There is an ambiguity in
the latter clause of this sentence, which must be differently
translated, according as honor is referred to Ecclesice or to
Differentia inter Ordinem et Plebem. I have adopted the
former sense, though by no means certain of its correctness.
I conceive the allusion to be to the higher seats occupied by
the Clergy, apart from the Laity, in the places of religious
assembly. In the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 11.
TertuUian makes a distinction between Christians majoris et
minoris loci ; apparently meaning the Clergy by the former,
p and
^26
what is forbidden to the Clergy is allowed
to the Laity. All Christians are priests, agree-
ably to the words of St. John in the Book
of Revelations — ' Christ has made us a king-
dom and a priesthood to God and his Father.'
The authority of the Church and its honor,
which derives sanctity from the assembled
Clergy, has established the distinction between
the Clergy and Laity. In places where there
are no Clergy, any single Christian may ex-
ercise the functions of the priesthood, "^may
celebrate the eucharist, and baptise. But where
three, though Laymen, are gathered together,
and the Laity by the latter. So in the Tract tie Baptismo,
c 17- Sed quanto magis Laicis disciplina verecundiae et
modestiae incumbit, quum ea majoribus competant.) — Adeo ubi
Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis,
et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet
laici; unusquisque enim stid Jide vivit, nee est personarum
acceptio apud Deum. Quoniam non auditores legis justi-
ficabuntur a Deo, sed factores, secundum quod et Apo-
stolus dicit. Igitur si babes jus sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi
necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis,
ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis .''
digamus offers .^ quanto magis Laico digamo capitale est agere
pro sacerdote, quum ipsi sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur
agere sacerdotem ? Sed necessitati, inquis, indulgetur. Nulla
necessitas excusatur, quae potest non esse. Noli denique
digamus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem adminis-
trandi quod non licet digamo. Omnes nos Deus ita vult
dispositos esse, ut ubique Sacramentis ejus obeundis apti
siraus. Bennet, in his Rights of the Clergy, &c. has bestowed
a whole chapter on this passage.
^ So the word offers must, I think, be translated in this
passage.
227
there is a Church. Every one lives hij his
own Jaithy nor is there respect of persons with
God; since not the hearers, hut the doers, of
the law are justified by God, according to
the Apostle. If, therefore, you possess within
yourself the right of the priesthood to be ex-
ercised in cases of necessity, you ought also
to conform yourself to the rule of life pre-
scribed to those who engage in the priesthood ;
the rights of which you may be called to ex-
ercise. Do you, after contracting a second
marriage, venture to baptise or to celebrate
the eucharist? How much more heinous is it
in a Layman who has contracted a second
marriage, to exercise the functions of the priest-
hood, when a second marriage is deemed a
sufficient ground for degrading a priest from
his order? But you will plead the necessity
of the case as an apology for the act. The
plea is invalid, because you were not placed
under the necessity of marrying a second time.
Do not marry again, and you will not run
the hazard of being obliged to do that which
a Digamist is not allowed to do. It is the
will of God that we should at all times be
in a fit state to administer his sacraments,
if an occasion should arise." — We are very
far from meaning to defend the soundness
of TertuUian's argument in this passage. We
p 2
S28
quote it because it is one of the passages
which have been brought forward to prove
that he did not recognise the distinction be-
tween the Clergy and Laity ; whereas a directly
opposite inference ought to be drawn. He
limits the right of the Laity to exercise the
ministerial functions to extraordinary cases ; to
cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in
ordinary cases, they would be guilty of an act
of criminal presumption, ^as he indirectly
asserts in the Tract de Monogamia ; where he
pursues the very same train of reasoning, in
refutation of the same objection. That he
recognised the distinction between the Clergy
and Laity, is further proved by the fact, that
among other accusations which he urges against
the Heretics, he states that they conferred
^ orders without making strict enquiry into the
^ Sed quura exloUimiir et injlarmir adversus Clerum, tunc
unum omnes sumus : tunc omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes
nos Deo et Patri fecit ; quum ad peraequationem disciplinae
sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus.
De Monogamia, c. 1 2. We may, however, infer from this pas-
sage that in Tertulhan's day the vahdity of the distinction
was occasionally questioned.
^ Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes. Nunc
neophytos conlocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas
nostros. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41., and in the
same chapter, Nam et Laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt.
In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 7- TertuUian complains that
the artificers of idols were admitted into Orders ; Adleguntur
in Ordinem Ecclesiasticum Artifices Idolorum.
229
qualifications of the candidates ; and that they
not only allowed, but even enjoined the Laity
to assume the sacerdotal office, and administer
the ceremonies of religion. In shewing that
the distinction was recognised by Tertullian,
we have incidentally shewn that it was gene-
rally recognised in the Church ; this indeed
is implied in the very words Clerus and Ordo
Ecclesiasticus, which frequently occur.
But what, it may be asked, is Tertullian's
meaning, when he says that the distinction
between the Clergy and the Laity is esta-
blished by the authority of the Church? Be-
fore we can answer this question, we must
ascertain what w^as his notion of the Church;
and for this purpose we will turn to the Tract
de Pr^escriptione H£ereticorum, in which he
takes a rapid survey of its origin and progress.
^° " Christ," he says, " during his residence on
earth, declared the purposes of his mission,
and the rule of faith and practice, either pub-
licly to the people or privately to the disciples,
of whom he attached twelve more immediately
to his person, intending that they should be
the teachers of the Gentiles. One of them
^^ c. 20. Compare cc. 32, 36. Si haec ita se habent, ut
Veritas nobis adjudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus
quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus
a Deo tradidit. c. 37.
230
betrayed him; but the remaining eleven he
commanded to go and instruct all nations, and
to baptise them in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. These eleven, having
added to their number a twelfth, in the room
of him who had been cut off, and having
received the promised effusion of the Holy
Spirit, by which they were endowed with
supernatural powers, first preached the Gospel
and founded Churches in Judea : they then
went forth to the Gentiles, preaching in like
manner and founding Churches in every city.
From these Churches others were propagated
and continue to be propagated at the present
day, which are all reckoned in the number of
Apostolic Churches, inasmuch as they are the
offspring of Apostolic Churches. Moreover all
these Churches constitute " one Church ; being
joined together in the unity of faith and in
the bond of peace." In conformity with this
view of the origin of the Church, TertuUian
never fails, when arguing upon any disputed
point of doctrine or discipline, to appeal to
" On the Unity of the Churchy see c. 32. and de Virgin,
vel. c. 2. This Church TertuUian calls the house of God.
De Pudicitia, c. 7- In it were preserved the authentic rule
of faith and discipline^ and the genuine Scriptures. De Prae-
script. Haereticorum, cc. 21, 37- et passim. With respect to
particular Churches, TertuUian admits by implication that
they may fall into error, c. 27-
231
the belief or practice of those Churches which
had been actually founded by the Apostles;
on the ground that in them the faith taught
and the institutions established by the Apostles
were still preserved. When, therefore, he says
that the authority of the Church made the
distinction between the Clergy and Laity, the
expression in his view of the subject is mani-
festly equivalent to saying that the distinction
may be traced to the Apostles, the founders
of the Church. Thus he contends that ^^all
virgins should be compelled to wear veils ;
because such was the practice in those Churches
which had been founded either by the Apo-
stles or by Apostolic men ; and consequently
the probable inference was that it was of Apo-
stolic institution. It is true that, after his sepa-
ration from the Church, he held a different
language. He then began to contend, ^^as we
have already seen, that wherever three, though
Laymen, were gathered together, there was
a Church : and in ^^ the Tract de Pudicitia,
^^ De Virginibus vel. c. 2.
13 Chap. I. p. 48.
1* Nam et Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spi-
ritus, in quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater et Filius
et Spiritus Sanctus. Illara Ecclesiam congregat, quam Domi-
nus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis
qui in banc fidem conspiraverint, Ecclesia ab auctore et
consecratore censetur, et ideo Ecclesia quidem delicta dona-
bit: sed Ecclesia Spiritus per Spiritalem hominem; non
Ecclesia numerus Episcoporum, c 21. Compare de Poeni-
tentia.
232
he says that any number of individuals, who
meet together under the influence of the Spirit,
constitute a Church ; which is not a number
of Bishops, but is the Spirit itself acting-
through the instrumentality of a spiritual man
{irveviJiaTiKO^ aS opposed to -vi/u^^t/cos) — that is, of
a man who believed in the revelations and
prophecies of Montanus.
At the same time that Tertullian bears tes-
timony to the existence of a distinction between
the Clergy and Laity, he bears testimony also
to the existence of a distinction of orders among
the Clergy. One of his charges against the He-
retics is, that they neglected this distinction.
15 it \Yith them," he says, " one man is a Bishop
to-day, another to-morrow : he who is to-day a
Deacon, will be to-morrow a Reader; he who
tentia, c. 10. In uno et altero Ecclesia est; Ecclesia vero
Christus. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 14. Sit tibi in tribus
Ecclesia. Pamelius, as we observed in Chapter I. note 121,
supposes -without sufficient grounds that, in the Tract de
Pudicitia, c. 21. by the three who were to constitute a
Church, Tertullian meant Montanus and his two prophetesses.
There is no necessity to invent absurdities for our author,
who has to answer for so many of his own. Again in the
Tract de Baptismo, c. 6". Quoniam ubi tres, id est. Pater
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus
est.
^^ Itaque alius hodie Episcopus, eras alius : hodie Diaco-
nus, qui eras Lector : hodie Presbyter, qui eras Laicus. De
Praescript. Hacreticorum, c. 41.
233
is a Priest to-day, will to-morrow be a Layman."
In the ^^ Tracts de Baptismo and ^Me Fuga
in Persecutione, the three orders of Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons are enumerated together;
and in the former the superior authority of
the Bisliop is expressly asserted.
The episcopal office, according to Tertullian,
was of Apostolic institution. In the ^^ Tract
de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, he throws out
the following challenge to the Heretics. " Let
them shew," he says, " the origin of their
Churches ; let them trace the succession of their
Bishops, and thus connect the individual who
first held the office, either with some Apostle,
or some Apostolic man who always remained
in communion with the Church. It is thus
that the Apostolic Churches shew their origin.
That of Smyrna traces its Bishops in an mi-
broken line from Polycarp, who was placed there
by St. John : ^^ that of Rome from Clemens,
^'^ c. 17.
^^ c. 11. See also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3.
^^ c. 32. See also the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 13.
Hanc Episcojjatui formam Apostoli providentius condiderunt.
^^ Irenseus, L. iii. c. 3. says that Linus Avas the first Bishop
of Rome, Anacletus the second, and Clemens the third ; and
that the Church of Rome was founded jointly by St. Peter
and St. Paul. Bingham reconciles this difference by supposing
that Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived, and
that
234
who was placed there by St. Peter : and every
other Church can point out the individual to
whom the superintendance of its doctrine and
discipline was first committed by some one of
the Apostles." The same statement is repeated
'"'"in the fourth Book against Marcion.
But how clearly soever the distinction be-
tween the Bishops and the other orders of
Clergy may be asserted in the writings of
Tertullian, they afford us little assistance in
ascertaining wherein this distinction consisted.
^^In a passage to which we have jvist referred,
that Clemens was also ordained their successor by St. Peter.
L. ii. c. 1. Sect. 4. Had the works of Ii'enaeus and Ter-
tullian proceeded from Semler's Roman Club, this apparent
contradiction would probably have been avoided.
^^ c. 5. sub. in. Among other statements contained in
the passage is the following: Habemus et loannis alumnas
Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo
tamen Episcoporu7n ad origincm recensus in loannem stabii
Auctorem. Sic et caeterarum (Ecclesiarum) generositas recog-
noscitur. The words in Italics, Bingham has translated, " The
Order of Bishops, when it is traced up to its original, will be
found to have St. John for one of its authors." L. ii. c. 1.
Sect. 3. We do not deny that this inference may be legiti-
mately drawn from Tertullian's words. But by the expression
Ordo Episcoporum, he did not mean the Order of Bishops,
as distinct from Priests and Deacons, but the succession of
Bishops in the Churches founded by St. John.
^^ See note l6. Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet jus
summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus; dehinc Presbyteri
et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter
Ecclesiae honorem. De Baptismo, c. 17-
235
the right of the Priests and Deacons to bap-
tise is said to be derived entirely from the
authority of the Bishop ; who is styled Summus
Sacerdos, the Supreme Priest. ''Bingham says
that Tertullian commonly gives to Bishops
the title of presidents or provosts of the
Church ; but the passages to which he refers,
scarcely bear him out in the assertion. '^ One
of them we have already considered. '^ In
another, Tertullian says that the communicants
received the eucharist only from the hands of
the presidents; and ^^in a third, that a diga-
mist was not allowed to preside in the Church.
But in neither case is it certain that Ter-
tullian meant to speak exclusively of Bishops,
since Priests might administer the sacraments ;
and he ^^says that he had himself known in-
stances of Priests who had been degraded for
digamy. The Bishops doubtless presided when
they were present : but in their absence the
office devolved upon one of the presbyters.
22 L. ii. c. 2. Sect. 5.
23 In note 3 of this Chapter. The passage is in the
Apology, c. 39.
^'^ De Corona Militis, c 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum
nee de aliorum manu quam de Praesidentium sumimus.
2^ Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7, also quoted in note 3. Quum
digamos non sinit praesidere.
2^ De Exhort. Castit. c. 7, quoted in note 6". Quum ipsi
Sacerdoti Digamo facto auferatur agere Sacerdotem.
236
^"The regulation of the internal oeconomy of
each particular Church was certainly vested in
the hands of the Bishop. *^ He appointed, for
instance, days of fasting, whenever the circum-
stances of the Church appeared to call for such
marks of humiliation.
The passages already alleged sufficiently
prove that, in TertuUian's estimation, all ^^the
Apostolic Churches were independent of each
other, and equal in rank and authority. ^°He
professes indeed a peculiar respect for the
Church of Rome : not, however, because it
was founded by St. Peter, but because both
that Apostle and St. Paul there sealed their
testimony to the Gospel with their blood, and
St. John was there thrown into the cauldron
of burning oil. ^^ From a passage in the Tract
27 De Virgimbus velandis, c. 9-
28 Bene autem quod et Episcopi universae plebi mandare
jejunia assolent, non dico de industria stipium conferen-
darum ut vestrae capturae est, sed interdum et ex aliqua
solicitudinis Ecdesiasticae causa. De Jejuniis, c 13.
^^ We have seen that in one sense our author called
all orthodox Churches Apostolic.
^** De Praescriptione Hasreticorum, c. 36.
31 c. 21. De tua nunc sententia quaero unde hoc jus
Ecclesiae usurpas. Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus : Super
hanc petram, &c. idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi
et alligandi potestatem, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri
propinquam, qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam
Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conterentem ?
Super tc, inquit, tedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et dabo fibi
claves.
237
de Pudicitia, it appears that the words of our
Saviour to St. Peter — " On this rock I will
build my Church," and " I will give unto thee
the keys of the kingdom of heaven" — were
not supposed at that time to refer exclusively
to the Church of Rome; but generally to all
the Churches of which St. Peter was the
founder. Tertullian himself contends that they
were spoken by our Saviour with a personal
reference to St. Peter, in whom they were
afterwards fulfilled. " For he it was who first
put the key into the lock, when he preached
the Gospel to the assembled Israelites on the
day of Pentecost. He it was, who opened to
them the kingdom of heaven, by baptising
them with the baptism of Christ; and thereby
loosing them from the sins by which they had
been bound ; as he afterwards bound Ananias
by inflicting upon him the punishment of death.
He it was who, in the discussion at Jerusalem,
claves, non Ecclesice ; et quEecunque solveris vel alligaveiis,
non quae solverint vel alligaverint. Sic enim et exitus docet.
In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum : ipse clavem
imbuit : vides quam — Viri Israelitcc, aurihus vumdate qua;
dico : lesum Nazarenum, virum a Deo vobis destinaUim, et reliqua
(Act. ii. 22.) Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo reseravit
aditum ccelestis regni, quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et
alligantur quae non fuerint soluta secundum veram salutem, et
Ananiam vinxit vinculo mortis, &c. Compare de Prasscrip-
tione Haereticorum, c. 22. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae
Ecclesiae petram dictum, claves regni coelorum consecutum, et
sojvendi et alligandi in coelis et in terris potestatem.
238
first declared that the yoke of circumcision
ought not to be imposed on the necks of the
Gentile brethren; thereby loosing them from
the observance of the ceremonial, and binding
them to the observance of the moral law." —
There is, however, in the ^' Scorpiace a pas-
sage in which Tertullian appears at first sight
to admit that Christ had transmitted the power
of the keys through Peter to his Church.
Nam etsi adhuc clausum putas coelum, me-
mento claves ejus hie Dominum Petro, et per
eum Ecclesias reliquisse, quas hie unusquisque
interrogatus atque confessus ferat secum. But
the concluding words shew his meaning to
have been, not that the power of the keys
was transmitted to the Church as a Society;
but to each individual member who confessed,
like St. Peter, that Jesus was Christ, the Son
of the living God : or as he expresses him-
self in the ^^ Tract de Pudicitia, to the spiritual
Church of Montanus. For the Scorpiace was,
as we have seen, written after he had recog-
nised the divine inspiration of Montanus ;
though probably before he actually seceded
from the Church.
In opposition to the opinion above expressed
3^ C. 10.
^^ See the passage quoted in note 1 4 of this Chapter.
239
respecting the independence of the Christian
Churches, a passage ^Mias been quoted, from
which it is inferred that even at that early-
period, the Bishop of Rome had assumed to
himself the titles of Pontifex JMaximus and
Episcopus Episcoporum. ^^ AUix indeed affirms
that our author is speaking of an edict pro-
mulgated, not by the Roman Pontiff, but by
the Bishop of Carthage. In the remarks pre-
fixed to the opinions delivered by the Bishops
at the council of Carthage on the subject of
Heretical baptism, Cyprian asserts the perfect
equality of all Bishops, and uses the following
remarkable expressions — " Neque enim quis-
quam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum
constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi
necessitatem collegas suos adigit." That this
remark is aimed at some Bishop who had called
himself Episcopus Episcoporum, cannot, we
think, be doubted. The majority of writers
apply it to Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; from
whom Cyprian differed on the point in question.
Allix, on the other hand, supposes that Cyprian
having Tertullian's words in his mind, alluded
** Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem
peremptoriunij Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Epis-
coporum dicit — " Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta poeni-
tentia functis dimitto." De Pudicitia, c. 1.
^ c. 8.
240
to the pretensions of his predecessor in the
See of Carthage; for the express purpose of
disclaiming them. He infers also, from a pas-
sage in a ^^ Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus,
that the controversy respecting the re-admis-
sion of adulterers to the communion of the
Church was confined to Africa, and that the
Roman Pontiff took no share in it. The state-
ments of both parties in this question must
be received with some degree of caution ; for
each w^rites with a view to a particular object.
The Romanists contend that, although Ter-
tuUian, then a Montanist, denied the supre-
macy of the Roman Pontiffs, his words prove
that it was openly asserted by them in his
day — an inference, which AUix was naturally
anxious to controvert, since he maintained that
the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome did
not at that period extend beyond the limits
of their own diocese. With respect to the
titles then given to Bishops, we may observe
that ^^ Bingham has produced instances of the
application of the title, Summi Pontifices, to
ordinary Bishops.
^ Ep. 55. Ed. Fell. Et quidem apud antecessores nostros
quidam de Episcopis istic in Provincia nostra dandam pacem
iTtioechis non putaverunt, et in totum pcenitentiae locum contra
adulteria clauserunt.
^^ L. ii. c. 3. Sect. 6.
I
I
I
241
The word Papa occurs in the '^ Tract de
Pudicitia, and being coupled with the epithet
benedictus, is generally supposed to mean a
Bishop ; and according to the ^^ Romanists, the
Bishop of Rome. But whatever may be its
meaning in this particular passage, it is certain
that the *" title of Papa was at that period
given to Bishops in general. After Tertul-
lian's secession from the Church, his respect
for the episcopal office, or rather perhaps for
the individuals who were in his day appointed
to it, appears to have undergone a consider-
able diminution. ^^He insinuates that they
were actuated by worldly motives ; and ascribes
to their anxiety to retain their power and
emoluments a practice, which had been intro-
duced into some Churches, of levying contri-
butions upon the members, for the purpose of
bribing the governors and military to connive
at the religious meetings of the Christians.
^ Bonus Pastor et benedictus Papa concionaris, c 13.
■'^ The Romanists cite the following words from the Tract
de Praescriptione Hareticorum, c 30, in confirmation of their
interpretation. Sub Episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti.
^ See Cyprian's works. Cler. Rom. ad Cler. Carthag.
Epp. 8. 23. 31. 36.
*^ Hanc Episcopatui formam Apostoli providentius con-
diderunt, ut regno suo securi frui possent sub obtentu pro-
curandi : scilicet enim talem pacem Christus ad Patrem regre-
diens mandavit a militibus per Saturnalitia redimendam.
De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 13.
Q
242
Besides Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, Ter-
tuUian mentions an order of Readers, ^' Leetores,
whose office it was to read the Scriptures to
the people. He speaks also of an order of
Widows ; and ^^ complains that a Bishop, in
direct violation of the discipline of the Church,
had admitted into that order a Virgin who had
not attained her twentieth year. The third
Book of the Apostolic Constitutions is entitled
Tre^i X^ipii^v — and it is there directed, in confor-
mity to the injunction of "''' St. Paul, that no
Widow shall be appointed who has not attained
the age \ of sixty : ""^ she was moreover to have
been only once married — a restriction also
founded on St. Paul's injunction. Widows
^ Hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector. De Praescript.
Haeret. c 41. See Bingham, L. iii. c. 5.
^ Plane scio alicubi Virginem in Viduatu ab annis nondum
viginti collocatam ; cui si quid refrigerii debuerat Episcopus,
aliter utique salvo respectu discipline praestare potuisset.
De Virginibus vel. c. 9- See also de Monogamia, c. l6.
Habet Viduam utique, quam adsumat licebit ; and de Exhor-
tatione Castitatis, c. 12. Habe aliquam uxorem spiritalem,
adsume de Viduis.
** 1 Tim. V. 3 to 1 1. Titus ii. 3.
^^ So Tertullian ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7. Quum Viduam
allegi in ordinem nisi univiram non concedit ; and de Mono-
gamia, c. 11. sub in. De Virginibus vel. c 9- Ad quam
sedem praeter annos sexaginta non tantum univirae, id est,
nuptae, aliquando eliguntur, sed et matres et quidem educa-
trices filiorum : scilicet, vit experimentis omnium afFectuum
structae facile norint caeteras et consilio et solatio juvare,
et ut nihilominus ea decucurrerint, per quae foemina probari
potest.
243
who had brought up families appear to
have been preferred ; because their experience
in the different affections of the human heart
rendered them fitter to give counsel and con-
solation to others, and because tliey had passed
through all the trials by which female virtue
can be proved. The duty of the Widows con-
sisted in administering to the wants of the
poor; in attending upon the sick; in instruct-
ing the younger females of the community,
in watching over their conduct and framing
their morals. *^They were not allowed to per-
form any of the ministerial functions ; to speak
in the Church, to teach, to baptise, &c. They
were maintained out of the common stock, and
had a higher place allotted them in the pub-
lic assemblies. St. Paul appears to speak of
Widows in the strict sense of the word: sub-
sequently the name was given to females ^^ who
had led a life of celibacy, and generally to
*^ Non permittitur mulieri iw ecclesid loqui, (l Cor. xiv. 34.)
sed nee docere^ nee tinguere, nee offerre, nee uUius virilis
muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. De
Virgin, vel. e. 9- One of Tertullian's charges against the
Heretics is, that they allowed their females to perform these
various acts. De Prsescriptione Hseretie. c. 41. Compare
de Baptismo, c. 1. sub fine, c. 17. Females, however, might
prophesy, agreeably to St. Paul's direction, 1 Cor. xi. 5.
Caeterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit, quum
mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit. Adv. Mar-
cionem, L. v. e. 8.
*' Ignatius ad Smyrnaeos, sub fine.
Q2
244
the order of Deaconesses. According to ^''Ham-
mond there were two sorts of x^P"' — that is,
as he translates the word, lone women — Dea-
conesses, who were for the most part unmar-
ried females ; and Widows properly so called,
who being childless and helpless, were main-
tained by the Church : he supposes St. Paul
to speak of the latter. ^^ Suicer on the con-
trary says, that the Deaconesses were originally
Widows ; and that the admission of unmarried
females was of a subsequent date. The reader
will find in *° Bingham all the information
which Ecclesiastical antiquity supplies on the
subject.
In addition to the notices which may be
collected from the writings of TertuUian respect-
ing the constitution of each particular Church
and the distinction of orders in it,^^ we learn
from them that Synods were in his time held
in Greece, composed of deputies from all the
*8 Note on 1 Tim. v. 3.
*^ Sub voce itaKOVKTO-a.
^ L. ii. c. 22.
^' Aguntur praeterea per Graecias ilia certis in locis con-
cilia ex universis Ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in com-
mune tractantur, et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani
magna veneratione celebratur. — Conventus autem illi, sta-
tionibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolenti-
bus, et ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. De Je-
juniis, c. 13.
245
Churches ; wlio might be considered as repre-
senting the whole body of Christians dispersed
throughout Greece. These meetings were
always preceded by solemn fasts, and opened
with prayer. In them all ^' the more important
questions which arose from time to time were
discussed; and thus the unity of doctrine and
discipline was preserved. Baronius supposes
that TertuUian alludes to particular councils
which were convened at that time by Zephyri-
nus, bishop of Rome, for the purpose of con-
demning the Montanists ; others suppose that
he alludes to councils held by the IMontanists
themselves — a supposition which in my opinion
is at variance with the whole context. He
appears to me to speak without reference to
any particular council, and to describe a gene-
ral custom.
As the converts from Heathenism, *^ to use
Tertullian's expression, were not born, but
became Christians, they went through a course
of instruction in the principles and doctrines of
the Gospel, and were subjected to a strict
probation, before they were admitted to the
'^ For instance, it was determined in these councils
what writings were^ and what were not, to be received as
genuine parts of Scripture. De Pudicitia, c. 10.
^^ Fiunt, non nascuntur, Christiani. Apology^ c 18.
246
rite of baptism. In this stage of their pro-
gress they were called Catechumens ; of whom,
according to ^^ Suicer, there were two classes —
one called Audientes, who had only entered
upon their course, and begun to hear the word
of God — the other avvaiTovvTe<i, or competentes,
Avho had made such advances in Christian
knowledge and practice as to be qualified to
appear at the font. Tertullian, however, ap-
pears either not to have known or to have
neglected this distinction ; since he applies ^^ the
names of Audientes and Auditores indiffer-
ently to all who had not partaken of the
rite of baptism. When the Catechumens had
given full proof of the ripeness of their know-
ledge and of the stedfastness of their faith, they
were baptised, admitted to the table of the
** Sub voce Ka-Trf^ovfxevoi.
^^ An alius est Intinctis Christus, alius Audientibus ? And
again, Itaque Audientes optare Intinctionem, non praesumere
oportet. De Pcenitentia, c. 6. In the same chapter Tertullian
speaks of the Auditorum tyrocinia, and applies the title of
Novitioli to the Catechumens. In the Tract de Idololatria,
c. 24. we find the following distinction. Haec accedentibus ad
Jidcm proponenda, et ingredieniibiis in Jidem inculcanda est;
and the following in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 1. Cog-
noscite, qui qiium maxime ad Deum acceditis, recognoscite,
qui jam accessisse vos testificati et cotifessi estis. In the
Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 14. our author dis-
tinguishes between Doctores and Qua^rentes. Est utique
frater aliquis doctor, gratia scientia; donatus: est aliquis
inter exercitatos conversatus; aliquis tecum, curiosius tamen,
quaerens.
247
Lord, and styled ^^ F'ideles. The importance,
which TertuUian attached to this previous pro-
bation of the candidates for baptism, appears
from the fact that he founds upon the ne-
glect of it one of his charges against the Here-
tics. ^^ " Among them," he says, " no distinction
is made between the Catechumen and the
faithful or confirmed Christian : the Catechu-
men is pronounced fit for baptism before he
is instructed ; all come in indiscriminately ; aU
hear, all pray together."
The teachers, who undertook to prepare
the Catechumens for reception at the baptis-
mal font, appear to have pursued the course
pointed out by the Baptist, and by our blessed
Lord. ^^ They began by insisting on the ne-
cessity of repentance and amendment of life.
Unfortunately the effect of their exhortations
upon the mmds of their hearers was fre-
*^ Sometimes, however, the word Fideles included also
the Catechumens. Thus in the Tract de Corona, c. 2. Nemi-
nem dico Fidelium coronam capite nosse alias, extra tempus
tentationis ejusmodi. Omnes ita observant a Catechumenis
usque ad Confessores et Martyres, vel Negatores.
°^ Inprimis quis Catechumenus, quis Fidelis, incertum est :
pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant. And again.
Ante sunt perfect! Catechumeni quam edocti. De Praescript.
Haeretic c. -il.
^ See the first five chapters of the Tract de Poeni-
tentia.
248
quently counteracted by ^^ a fatal perversion of
the doctrine of the Church respecting the effi-
cacy of baptism. In every age the object of
a large portion of those who call themselves
Christians has been, to secure the benefits
without fulfilling the conditions of the Chris-
tian covenant — to obtain the rewards of right-
eousness without sacrificing their present gra-
tifications. When, therefore, the proselyte was
told, that baptism conferred upon him who
received it the remission of all his former sins,
he persuaded himself that he might with
safety defer the work of repentance; and
passed the time allotted for his probation, not
in mortifying his lusts and acquiring a purity
of heart and affections suitable to his Chris-
tian profession ; but in a more unrestrained
enjoyment of those worldly and sensual plea-
sures, in which he knew that, after haptism,
he could not indulge, without forfeiting his
hopes of eternal happiness. So general had
this licentious practice become, that Tertul-
lian devotes a considerable portion of the
^^ Tertullian in the following sentence explains the preva-
lent opinion, at the same time that he points out the
qualifications necessary to render baptism efficacious. Ne-
que ego renuo divinum beneficium, id est, abolitionem
delictorum, inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse; sed ut
eo pervenire contingat elaborandum est. Quis enim tibi, tarn
infidte jxenitentitB viro, asperginem unam cujuslibet aqua;
comxaodabit ? Dc Pcenitentia, c. 6'.
249
'^ Tract de Poenitentia to the exposure of its
folly and wickedness ; and the '^^ historian of
the Roman empire might there have found
better arguments, than those which he has
extracted from Chrysostom, against the delay
of baptism ; though our author's attention was
not immediately directed to that subject.
While the teacher was endeavouring to
impress upon the Catechumen the necessity
of repentance and amendment of life, he would
at the same time gradually unfold the great
truths which constitute the objects of a Chris-
tian faith ; suiting his instructions to the com-
prehension and previous acquirements of the
proselyte, and proceeding from the simpler to
the more sublime and mysterious doctrines of
the Gospel. Of some the communication was
postponed until the convert had been bap-
tised, and numbered among the members of
the Church. But after that rite was confer-
red, there was no further reserve; and the
whole counsel of God was declared alike to
'''^ See particularly c. 6. where Tertullian argues that
baptism, in order to be effectual to the pardon of sin, pre-
supposes a renunciation of all sinful habits on the part of
him who is to receive it. Men are admitted to baptism
because they have already repented and reformed their lives ;
not in order that they may afterwards repent and reform.
Non ideo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus.
^' Chap. XX. note 68.
250
all the faithful. ^^In our account of Monta-
nus, we stated that part of that knowledge,
yvwcri^, which, according to Clemens Alexan-
drinus, had been communicated by the Apo-
stles to a select few, and through them
handed down to his own time by oral tra-
dition, consisted of mystical interpretations of
Scripture. We find occasionally, in ^^Tertul-
lian's works, expressions implying that he also
admitted the existence of interpretations, the
knowledge of which was confined to those
whom he terms the more worthy. But he
condemns, in the most pointed manner, the
notion, that the Apostles had kept back any
of the truths revealed to them, and had not
imparted them alike to all Christians. *^* He
applies to it the name of madness, and con-
siders it as a piu'e invention of the Gnostics ;
devised for the purpose of throwing an air
"2 Chapter I. p. 34.
"^ Thus in the Tract de Pallio, where he is speaking of
the expulsion of our first parents from Paradise, and of
the fig-leaves of which they made aprons ; he adds, sed
arcana ista, nee omnium nosse, c 3. and in the Tract de
Idololatria, speaking of the brazen serpent set up by Moses
in the wilderness, he says, Sive qua? alia figurae istius
expositio dignioribus revelata est, c. 5.
*•* Sed ut diximus, eadem dementia est, quum confitentur
quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse, nee diversa inter se prae-
dicasse ; non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse :
quaedam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis
flemandasse. De Pracscriptione Haeretic. c. 2.5. See also c. 26.
251
of mysterious grandeur around their monstrous
fictions, and supported by the grossest mis-
representations of Scripture. Having already
delivered our opinion respecting the mischiev-
ous consequences which have arisen to the
Church, from the countenance lent by the
writings of Clemens Alexandrinus to the no-
tion of a Disciplina Arcani — we shall now
only express our regret that Protestant divines,
in their eagerness to establish a favourite
point, should sometimes have been induced to
resort to it.
In '^Hhe passage already cited from the
Apology, TertuUian states one purpose of the
Christian assemblies to have been the main-
tenance of discipline by pronouncing censures,
according to the circumstances of the offence,
against those who had erred either in prac-
tice or in doctrine. '"'We have seen that
the proselyte, before he was admitted to the
baptismal font, was subjected to a strict pro-
bation. ^" In baptism he received the remis-
sion of all his former transgressions, and
^^ See p. 223. The sentence was pronounced by the
President. Quomodo ut auferatur de medio illorum ? Non
utique ut extra Ecclesiam detur ; hoc enim non a Deo
postularetur quod erat in Praesidentis officio. De Pudicitia,
c. 14.
''^ p. 245. '^ See the Tract de Poenitentia, cc. 7> 9-
252
solemnly renounced all his former carnal de-
sires and impure habits. If, however, through
the weakness of human nature and the arts
of his spiritual adversary, he was afterwards
betrayed into sin, the door of mercy was
not closed against him ; he might still be
restored to the favour of God and of the
Church, by making a public confession of his
guilt. It was not sufficient that the unhappy
offender felt the deepest remorse, and that his
peace of mind was destroyed by the remem-
brance of his transgression : — he was required
to express his contrition by some public acts,
which might at once satisfy the Church of his
sincerity, and deter others from similar trans-
gressions. The name given to this public con-
fession of guilt was Exomologesis ; and it con-
sisted in various external marks of humiliation.
^^'The penitent was clothed in the meanest
apparel — he lay in sackcloth and ashes — he
either fasted entirely, or lived upon bread and
water — he passed whole days and nights in
tears and lamentations — he embraced the knees
of the presbyters as they entered the Church,
and entreated the brethren to intercede by
their prayers in his behalf. In this state of
degradation and exclusion from the commu-
^ Compare de Pudicitia, c. 5. sub fine. c. 13. Et tu qui-
ciem pcjenitentiam moechi ad exorandam fraternitatem, &c.
i
253
nion of the faithful he remained a longer or
a shorter period, according to the magnitude
of his offence : when that period was expired,
the ^''bishop publicly pronounced his absolu-
tion, by which he was restored to the favour
of God and to the communion of the Church.
Such is the account given by Tertullian of
the Exomologesis, or public confession en-
joined by the Church for sins committed
after baptism. ^*^ Its benefits could be ob-
tained only once : if the penitent relapsed, a
place of repentance was no longer open to
him. Although, however, he could not be
reconciled to the Church in this world, we
must not infer that Tertullian intended to
exclude him from all hope of pardon in the
next. ^^ They indeed who, through false shame
or an unwillingness to submit to the penance
enjoined them, desperately refused to reconcile
themselves to the Church by making a pub-
lic confession, would be consigned to eternal
^^ See the passage quoted from the Tract de Pudicitia,
c. 13. in note 65. and c. 18. sub fine. Salva ilia pcenitentiae
specie post Fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab
Episcopo consequi poterit^, aut majoribus et irreraissibilibus
a Deo solo.
^^ Collocavit in vestibulo pcenitentiam secundam, qnse
pulsantibus patefaciat ; sed jam semel, quia jam secundo ;
sed amplius nunquam, quia proxime frustra. De Poeniten-
tia, c. 7- See also c. p.
7' De Poenitentia, cc. 10, 11, 12.
254
misery. "^^But our author expressly distin-
guishes between remission of sins by the
Church and by God: and affirms that the
sincere penitent, though he may not by his
tears and lamentations obtain re-admission into
the Church, may yet secure his reception into
the kingdom of heaven.
In '^^our attempts to distinguish between
the works composed by Tertullian before and
after his adoption of the opinions of Mon-
tanus, we remarked that the Tract de Poeni-
tentia belonged to the former class ; and that
he '* there spoke as if all crimes, committed
after baptism, might once, though only once,
be pardoned upon repentance. But in the
Tract de Pudicitia, which was written after
72 See de Pudicitia, c 3. Et si pacem hie non metit, apud
Dominum seminat. Tertullian reasons throughout the Tract
on the supposition that the more heinous offences, majora de-
licta, can be pardoned by God alone. See cc. 11, 18. sub fine.
'' See chap. I. p. 45.
^* See particularly the commencement of c. 8. But at
other times Tertullian speaks as if idolaters, apostates, and
murderers were never re-admitted to the communion of the
Church. De Pudicitia, cc. 5, 9, 12. sub fine. Hinc est quod
neque Idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur.
Crimes against nature were also under the same irremissible
sentence of exclusion. Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias
et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturae, non modo
limine, verum omni Ecclesiae tecto submovemus ; quia non
sunt delicta, sed monstra. c. 4. See Bingham, E. xviii. c. 4.
L. xvi. c. 10. Sect. 2.
255
he had seceded from the Church, we "^^find
him drawing a distinction between greater and
less offences — between those which could not,
and those which could be pardoned by the
Church. If, ^''for instance, a Christian had
been excommunicated for being present at a
chariot race, or a combat of gladiators, or a dra-
matic representation, or any gymnastic exer-
cise ; for attending any secular game or
entertainment, or working at any trade which
ministered to the purposes of idolatry, or
using any expression which might be con-
strued into a denial of his faith or into blas-
phemy against Christ — or if from passion or
impatience of censure he had himself broken
off his connexion with the Church — still his
guilt was not of so deep a dye, but that he
7^ De Pudicitia^ cc. 1, 2. Secundum hanc difFerentiara de-
lictorum pcEuitentiae quoque conditio discriminatur. Alia erit,
qu£e veniam consequi possit, in delicto scilicet remissibili ; alia
quae consequi nullo modo potest,, in delicto scilicet irre-
missibili. c. 18. sub fine. Haec ut principalia penes Dominum
deli eta. De Patientia, c. 5-
7^ Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. Perit igitur et
fidelis elapsus in spectaculum quadrigarii furoris, et gladiato-
rii cruoris, et scenicae fceditatis, et xysticae vanitatis, in lusus,
in convivia secularis solennitatis ; in officium^ in ministerium
alienae idololatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis ; in verbum
ancipitis negationis aut blasphemiae impegit; ob tale quid
extra gregem datus est, vel et ipse forte ira, tumore, aemu-
latione, quod denique saepe fit dedignatione castigationi.s
abrupit ; debet requiri atque revocari. De Pudicitia, c. 7-
256
might, upon his public confession, be again
received into its communion. "^In a subse-
quent passage he classes among the venial sins,
being angry without a cause, and allowing
the sun to go down upon our wrath — acts of
violence — evil-speaking — rash swearing — non-
performance of contracts — violations of truth ;
and among the heinous sins, homicide, idola-
try, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adul-
tery, and fornication. Of these he says that
there is no remission ; and that even Christ
will not intercede for those who commit
them. Such were the severe notions of disci-
pline entertained by TertuUian after he be-
came a Montanist. In his Tract de Pudicitia
^^ Cui enim non accidit aut irasci inique et ultra solis
occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut
temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut
necessitate mentiri? in negotiis, in officiis, in quEestu, in
victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur ! ut si nulla
sit venia istorum, nemini salus competat. Horum ergo erit
venia per exoratorem Patris, Christum. Sunt autem et con-
traria istis, ut graviora et exitiosaj quae veniam non capi-
ant, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, uti-
que et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi
Dei. Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus. c. I9. In
the fourth book against Marcion, the enumeration of the
delicta majora is somewhat different. Quae septem maculis
capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idololatria, blasphemia,
homicidio^ adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. c. 9.
On other occasions TertuUian appears to overlook the distinc-
tion between greater and lesser offences. Quum — omne
delictum voluntarium in Domino grande sit. Ad Uxorera^
L. ii. c. 3.
'257
he applies them to adulterers and fornicators
in particular, and '*^ even extends them to
those who contract a second marriage; brand-
ing ^^ the orthodox, who recommended a milder
course, with the name of >//y^t/fot, Animales — ^
that is, men possessing indeed the Anima
which God breathed into Adam, thereby con-
stituting him a living soul, but strangers to
the influence of that Spirit by which the dis-
ciples of the Paraclete were inspired.
We may take this opportunity of observ-
ing, that TertuUian's works contain no allusion
to the practice of Auricular Confession.
At the end of the chapter on the Go-
vernment of the Church, Mosheim gives a
short account of the Ecclesiastical Authors, Avho
flourished during the century of which he is
treating. The notices which the writings of
Tertullian supply on this point are very few
7^ Et ideo durissime nos, infamantes Paracletum disciplinee
enormitate, Digamos foris sistimus, eundem limitem liminis
incechis quoque et fornicatorihiis figimus, jejunas pacis lachry-
mas profusuris^ nee amplius ab Ecclesia quam publicationem
dedecoris relaturis. De Pudicitia^ c. 1. sub fine.
"^^ See Chap. I. note 46. The Tract de Pudiciti'd was
directed against an edict, published by a bishop (probably
of Rome) and allowing adulterers and fornicators to be re-
admitted to the communion of the Church upon repentance.
See p. 239.
K
258
in number. ^''He alludes to the Shepherd of
Hermas in a manner which shews that it was
highly esteemed in the Church, and even
deemed by some of authority ; for he sup-
poses that a practice, which appears to have
prevailed in his day, of sitting down after
the conclusion of the public prayers, owed its
origin to a misinterpretation of a passage in
that work. In his later writings, when he
had adopted the rigid notions of Montanus
respecting the perpetual exclusion of adulterers
from the communion of the Church, ^^ he
speaks with great bitterness of the Shepherd
of Hermas, as countenancing adultery; and
states that it had been pronounced apocry-
phal by every synod of the orthodox Churches.
^"Yet the opinions expressed in the Treatise
de Pcenitentia, written before Tertullian be-
came a Montanist, appear to bear something
more than an accidental resemblance to those
contained in the Shepherd of Hermas.
^ De Oratione, c. 12.
^^ Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola
moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi ; si non
ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apo-
crypha et falsa judicaretur; adultera et ipsa et inde pa-
trona sociorum. De Pudicitia, c. 10. Again, in c. 20. lUo
Apocrypho Pastore mcechorum.
^ Compare de PoenitentiA, cc. 7, 8, 9. with the Shepherd
of Hernias, Mand. iv. c 3.
259
We^^ have seen that Tertullian mentions
Clemens Romanus as having been placed in
the see of Rome, by St. Peter ; and Polycarp
in that of Smyrna, by St. John.
In^* speaking of the authors who had re-
futed the Valentinian heresy, he mentions
Justin, ^^Miltiades, and Irenaius. To them he
adds Proculus, supposed by some eminent cri-
tics to be the same as Proclus ; who is stated
^by the author of the brief Enumeration
of Heretics, subjoined to Tertullian's Treatise
de Preescriptione Hsereticorum, to have been
the head of one of the two sects into which
the Cataphrygians or Montanists were divided.
He appears to have made a distinction be-
tween the Holy Ghost and the Paraclete ;
the former inspired the apostles ; the latter
spoke in Montanus, and revealed through him
more numerous and more sublime truths than
Christ had delivered in the Gospel. Proclus
did not, however, like iEschines, the head of
the other division of the Cataphrygians, con-
found the Father and the Son. "Eusebius,
^ De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 32. quoted in p. 233-
^ Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5.
^ See Eusebius, Ecel. Hist. L. v. c. 17.
^•^ c. 52.
^^ Eccl. Hist. L. vi. c. 20.
K 2
'260
and after him '^^ Jerome and '^^Photius, men-
tion a Proclus or Proculus, who was a leader
of the sect of Cataphrygians, and held a dis-
putation at Rome with Caius, a distinguished
writer of that day. There is, therefore, no
doubt, as ^ Lardner justly observes, that a
Montanist of the name of Proculus or Pro-
clus lived at the beginning of the third cen-
tury ; but whether he was the author men-
tioned by TertuUian has been doubted : the
expression Proculus noster, which is applied
to him, inclines me to think that he was.
TertuUian ^^ speaks of Tatian as one of the
heretics who enjoined abstinence from food;
on the ground that the Creator of this world
was a Being at variance with the Supreme
God, and that it was consequently sinful to
partake of any enjoyments which this world
affords.
From the manner in which TertuUian
^^ speaks of the visions seen by the Martyr
Perpetua, I infer that a written account of
^ Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Caius.
«» Bibliotheca, Cod. 48.
*' Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 40.
^^ De Jejuniis, c 15.
^ De Anima, c 55. Quomodo Perpetua, fortissima Mar-
tyr, sub die passionis in revelatione Paradisi, solos illic
commartyres suos vidit ?
261
her martyrdom had been circulated among the
Christians. ^^ Some have supposed that Tertul-
Han was himself the author of the account
still extant of the Passion of Perpetua and
Felicitas.
^ Lardner, Credibility;, c 40.
CHAP. V.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
VVe now come to a more important and
more extensive branch of our enquiries ; to
the information which the writings of Ter-
tullian supply respecting the doctrine of the
Church in his day. In treating this part of
our subject, we do not think that we can
adopt a better course, than to consider the
different doctrines in the order in which they
occur in the Articles of the Church of Eng-
land. For the present, however, we shall pass
over the first and second articles, which re-
late to the Trinity and to the person and offices
of Christ ; because a more convenient oppor-
tunity for considering them will present itself,
when we come to the last of INIosheim's
divisions — the heresies which disturbed the
peace of the Church during the latter part
of the second, and the earlier part of the
third century. With respect to that por-
tion of the first article which asserts the
unity of God and describes his nature and
263
attributes, the reader will find a statement of
TertuUian's faith Hn a passage already quoted
from the seventeenth chapter of the Apology.
Let us, therefore, proceed to the third
article; the subject of which is Christ's de-
scent into hell.
In order to put the reader in possession
of our author's opinion on this article, it is
necessary to premise that he speaks of four 4 //****.»
different places of future happiness or misery —
the Inferi, Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and
Gehenna.
The 'Inferi he defines to be a deep and
vast recess in the very heart and bowels of the
earth. ^ He sometimes distinguishes between
the Inferi and Abraham's Bosom; ^at others,
^ See Chap. III. note xi.
^ Nobis Inferi, non nuda cavositas nee subdivalis aliqua
mundi sentina creduntur; sed in fossa terree, et in alto vastitas,
et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa pTofunditas. De Ani-
m^, c. 55.
^ Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus.
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34.
^ Caeterum vester Christus pristinum statum Judaeis poUice-
tur ex restitutione terrjB ; et post decursum vitae, apud Inferos,
in sinu Abrahae, refrigerium. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24.
This passage applies to the peculiar notions of Marcion. See
note xi. of this Chapter. Igitur si quid tormenti sive solatii
264
includes under the common name of Inferi
both the place in which the souls of the
wicked are kept in a state of torment until
the day of judgement — and Abraham's Bosom,
the receptacle prepared for the souls of the
faithful, where they enjoy a foretaste of the
happiness which will afterwards be their por-
tion in heaven. ^For neither can the full
reward of the good be conferred, nor the
full punishment of the wicked inflicted, until
the soul is re-united to the body at the day
of judgement. ^ There is, however, as we
shall hereafter have occasion to observe, some
inconsistency in Tertullian's language respect-
ing the purposes for which the soul is kept
in a separate state apud Inferos. ^ The Bosom
of Abraham, though not in heaven, was yet
anima praecerpit in cavcere seu diversorio Infeiunij in igne,
vel in sinu Abrahae. De Anima, c. 7- Nam et nunc animas
torqueri foverique penes Inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc
exules carnis, probabit Lazari exemplum. De Res. Carnis,
c. 17- See also de Idololatria, c. 13. De Anima, c. 9- sub fine.
^ See de Res. Carnis, c. 17- quoted in the preceding
note, where Tertullian says, that the soul suffers the punish-
ment of evil thoughts and desires in the intermediate state.
^ See de Anima, c. 58. and de Res. Carnis, c 42. Ne In-
feros experiatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos.
7 Earn itaque regionem sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non coeles-
tem, sublimiorem tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium praebitu-
ram animabus justorum, donee consummatio rerum resur-
rectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat. Adv.
Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34.
265
elevated far above the place in which the
souls of the wicked were confined.
Tertullian defines *^ Paradise to be a place
of divine pleasantness, appointed for the re-
ception of the spirits of the saints. ''While
the souls of the rest of mankind were de-
tained apud Inferos, in the intermediate state
just described, it was the peculiar privilege
of the martyrs that their souls were at once
transferred to Paradise ; for ^° St. John in the
Apocalypse saw the souls of the martyrs, and
of the martyrs only, under the Altar. ^^ Ac^
cording to Marcion, they who lived under,
the Law were consigned to the Inferi, there
^ Et si Paradisum nominemus, locum divinae amoenitatis
recipiendis Sanctorum spiritibus destinatum, maceriii quadam
igneae illius zonae a notitia orbis communis segregatum. Apo-
logy, c. 47- Tertullian appears to identify it with the Para-
dise in which Adam and Eve were placed. De Res. Carnis,
c. 26. sub fine.
^ De Anim^, c. 55. De Res. Carnis, c 43. Nemo enim
peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum
nisi ex martyrii praerogativa, scilicet Paradiso, non Inferi s
deversurus.
10 c. 6. V. 9-
" Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit ; (Tertullian is speaking
of the parable of Lazarus) scilicet utramque mercedem Cre-
atoris, sive tormenti, sive refrigerii, apud Inferos determi-
jiat iis positam, qui Legi et Prophetis obedierint; Christi
vero et Dei sui coelestem definit sinum et portum. Adv.
Marcionem^ L. iv. c. 34.
266
to receive their reward or punishment; while
heaven was reserved to the followers of
Christ.
Gehenna^- is, as Tertullian expresses him-
self, a treasure of secret fire beneath the
earth, destined for the punishment of the
wicked.
These preliminary observations will enable
us fully to comprehend Tertullian's notions
respecting Christ's descent into hell. ^^We
have seen that he defines death to be the
separation of the soul from the body. " Christ
*^ Gehennam si comminemur, quae est ignis arcani subter-
raneus ad pcenam thesaurus. Apology^ c. 47- See de Poeni-
tentia, cc. 5, 12. De Res. Carnis, cc. 34, 35.
13 Chap. III. p. 211.
1* Quid est autem illud quod ad inferna transfertur
post divortium corporis, quod detinetur illic, quod in diem
judicii reservatur, ad quod et Christus moriendo descendit,
puto, ad animas Patriarcharum ? De Anima, c. ?• Siqui-
dem Christo in corde terrae triduum mortis legimus ex-
punctum, id est, in recessu intimo, et interno, et in ipsa
terri operto, et intra ipsam clauso, et inferioribus adhuc
abyssis superstructo. Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo,
mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secundum eas-
dera, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanoe mortis apud
Inferos functus, nee ante ascendit in sublimiora coelorum, quam
descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut ilhc Patriarchas et Prophe-
tas compotes sui faceret, &c. c 55. He died according to
the fashion of the death of man, in that his soul was separated
from his body. Tertullian, therefore, agrees with Pearson
respecting the first end of Christ's descent into hell. " I con-
ceive
I
267
really died : his soul was, therefore, sepa-
rated from his body ; and as the soul does
not sleep, but remains in a state of perpe-
tual activity — in the interval between Christ's
Crucifixion and Resurrection, his soul de-
scended to the general receptacle of departed
souls^ and there rendered the patriarchs and fftd.m'H^
prophets capable of sharing in the benefits
which his mission was designed to commu-
nicate. Pearson, in his remarks upon the
fifth article of the Creed, has correctly stated
Tertullian's opinion ; but has not explained
how it is to be deduced from the passage
which he quotes, and in which there is no
mention of the soul of Christ. That which
Pearson proposes, as the second end of Christ's
descent into hell, is stated by TertuUian in
the form of an objection to his own opi-
nions. ^^ Sed in hoc, inquiunt, Christus Infe-
ros adiit, ne nos adiremus. Pearson's words
are — ^^ " Secondly, by the descent of Christ
into hell all those which believe in him are
secured from descending thither ; he went
into those regions of darkness, that our souls
might never come into those torments which
are there."
ceive that the end for which he did so was, that he
might undergo the condition of a dead man, as well as
living." p. 250. Ed. Fol. l683.
1^ De Anima, c. 55. ^^ p. 251.
268
Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's re-
surrection, the subject of our fourth article,
may be learned from the Treatise entitled de
Carne Christi ; which he wrote ^^in confutation
of certain Heretics, who denied the reality of
Christ's flesh, or at least its identity with
human flesh. ^^They were apprehensive that,
if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh,
they must also admit his resurrection in the
flesh ; and consequently the resurrection of the
human body after death. ^^ Some, therefore, as
/, Marcion, denied the reality both of Christ's
•«-' birth and of his flesh: others, -''as Apelles,
denied the former, but admitted the latter;
^^ contending that, as the angels are recorded
in Scripture to have assumed human flesh
without being born after the fashion of men,
so might Christ, who according to them re-
^ ^ ceived his body from the stars. '' Others again
^'^ Praeterea et nos volumen praemisimus de carne Christi,
quo earn et solidain probamus adversum phantasmatis vani-
tatem, et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprieta-
tem. De Res. Carnis, c 2.
1** De Carne Christi, c. 1.
19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.
21 c. 6. Tertullian's answer is, that the angels did not
come upon earth, like Christ, to suffer, be crucified, and
die in the flesh ; there was consequently no necessity why
they should go through the other stages of hviman being,
or why they should be born after the fashion of men, c. 6.
2^ cc 10, 11, 12, 13. The reader will perceive that the
word animal is not here used in its ordinary sense, but means
that which is animated by a soul.
269
assimied to Christ an animal flesh, caro ani-
malis, or carnal soul, anima carnalis; their
notion was, that the soul, anima, being invi-
sible, was rendered visible in the flesh, which
was most intimately united with it or rather
absorbed in it. -^Others affirmed that Christ
assumed the angelic substance ; ^^ Valentinus
assigned him a spiritual flesh ; '^ others argued
that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh,
because it proceeded not from the seed of man ;
and '^ Alexander, the Valentinian, seems to
have denied its reality, on the ground that if
it was human flesh, it must also be sinful flesh,
whereas one object of Christ's mission was
to abolish sinful flesh. Should the reader deem
the opinions now enumerated so absurd and
trifling as to be altogether undeserving of
notice, he must bear in mind that from such
an enumeration alone can we acquire an ac-
curate idea of the state of religious contro-
versy in any particular age.
^ TertuUian asks in reply, to what end did Christ assume
the angelic substance, since he came not to effect the sal-
vation of angels? c. 14. ^* c. 15.
^^ Tertullian's answer is, that on the same ground we
must deny the reality of Adam's flesh, c. l6. sub fine.
^** I say seems, for I am not certain that I understand
the objection. The words of TertuUian are, Insuper argu-
mentandi libidine, ex forma ingenii haeretici, locum sibi
fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmemus, idcirco Christum
terreni census induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso
carnem peccati. The orthodox, according to Alexander,
affirmed
^70
In opposition to these various heretical
notions, our author shews that Christ was
4 , ^ ^^ born, lived, suffered, died, and was buried, in
C the flesh. Hence it follows that he also rose
again in the flesh. " "^ For the same substance
which fell by the stroke of death and lay in
the sepulchre, was also raised. *''In that sub-
afRrmed that Christ put on flesh of earthly origin, in order
that he might in his own person make void or abolish
sinful flesh. If, therefore, Alexander contended, Christ
abolished sinful flesh in himself, his flesh could no longer be
human flesh. Tertullian answers, we do not say that Christ
abolished sinful flesh, carnem peccati, but sin in the flesh,
peccatum carnis : it was for this very end that Christ put
on human flesh, in order to shew that he could overcome sin
in the flesh ; to have overcome sin in any other than human
flesh would have been nothing to the purpose. Tertullian,
referring to St. Paul, says of Christ, Evacuavit peccatum in
carne ; alluding, as I suppose, to Rom. viii. 3. But the cor-
responding Greek in the printed editions is KureKpive rt]v
dfiapTtav ev Trj aapKi. Had Tertullian a different reading
in his Greek MSS. ? or did he confound Rom. viii. 3. with
Rom. vi. 6. "va Karapjr]6rj to aMfxa t»/? dfxapTid<: ? Jerome
translates the Greek Karap^eus by evacuo, c l6. See adv.
Marcionem, L. v. c 14.
27 Tertullian contends that, if Christ's birth from the
Virgin is once proved, the reality of his flesh follows as
a necessary consequence ; it being impossible otherwise to
assign any reasonable cause why he should be born. See
CC. 2, 3, 4, 5. 20, 21, 22, 23.
^ Ipsum enim quod cecidit in morte, quod jacuit in
sepultura, hoc et resurrexit, non tarn Christus in carne,
quam caro in Christo. De Res. Carnis, c. 48.
29 De Carne Christi, c l6. De Res. Carnis, c. .51. Quum
illic adhuc sedeat lesus ad dexteram Patris ; homo, etsi Deus ;
Adam novissimus, etsi Sermo primarius ; caro et sanguis,
etsi nostris puriora ; idem tamen et substantia et forma quft
ascendit
271
stance Christ now sits at the right hand of /»
the Father — being man, though God; the last
Adam, though the primary Word; flesh and
blood, though of a purer kind than those of
men — and according to the declaration of the
angels, he will descend at the day of judge- r*
ment, in form and substance the same as he
ascended ; since he must be recognised by those
who pierced him. He who is called the Me-
diator between God and man, is entrusted
with a deposit from each party. As he left ^^^^Mft}/
with us the earnest of the Spirit, so he took
from us the earnest of the flesh, and carried
it with him into heaven, to assure us that
both the flesh and the Spirit will then be
collected into one sum."
Towards^" the end of the Treatise, Ter-
ascendit talis etiam descensurus, ut Angeli affirmant (Act.
i. 11.) agnoscendus scilicet iis, qui ilium convulneraverunt.
Hie, sequester Dei atque hominum appellatus, (1 Tim. ii. 5.)
ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi;, carnis quoque
depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius.
Quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem Spiritus reliquit, ita
et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit in coelmn pignus
totius summae, illuc quandoque redigendae. We shall see
what our author meant by flesh and blood of a purer
kind than those of men, when we speak of the Tract de
Resurrectione Carnis.
^ c. 24. Ut et iUi erubescant, qui affirmant carnem in
coelis vacuam sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo sedere ; aut
qui carnem et animam tantundem ; aut tantummodo animam ;
carnem vero non jam. See Peai-son, Article vi. p. 272.
272
tuUian mentions various strange notions respect-
ing the session of Christ at the right hand of
God. Some Heretics supposed that his flesh
sat there, devoid of all sensation, like an empty
scabbard : others that his human soul sat there
without the flesh : others his flesh and human
soul, or in other words, his human nature
alone.
On account of the intimate connexion be-
tween the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body and that of Christ's resurrection, we wifl
take this opportunity of giving a short account
of Tertullian's Treatise de Resurrectione Carnis.
The Heretics, against whom it is directed,
were the same who maintained that the Demi-
urge, or God who created this world and
gave the Mosaic dispensation, was opposed to
the Supreme God. ^^ Hence they attached an
idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness
to all his works — among the rest, to the flesh
or body of man ; affirming that it could not rise
again, and that the soul alone was capable of
inheriting immortality. ^^ Tertullian, therefore,
•^^ cc 4f, 5. The reader will find what appears to be more
than an accidental resemblance between this treatise and the
fragments of a tract on the same subject, ascribed to Justin
Martyr. See Grabe's Spicilegium. Tom. ii.
•'^ See c. 9- where TertuUian sums up the arguments
advanced in the preceding chapters. Igitur ut retexam, quam
Deus
273
in the first place endeavours to prove that
God cannot deem that flesh beneath his notice,
or unworthy to be raised again, " which he /'^^.^ ^ . «
framed with his own hands in the image of '
God ; — which he afterwards animated with his ^'
own breath, communicating to it that life, of
which the principle is within himself ; — which
he appointed to inhabit, to enjoy, to rule over ^
his whole creation ; — which he clothes with his 4
sacraments and his discipline, loving its purity,
approving its mortifications, and ascribing a
value to its sufferings."
Having thus removed the preliminary ob-
jections founded on the supposed worthlessness
of the flesh, our author proceeds ^Ho prove
that the body will rise again ; and first asserts
Deus manibus suis ad imaginem Dei struxit — quam de suo
adflatu ad similitudinem suae vivacitatis animavit — quam
incolatui, fructui, dominatui totius suae operationis praeposuit —
quam sacramentis suis disciplinisque vestivit — cujus mun-
ditias amat — cujus castigationes probat — cujus passiones sibi
adpreciat — haeccine non resurget, totiens Dei? Tertul-
lian's notion was, that when God said " Let us make man
i?i our image," he alluded to the form which Christ was
to bear during his abode on earth. Quodcunque enim limus
exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus, quod et
limus, et Sermo caro, quod et terra tunc. Sic enim prae-
fatio Patris ad Filium, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et
similitudinem noslram. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id utique
quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit ilium, scilicet Christi,
c. 6. Compare adv. Praxeam, c. 12.
^ c. 11. Compare the Apology, c. 48.
S
274
the power of God to rebuild the tabernacle
of the flesh, in whatever manner it may be
dissolved. If we suppose even that it is an-
nihilated, He who created all things out of
nothing can surely raise the dead body again
from nothing. ^* Nor is there any absurdity
in supposing that the members of the human
body, which may have been destroyed by fire
or devoured by birds or beasts, will never-
theless at the last day be re-united to it. Such
a supposition, on the contrary, is countenanced
by ^^ Scripture. ^^ Tertullian further contends
that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
is rendered credible by innumerable instances
of a resurrection in the natural world. The
passage has been translated and adopted by
^^ Pearson, in his Exposition of the eleventh
Article of the Creed. He does not indeed
appear to have been aware that some of the
instances alleged are nothing to the purpose —
such as the changes of day and night, of
summer and winter. If any inference is to be
^^ c. 32. Compare Pearson, Article XI. p. 374.
•^ Tertullian's words are, Sed ne solummodo eorum cor-
porum resurrectio videatur praedicari quae sepulchris deman-
dantur, habes scriptum ; then follows a passage which in
Seraler's Index is stated as a quotation from Revelations
XX. 13 ; but, if our author had that passage in view, he
has strangely altered it.
•■^^ c 12. Compare the Apology, c. 48.
37 p. 37(^.
275
drawn from them, it would rather be in favour
of an alternate dissolution and restoration of
the same bodies. ^^ Among other illustrations,
the instance of the phcenix is brought forward,
of which the early Fathers appear to have
been fond.
Having established the power of God to
raise the dead body, ^ ' TertuUian next enquires ^<S
whether any reasons exist which should induce
him to exert that power. ^"As he intends to
judge mankind, and to reward or punish them
according to their conduct in this life, it is
evident that the ends of justice will not be
attained, unless men rise again with the same
bodies which they had when living. The body
co-operated with the soul in this world: it
carried into effect the good or evil designs which
the soul conceived: it ought, therefore, to be
associated with the soul in its future glory or
misery. ^^ TertuUian further contends that the
very term resurrection implies a resurrection
of the body : for that alone can be raised which
has_fallen, and it is the body, not the soul,
which falls by the stroke of death. The same
inference may be drawn from the compound
^ C. 13. 39 cc. U, 15.
^^ Compare Apology, c. 48. Pearson, Article XI. p. 376.
Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 12.
*^ c. 18. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. cc. p. 14.
S 2
276
expression Resurrectio Mortuorum : " for man,"
as ^"Pearson, who urges both this argument
and the preceding, paraphrases the words,
" man dieth, not in reference to his soul,
which is immortal, but his body."
The arguments of the Heretics against
the resurrection of the body, were deduced
either from general reasoning, or from passages
of Scripture. Of the former description were
the following. *^ " The body, you say, in the
present life is the receptacle or instrument of
the soul by which it is animated. It has itself
neither will, nor sense, nor understanding.
How then can it be a fit subject of reward
or punishment ? or to what purpose will it be
raised? Why may not the soul exist in the
next world, either wholly divested of a body,
or clothed in an entirely different body?"
^^ TertuUian replies that, although the principle
of action is in the soul, it can effect nothing
without the body. It thinks, wills, disposes :
but in order to carry its designs into execution,
it needs the assistance of the body, which is also
the medium of sensation. The soul, it is true,
might by means of its corporeal substance,
suffer the punishment due to sinful desires :
*2 Article XI. p. 382. *^ cc. l6, 17-
^* Compare adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 24. L. v. c. 10.
but unless it shall hereafter be re-united to the ^t^^-''r4-p^'"'
body, sinful actions will remain unpunished. ^^^* ^ ***«
"" (-'Sirlteti^
" If ^^ then," the Heretics rejoined, " the body
is to be raised, is it to be raised with all the
infirmities and defects under which it laboured
on earth? Are the blind, the lame, the de-
formed, those especially who were so from their
birth, to appear with the same imperfections at
the day of judgement ?" " No," replies Tertullian :
" the Almighty does not his work by halves.
He, who raises the dead to life, will raise the
body in its perfect integrity. This is part of
the change which the body will undergo at
the resurrection. For though the dead will be
raised in the flesh, yet they who attain to the
resurrection of happiness will pass into ^"^the
angelic state and put on the vesture of immor-
tality ; according to the declaration of St. Paul,
that " this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality" —
and again, that " our vile bodies will be changed
that they may be fashioned like unto the
glorious body of Christ." *^ We must not,
however, suppose that this change is incom-
patible with the identity of the body. Con-
tinual changes take place in the substance of
"^ cc. 4. 57. ^^ Compare cc. 3Q, 42, and 55.
^'^ cc. 55, 56.
278
man from his birth to his death : his consti-
tution, his bulk, his strength is perpetually
changing; yet he remains the same man. So
when after death he passes into a state of
in corruption and immortality, as the mind, the
memory, the conscience which he now has will
not *^be done away, so neither will his body.
Otherwise he would suffer in a different body
from that in which he sinned ; and the dis-
pensations of God would appear to be at
variance with his justice, which evidently re-
quires that the same soul should be re-united
to the same body at the last day. '^^ Never-
theless, in consequence of this change, the flesh
will no longer be subject to infirmities and
sufferings, or the soul be disturbed by unruly
passions and desires.
" The ^°body, therefore," the Heretics replied,
" after it is risen, will be subject to no suffer-
ings, will be harrassed by no wants ; what
then will be the use of those members which
at present administer to its necessities ? what
offices will the mouth, the throat, the teeth,
^^ The corresponding Latin word is aboleri, c. 56.
^•' c. 57. Ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resur-
rectionem, eatenus passibilis qua ipsa, qua eadem ; ea tamen
impassibilis qua in hoc ipsum manumissa a Domino, ne
viltra pati possit, &c.
■>^ cc. 60, 61, 62, 63.
279
the stomach, the intestines have to perform,
when man will no longer eat and drink ?" We
have said, answers TertuUian, that the body
will undergo a change; and as man will then
be free from the wants of this life, so will
his members be released from many of their
present duties. But it does not, therefore,
follow that they will be wholly without use :
the mouth, for instance, will be employed in
singing praises to God. Nor will the final
retribution be complete, unless the whole man
stands before the judgement seat of God —
unless man stands there with all his members
perfect.
When ^^ the Heretics argued from Scripture,
they sometimes said in general, that " the lan-
guage of Scripture is frequently figurative, and
ought to be so considered in the present in-
stance. ^"The resurrection of which it speaks
is a moral or spiritual resurrection — a resur-
^1 c. 19.
'^ Pearson calls this a Socinian notion. Article XI. p. S82.
One of King Edward's Articles entitled^ " Resurrectio mor-
tuorum nondum est facta," is directed against it. Resur-
rectio mortuorum non adhuc facta est, quasi tantum ad
animum pertineat, qui per Christi gratiam a morte pecca-
torum excitetur. The Article then pi'oceeds, in exact con-
formity with our author's opinion, to state that the souls
of men will be re-united to their bodies at the last day,
in order to receive the final sentence of God.
280
rection of the soul from the grave of sin — from
the death of ignorance to the light of truth
and to the knowledge of God. Man, there-
fore, rises again, according to the meaning of
Scripture, in baptism." Aware, however, that
they might shock the feelings of those whom
they wished to convert, by an abrupt and total
denial of the resurrection, they practised a
verbal deception, and affirmed that every man
must rise again, not in the flesh generally, in
came, but in this flesh, in hdc came; tacitly
referring to their moral resurrection, and mean-
ing that man must in this life be initiated
into their extravagant mysteries. Others again,
in order to get rid of the resurrection of the
flesh, interpreted the resurrection to mean the
departure of the soul either from this world,
which they called the habitation of the dead,
that is, of those who know not God : or from
the body, in which, as in a sepulchre, they
conceived the soul to be detained. ^^ These
objections afford Tertullian an opportunity of
making some pertinent observations upon the
marks by which we must determine when the
language of Scripture is to be figuratively un-
derstood. ^^ In this case, he says, we cannot
^^ c. 20. In c. Z^, are some good remarks upon the mode
of distinguishing between what is to be understood literally,
and what to be regarded as mere illustration in our Saviour's
Parables. ■'^•' c. 21.
281
so understand it, because the whole Christian
faith hinges upon the doctrine of a future state ;
and surely God would not have made the
Gospel rest upon a figure. ^^ Christ moreover,
in the prophecy in which he at once predicted
the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final
consummation of all things, connected the re-
surrection with his second coming; and we
trace the same connexion ^Mn many passages
of St. Paul's Epistles, as well as in the Apo-
calypse. What then becomes of those figu-
rative interpretations, according to which ^^the
resurrection is already past ? ^^ At least, Ter-
tuUian adds, the Heretics ought to be con-
sistent with themselves, and not to put a figu-
rative construction on all that is said of the
body, while they interpret literally whatever
is said of the soul. Our author, however, is
not content with proving the figurative inter-
pretation to be inapplicable in the present
instance: ^^he is determined to fight his ad-
versaries with their own w^eapons, and pro-
duces passages of Scripture, equally or even
more inapplicable, in which he finds the resur-
^^ c. 22.
^ cc. 23, 24, 25.
^7 2 Tim. ii. 18.'
^ c. 32.
^ cc. 26, 27, 28. See for instance the interpretation of
Isaiah Iviii. 8. in c. 27-
282
rection prefigured and typified. '''^He dwells
particularly on the vision of dry bones in
Ezekiel ; and urges it in proof of the resur-
rection of the body. ^^ By the Heretics it was
referred to the captivity of the Jews, and their
subsequent restoration to their native land.
^^We learn incidentally from TertulHan's inter-
pretation, that in his opinion the doctrine of
the resurrection had been previously revealed
to the Jews ; and that the design of the vision
was to confirm their wavering belief.
The passages of Scripture on which Ter-
tullian rests his proof of the resurrection of
the body are such as the following. ^^ Christ
said that he came to save what was lost. What
then was lost ? The whole man, both soul and
body. The body, therefore, must be saved as
well as the soul ; otherwise the purpose of
Christ's coming will not be accomplished.
^* Christ also, when he enjoined his hearers to
fear Him only, who can destroy both soul and
body in hell, evidently assumed the resurrec-
•"^ c. 29. In speaking of this chapter of Ezekiel (xxxvii.)
TertulUan falls into a chronological error: he supposes that
Ezekiel prophesied before the Captivity, c. 31.
^^ c. 30. Pearson appears to have thought that the Vision
had no reference to the resurrection of the body. Article XI.
p. 372.
"^ c. 31. Compare c. 39. *'^ c. 34. Luke xix. 10.
6^ c. 35. Matt. X. 28.
283
tion of the body ; as well as ^^ in his answer
to the question of the Sadducees respecting
the woman who had been seven times married.
Of the other arguments urged by Tertullian,
I will mention only one, which possesses at
least the merit of ingenuity. ^^The Athenians,
he observes, would not have sneered at St. Paul
for preaching the doctrine of the resurrection,
in case he had maintained a mere resurrection
of the soul ; since that was a doctrine with
which they were sufficiently familiar.
Both "parties appealed to the miracle per-
formed by Christ in raising Lazarus. Ter-
tuUian contended that he performed it in order
to confirm the faith of his disciples, by ex-
hibiting the very mode in which the future
resurrection would take place. The Heretics
described it as a mere exercise of power, which
could not have been rendered cognizable by
the senses, had not the body of Lazarus been
raised as well as the soul. i
" St. Paul," ^^ the Heretics further argued,
"speaks of an outward man that perishes, and
of an inward man that is renewed from day
to day ; evidently alluding to the body and
'^^ c. 36. «'' c. 39, **7 cc. 39. 53.
^^ cc. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 2 Cor. iv. l6".
284
soul, and intimating that the latter alone
will be saved." Tertullian answers that this pas-
sage is to be understood of what takes place,
not in a future, but in the present life — of
the afflictions to which the bodies of Christians
are subjected in consequence of their profession
of the Gospel, and of their daily advancement
in faith and love through the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. In like manner when ^''St.
Paul distinguished between the old and the
new man, expressions which the Heretics also
interpreted of the body and soul — he meant
to speak of a difference, not of substance, but
of character. The old man was the Jew or
Gentile, who walked in the lusts of the
flesh; the new man the Christian, who being:
renewed in the spirit of his mind, led a life
of purity and holiness. '" So when the Apo-
stle says that they who are in the flesh cannot
please God, he condemns not the flesh, but
the works of the flesh: for he shortly after-
wards "^^adds, that they, who by the Spirit
mortify the deeds of the flesh, shall live.
But ^"the passage on which the Heretics
«9 cc. 45, 46, 47. Eph. iv. 22.
"^^ Romans viii. 8. ^i Romans viii. 13.
72 c. 48. 1 Cor. XV. 50. Some in TertulHan's day appear
to have interpreted the expression Jlesh cmd blood in this
passage, as well as in Galatians i. l6. of Judaism; c. 50.
285
principally relied, was the declaration of St.
Paul, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of heaven. " Here," they said, " is no
figure, but a plain and express assertion, that
the body cannot be saved." To this objection
Tertullian gives a variety of answers. He
first states the circumstances which led the
Apostle into that particular train of thought;
and shews very satisfactorily that, as St. Paul
makes Christ's resurrection the foundation of
our hope of a resurrection, the necessary in-
ference is, that we shall rise as he did, that
is, in the flesh. ^'He then borrows a weapon
from the armory of his opponents, and says
that the expression jiesh and hlood is figurative,
and means carnal conversation ; which certainly
excludes man from the kino-dom of heaven.
^^"But if," he proceeds, "the expression is
understood literally, still it contains no direct
denial of the resurrection of the body. We
must distinguish between the resurrection of
the body, and its admission into the kingdom
of heaven. The same body is raised in order
that the whole man may stand before the
judgement seat of God; but before he can be
received into the kingdom of heaven, "'^ he
^^ c 49. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v- c. 10.
7-* cc. 50, 51. 42.
"^^ Compare the Apology, c. 48. superinduti substantia pro-
pria aeternitatis. The substance of the glorified body will
be,
286
must be changed — must be made partaker of
the vivifying influence of the Spirit, and put
on the vesture of incorruption and immor-
tality. Death is the separation of the soul
from the body : the body crumbles in the
dust: the soul passes to the Inferi, where it
remains in a state of imperfect happiness or
misery according to the deeds done in the
flesh. At the day of judgement it will be
re-united to the body, and man will then re-
ceive his final sentence : if of condemnation, he
will suffer eternal punishment in hell ; if of
justification, his body will be transformed and
glorified, and he will thus be fitted to par-
take of the happiness of heaven. They who
shall be alive on earth at the day of judge-
ment will not die, but will at once undergo
the change above described."
" But '^^ does not St. Paul say, ' that which
be, according to Tertullian, the same as that of the angels.
De Cultu FcEminarum, L. i. c. 2. sub fine. Ad Uxorem,
L. i. c. 1. Ad Martyres, c. 3. De Anima, c. 56. Ad Ange-
licEB plenitudinis mensuram temperatum. Our Saviour's de-
claration, that in the resurrection men will be as the angels
of God, appears to have given rise to this notion respect-
ing the angelic substance. The change which will take
place in the body of man is urged by Tertullian in answer
to another Heretical argument, founded upon the difference
between this world and the next : " whatever belongs to
the latter is immortal, and cannot therefore be possessed
by 'flesh and blood' which ai-e mortal,'' c. 59.
7^' c. 52. 1 Cor. XV. 37- In interpreting St. Paul's words.
There
287
thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which
shall be, but bare gram?' and does not this
comparison necessarily imply that man will be
raised in a different body from that in which
he died?" Tertullian answers, by no means:
for though there may be a difference of ap-
pearance, the body remains in kind, in nature,
in quality the same. If you sow a grain of
wheat, barley does not come up ; or the con-
verse. The Apostle's comparison leads to the
inference that a change will take place in the
body, but not such a change as will destroy
its identity.
The "^ Heretics grounded an argument upon
another passage in the same chapter; but in
order to understand it we must turn to the
original Greek. The words are, aTreiperai adofxa
yj/vxtKov, seminatur corpus animale; which "^in
There is one kind of jlesh of men, another Jlesh of beasts,
another of Jishes, another of birds, our author understands
men to mean servants of God, beasts the heathen, birds
martyrs who essay to fly up to heaven, fshes the mass of
Christians, those who have been baptised. So in a sub-
sequent passage. There is one glory of the sun, and another
glo)~y of the moon, a7id another glory of the stars, the sun
means Christ, the moon the Church, the stars the seed of
Abraham, whether Jews or Christians.
7^ c. 53. 1 Cor. XV. 44-. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v.
c 10.
7* Our translators, though they have not rendered the
word v//ui^iKoi/ literally, appear correctly to liave represented
St. Paul's
288
our Version are rendered, it is sown a natural
hody. The Heretics affirmed aw^xa y\/v)(iKov to
be merely a periphrasis for ^v^Vi and crwua
TTvevfxaTiKov for irvev/jia. St. Paul, therefore, by
omitting all mention of the flesh, evidently
intended to exclude it from all share of the
resurrection. In our account of the Treatise
de Anima, we stated that our author conceived
God to have given a soul to Adam, when
the breath of Hfe was breathed into his nos-
trils. He argues, therefore, that as awfxa yj/vxiKov
means a body animated by a soul, aw/xa Tri/ety-
fxaTLKov means the same body, now become the
habitation of the Spirit, and thus imbued with
the principle of immortality. The passage, far
from subverting, establishes the doctrine of
the resurrection of the body.
We will conclude this analysis of Tertul-
lian's Tract with observing, that he alludes
to the passage respecting the baptism for the
dead, in the fifteenth chapter of the first
Epistle to the Corinthians; and "^speaks of it
St. Paul's meaning. 'O avQp(otro<; \l/v^tK6<! is, as Tertullian
expresses himself, homo solius carnis et animce, the natural
man — as opposed to 6 avdpo}7ro<; w£VfxaTtKo<;, the man who
has received the Holy Spirit.
79 Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis (vide-
bimus an ratione ?) eerte ilia praesumptione hoc eos insti-
tuisse contendit, qua alii etiam carni, ut vicarium baptisma>
profuturum
289
as if St. Paul had referred to a superstitious
practice prevalent in his days, of baptising a
living person as a proxy for the dead. But
^°in the fifth Book against Marcion he ridi-
cules this as an idle fancy, on which it was
unlikely that St. Paul should found an argu-
ment; and interprets the words for the dead
to mean for the body, which is declared to be
dead in baptism.
Passing over for the present the fifth
Article of our Church, for the ^^same reasons
which induced us to omit the first and
second, we proceed to the sixth. The first
question which presents itself for our consi-
deration is, whether Tertullian uniformly speaks
of the Scriptures, as containing the whole rule to
which the faith and practice of Christians must
be conformed, in points necessary to salvation.
profuturura existimarent ad spem resuri-ectionis, quee nisi
corporalis, non alias hie baptismate corporali obligantur,
c. 48.
^ Quid, ait, Jacient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui
non resurgunt ? Viderit institutio ista ; Calendae si forte
Februariae respondebunt illi, pro mortuis petere. Noli
ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem
ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem,
quanto illi, qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurreeti-
onis hoc facerent. Habemus ilium alicubi unius baptism!
definitorem. Igitur et pro mortuis tingui pro corporibus est
tingui: mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, c. 10.
«' p. 262.
T
290
To this enquiry his pointed condemnation,
^'abeady quoted, of the Valentinian notion,
that the Apostles had not communicated to
mankind, publicly and indifferently, all the
truths imparted to them by their Heavenly
Master, appears to furnish a satisfactory answer.
So great indeed is the weight which he is on
some occasions disposed to ascribe to the autho-
rity of Scripture, that he ^^goes the length of
denying the lawfulness of any act which is
not permitted therein; and ^*even of asserting
that whatever' is not there related, must be
supposed not to have happened. We mean
not to defend this extravagant language, but
produce it in order to shew what were his
opinions on the subject.
But does TertuUian always speak the same
language? Does he not on other occasions
appeal to Tradition? Does he not even say,
in his Tract de Pragscriptione Hasreticorum,
that in arguing with the Heretics no appeal
82 Chap. IV. p. 250.
^ Immo prohibetur, quod non ultro permissum est. De
Corona, c. 2. sub fine. TertuUian, however, appears him-
self to have been conscious of the weakness of the reasoning.
See also ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 2. sub fine.
^ Negat Scriptura quod non notat. De Monogamia, c 4.
Scripture mentions the Polygamy of Lamech, but of no
other individual ; he was, therefore, according to TertuUian,
at that period the only polygamist.
291
ought to be made to the Scriptures; and that
they can only be confuted by ascertaining the
Tradition which has been preserved and
handed down, in the Apostolic Churches?
Undoubtedly he does. — But in order to un-
derstand the precise meaning of Tertullian's
appeal to Tradition, we must consider the
object which he had immediately in view.
^^"In disputing with the Heretics," he says,
"it is necessary, in the very outset, to except
against all arguments urged by them out of
Scripture. **^For as they do not acknowledge
all the books received by the Church ; and
have mutilated or corrupted those which they
do acknowledge ; and have put their own in-
terpretations upon the passages respecting the
genuineness of which both parties are agreed;
the first point to be determined is, which of
the two is in possession of the genuine Scrip-
tures, and of their true interpretation. How
then is this point to be determined? By en-
quiring what doctrines are held, and what Scrip-
tures received, by the Apostolic Churches : for
in them is preserved the truth, as it was origi-
nally communicated by Christ to the Apostles,
and by the Apostles, either orally or by letter,
to the Churches which they founded ; so
that whatever doctrines and Scriptures are
^ c. 15. See also c 37- "« c. 17-
T 2
292
so held and received, must be deemed ortho-
dox and genuine." TertuUian's opponents do
not appear to have objected to the correctness
of this mode of reasoning, but to have denied
the premises. ^^ They contended either that the
Apostles Avere not themselves fully instructed
in the truth ; or that they did not commu-
nicate to the Churches all the truths which
had been revealed to them.
In ^^ support of the former assertion they
alleged the reproof given by St. Paul to St.
Peter; which they conceived to imply a de-
fect of knowledge on the part of the latter.
Tertullian justly observes in reply, that the
controversy between those two Apostles related
not to any fundamental article of faith, but
to a question of practice — whether St. Peter
had not been guilty of inconsistency in his
conduct towards the Gentile brethren.
In ^''support of the second assertion they
quoted St. Paul's exhortations to Timothy :
" Keep that which is committed to thy trust" —
"That good thing which was committed to
thee, keep:" — interpreting these expressions of
«7 cc. 19, 20, 21. See also cc 37, 38. Compare adv. Mar-
cionem, L. i. c. 21.
^ c. 22.
^^ c. 23. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 3.
293
certain doctrines which St. Paul had secretly
communicated to Timothy : though, as Tertul-
Man well remarks, ^°St. Paul's design was merely
to caution Timothy against allowing any new
doctrine to creep in, different from that in
which he had been instructed.
" But ^^ may not," the Heretics asked, " may
not the Churches in process of time have per-
verted the doctrine originally delivered to them
by the Apostles ? May they not all have
wandered from the truth?" "Such an infer-
ence," our author answers, "is contrary to all
experience. Truth is uniform and consistent;
but it is of the very essence of error to be
continually assuming new shapes. If the
Churches had erred, they would have erred
after many different fashions ; whence then
arises this surprising agreement in error? The
single fact, that the same doctrine is main-
tained by so many different Churches situated
in distant quarters of the globe, affords a
strong presumption of its truth." I need scarcely
observe, that the force of this argument was
much greater in TertuUian's time, when all the
Churches were independent, than in after ages
when the bishops of Rome assumed the right
*> cc. 25, 26. 1 Tim. vi. 20. 2 Tim. i. 14.
»> cc. 27, 28.
294
of prescribing the rule of faith to the whole
Christian community. ^"In this part of his
argument our author clearly shews his opinion
to be, that the promise of the Holy Spirit,
made by Christ to the Church, precludes the
possibility of an universal defection from the
true faith.
The ^^ superior antiquity of the doctrine
maintained in the Church furnishes TertuUian
with another argument in favour of its truth.
As truth necessarily precedes error, which is
as it were its image or counterfeit, that
must be the true doctrine which was prior
in time ; that which was subsequent, false : —
and it may be easily shown that the origin
of the Heretical sects was posterior to the
foundation of the Apostolic Churches.
The ^^circumstance, however, most to our
present purpose is, that Tertullian, when he
comes at last to examine and confute the
Heretical doctrines, appeals to the Apostolic
writings ; and shews that St. Paul had, as it
were by anticipation, condemned many of those
^^ See the commencement of c. 28.
^ cc. 29, 30, 31, 32. Compare the Apology, c. 47-
^ cc. 33, 34. See also c. 38. in which Tertullian asserts
in the strongest terms the genuineness and integrity of the
Scriptures used in the Church.
295
doctrines. If he had not condemned all, it
was simply because all were not then in ex-
istence; his very silence, therefore, proves the
novelty, and consequently the falsehood of the
Heretical opinions which he did not notice.
TertuUian alleges as an instance, the Here-
tical notion that the Demiurge who gave
the law was not only a distinct being from
the Supreme God who gave the Gospel, but
at variance with him. " If this opinion existed
in the days of St. Paul, how comes it that he
never alludes to it in his Epistles? The
questions which he discusses relate to meats
offered to idols, to marriage, to the introduction
of fables and endless genealogies, and to the re-
surrection, ^^Much of his labour is employed
in proving that the observance of the Mosaic
ritual is no longer obligatory on the con-
science. Surely he would not have taken this
unnecessary trouble, if the Heretical doctrine
now alluded to had been then received; since
he might at once have put an end to the
controversy by saying, that the Law and the
Gospel did not proceed from the same author.
If then we closely attend to the object
which TertuUian had in view, we shall be led
to the conclusion, that the Tract de Preescrip-
^ See adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 2.
296
tione H^ereticorum, far from lending any sanc-
tion, is directly opposed to the Roman Ca-
tholic notion respecting Tradition — to the
notion that there are certain doctrines, of
which the belief is necessary to salvation, and
which rest on the authority, not of Scripture,
but of unwritten Tradition. Tertullian, it is
true, refuses to dispute with the Heretics out
of the Scriptures : not, however, because he
was not persuaded that the Scriptures con-
tained the whole rule of faith ; but because
the Heretics rejected a large portion of the
Sacred Writings ; and either mutilated or put
forced and erroneous interpretations upon those
parts which they received. Before, therefore,
an appeal could be made to the Scriptures, it
was necessary to determine which were the
genuine Scriptures, and what the true inter-
pretation of them. The first of these ques-
tions was purely historical ; to be determined
by ascertaining what books had from the ear-
liest times been generally received by the
Apostolic Churches : and ^^ with respect to the
second, though interpretations which had re-
ceived the sanction of the Church were not
^*' Respecting the degree of authority ascribed by our
Church to Tradition, in the interpretation of Scripture, see
some excellent remarks of Bishop Jebb, in the Appendix
to his Sermons.
297
to be lightly rejected, yet the practice of
TertuUian himself proves that he believed
every Christian to be at liberty to exercise
his own judgement upon them. The language
of TertuUian corresponds exactly with that of
the Church of England in the 20tli Article.
According to him, the Church is the witness
and keeper of Holy Writ; but so far is he
from thinking that the Church can either
decide any thing against Scripture, or prescribe
any thing not contained in it, as necessary to
salvation, that he vmiformly and strenuously
insists ^^ upon the exact agreement between the
^7 See de Praescript. Haeretic. c. 38. While the first
Edition of the present work was passing through the press,
I received a copy of the translation of Dr. Schleiermacher's
Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke. In a learned
and ingenious Introduction, the Translator has made some
^ remarks on the superiority ascribed by TertuUian to
Tradition over Scripture, with a particular reference to
the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum. He admits that
" TertuUian's argument is perfectly consistent with Protestant
principles;'' and that "the Tradition which is the subject
of controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants is
very different from the Traditio Apostolomm spoken of by
TertuUian (de Praescr. Haeret. c. 21.)." But he afterwards
states "what he conceives to be an incontestable fact, that
the maxims of the Protestant Church with respect to the
use of the Scriptures are as different from those which pre-
vailed in all ages, from the time of TertuUian down to the
Reformation, as from those which now prevail in the Roman
Catholic Church." As I had myself expressed a different
opinion,
' p. cxxxv. et seq.
298
Tradition preserved in the Church and the
doctrine delivered in Scripture.
opinion, viz. that Tertullian's language respecting Tradition
corresponds exactly with that of the Church of England —
one, and certainly not the least important, branch of the
Protestant Church — I was induced, by the learned Trans-
lator's remark, to re-consider tiie subject; and I must con-
fess that, after having again perused the Tract de Prse-
scriptione Haereticorum, I discover no reason for coming to
a different conclusion from that which I had before formed.
From the commencement of the Treatise it appears that
the minds of many members of the Church were disquieted
by the rapid progress of heresy. They were surprised and
scandalised at the divisions which prevailed among those
who called themselves Christians : and their surprise was
increased by observing that men of high reputation for
wisdom and piety from time to time quitted the Church,
and attached themselves to one or other of the heretical
sects. Tertullian, therefore, in the first four Chapters of
the Tract contends that the existence and prevalence of
heresy ought not to be a matter of surprise ; since Christ had
predicted that heresies would arise, and St. Paul had affirmed
that the very purpose of their existence was to prove the
faith of Christians.
In the fifth and sixth Chapters, he appeals to the au-
thority of the same Apostle, in proof of the mischievous
nature of heresy; and in the seventh, traces the tenets of
the different sects to the Grecian philosophy. In the eighth,
he states that the Heretics gained many converts to their
opinions by persuading men that it was the duty of every
Christian to search the Scriptures, " Seek," they said, " and
you shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, are
the injunctions of Christ himself." Tertullian, in reply,
first contends that those injunctions were delivered in the
very outset of Christ's ministry, and addressed especially
to the Jews, who, by searching their Scriptures — those of
the Old Testament — might have learned that He was the
Messiah predicted by the prophets. " But grant," Tertul-
lian continues, " that the injunction was addressed indiscri-
minately
299
If we mistake not the signs of the times,
the period is not far distant when the whole
mmately to all mankind, still it is evident that Christ intended
to propose some definite object of search ; and when that was
attained, to release his followers from the labour of further
enquiry. He could not mean that they were to go on
searching for ever. They were to enquire what was the
doctrine which he had actually delivered ; and when they
had found it, they were to believe. If, after having been
once satisfied that they have found the truth. Christians are
to recommence their enquiries as often as a new opinion
is started, their faith can never be settled or stedfast.
At least, it must be allowed to be absurd and useless to
seek the truth among the Heretics, who differ as widely
from each other as they do from the Church ; or among
those who, having believed as we do, have deserted their
original faith, and having been once our friends, are now
our enemies^."
In the thirteenth Chapter, Tertullian lays down what
he calls the rule of faith, Regula Fidei ; and ^promises to
prove that it was delivered by Christ. In the fourteenth,
he says, that all our enquiries into Scripture should be
conducted with reference and in subordination to that Rule.
But as the Heretics rested their whole cause upon an
appeal to Scripture, asserting that their doctrine was de-
rived from it, and that the nile of faith could only be
found ex litteris Jidei, in those books which are of the faith,
Tertullian proceeds, in the fifteenth and following chapters,
to assign the reasons of which we have just given a sketch,
why, in arguing with the Heretics, he declined all appeal to
the Scriptures.
Now, whatever may be the case with other Protestant
Churches, I see nothing in Tertullian's reasoning at variance
with the maxims of the Church of England respecting the
aise of the Scriptures. Tertullian, according to the learned
Translator, appeals to Apostolic Tradition — to a rule of faith,
not
' cc. 9, 10, 11, 12.
■■ He fulfils this promise in cc. 20, 21.
300
controversy between the English and Romish
Churches will be revived, and all the points in
not originally deduced from Scripture, but delivered by
the Apostles orally to the Churches which they founded,
and regularly transmitted from them to his own time. How,
I would ask, is this appeal inconsistent with the principles
of the Church of England, which declares only that Holy
Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation ? Respect-
ing the source, from which the rule of faith was originally
deduced, our Church is silent. The framers of our Articles
meant not to deny that the rule of faith might, independ-
ently of the Scriptures, have been faithfully transmitted in
the Apostolic Churches doivn to Tertullian's time. What
they meant to assert was, that the rule, so transmitted, con-
tained no Article which was not either expressed in Scrip-
ture, or might not be proved by it; and that the peculiar
doctrines, in support of which the Roman Catholics appealed
to Tradition, formed no part of the Apostolic rule.
With respect also to the motives of Tertullian's appeal
to Apostolic Tradition, I cannot think that the learned
Translator is warranted in saying that Tertullian considered
it as the only sure foundation of Christian faith, and ap-
pealed to it as an authority paramount to Scripture. To
me he appears to have appealed to it from necessity — be-
cause he could not, from the nature of the dispute in which
he was engaged, directly appeal to Scripture. The Heretics,
with whom he was contending, not only proposed a dif-
ferent rule of faith, but in defence of it produced a different
set of Scriptures. How then was Tertullian to confute
them ? By shewing that the faith which he professed, and
the Scriptures to which he appealed, were, and had always
been, the faith and Scriptures of those Churches, of which
the origin could be traced to the Apostles — the first depo-
sitaries of the faith. In this case, Tertullian had no alter-
native : he was compelled to appeal to Apostolic Tradition.
But when he is contending against Praxeas, a Heretic who
acknowledged the Scriptures received by the Church, though
he begins with laying down the rule of faith nearly in the
same words as in the Tract de Prasscriptione Ha^reticorum,
yet
301
dispute again brought under review. Of those
points none is more important than the ques-
yet he conducts the controversy by a constant appeal to
Scripture. Why indeed did Marcion think it necessary to
compile a Gospel, if it was not usual for the contending
parties even in his time to allege the authority of the
written word, in support of their respective tenets? Let
it be observed also, that in Tertullian's view of the sub-
ject, the genuine Scriptures evidently formed a part of the
Apostolic Tradition*.
When again the learned Translator says that Ter-
tullian dissuades his believmg brother from entering into
any Scriptural researches, he appears to me not to make
due allowance for the vehemence of Tertullian's temper,
and his disposition always to use the strongest expres-
sions which occurred to him at the moment. In ^the place
referred to, he is manifestly addressing himself to ordi-
nary Christians — to those who are unfitted by their talents
and acquirements to engage in theological controversy.
To them he says, " Adhere closely to the creed in which
you have been instructed. If you read the Scriptures, and
meet with difficulties, consult some doctor of the Church,
who has made the Sacred Volume his peculiar study : or
if you cannot readily have recourse to such a person, be
content to be ignorant. It is faith that saves you, not fa-
miliarity with the Scriptures. At any rate, do not go for
a solution of your doubts to the Heretics, who confess by
their continual enquiries that they are themselves in doubt."
Tertullian's object in this passage manifestly is, to deter
the unlearned Christian from curious researches which may
lead him into error; and, as his custom is, he employs
very strong language. But a writer, whose works teem
with Scriptural quotations, could not deliberately intend to
disparage Scriptural knowledge.
* See adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 5. the whole object of which is to
prove by an appeal to the Tradition preserved in the Apostolic Churches,
that the Gospel of St. Luke used by the orthodox was genuine, that of
Marcion spurious.
* De Praescriptione Haereticoruin, c. 14.
302
tion respecting Tradition ; and it is, therefore,
most essential that they who stand forth as
the defenders of the Church of England should
take a correct and rational view of the sub-
ject— the view in short which was taken by
our divines at the Reformation. Nothing was
more remote from their intention than indis-
criminately to condemn all Tradition. ^^They
knew that in strictness of speech Scripture is
Tradition — written Tradition. They knew that,
as far as external evidence is concerned, the
Tradition preserved in the Church is the only
ground on which the genuineness of the Books
of Scripture can be established. For though
we are not, upon the authority of the Church,
bound to receive as Scripture any book,
which contains internal evidence of its own
spuriousness — such as discrepancies, contradic-
tions of other portions of Scripture, idle fables,
or precepts at variance with the great princi-
ples of morality — yet no internal evidence is
sufficient to prove a book to be Scripture, of
which the reception, by a portion at least of
the Church, cannot be traced from the earliest
^ Tertullian uses the expression Scripta Traditio. De
Coron&j c. 3. In the Tract de Carne Christie c. 2. speak-
ing of the history of our Saviour's hfe and actions as
delivered in Scripture, he says, " Si tantum Christianus es,
crede quod traditum est ;" and again, " Porro quod traditum
erat, id erat verum, ut ab iis traditum quorum fuit tradere."
303
period of its history to the present time.
What our reformers opposed was the notion,
that men must, upon the mere authority
of Tradition, receive, as necessary to salva-
tion, doctrines not contained in Scripture.
Against this notion in general, they urged
the incredibility of the supposition that the
Apostles, when unfolding in their writings the
principles of the Gospel, should have entirely
omitted any doctrines essential to man's salva-
tion. The whole tenor indeed of those writings,
as well as of our Blessed Lord's discourses, runs
counter to the supposition that any truths of
fundamental importance would be suffered long
to rest upon so precarious a foundation as
that of oral Tradition. With respect to the
particular doctrines, in defence of which the
Roman Catholics appeal to Tradition, our re-
formers contended that some were directly at
variance with Scripture; and that others, far
from being supported by an unbroken chain
of Tradition from the Apostolic age, were of
very recent origin, and utterly unknown to the
early fathers. Such was the view of this im-
portant question taken by our reformers. In
this, as in other instances, they wisely adopted
a middle course : they neither bowed submis-
sively to the authority of Tradition, nor yet
rejected it altogether. We in the present day
304
must tread in their footsteps and imitate their
moderation, if we intend to combat our
Roman Catholic adversaries with success. We
must be careful that, in our anxiety to avoid
one extreme, we run not into the other by
adopting the extravagant language of those who,
not content with ascribing a paramount autho-
rity to the Written Word on all points per-
taining to eternal salvation, talk as if the
Bible — and that too the Bible in our English
translation — were, independently of all external
aids and evidence, sufficient to prove its own
genuineness and inspiration, and to be its own
interpreter.
To return to Tertullian. In the passage
to which "^reference has just been made, he
speaks both of written and unwritten Tradi-
tion; but the cases in which he lays any
stress upon the authority of the latter are pre-
cisely those which ^°° our reformers allowed to
^^ In the preceding note, from the Tract de Corona Mili-
tis, c. 3.
'^ It is important to distinguish between traditional
doctrines and traditional practices. Our Church receives no
traditional doctrines — no doctrines, necessary to salvation,
preserved through several ages by oral Tradition, and after-
wards committed to writing; but it has a respect for tra-
ditional practices : not, however, such a respect as to preclude
it from examining their original reasonableness, and their
suitableness to existing manners and circumstances.
305
be within its province — cases of ceremonies
and ritual observances. ^^^ Of these he enu-
merates several, for which no express warrant
can be found in Scripture, and which must
consequently have been derived solely from
Tradition ; the forms, for instance, observed in
baptism, in the administration of the Lord's
Supper, and in public prayer. ^'''Even in
these cases he seems to have deemed it essen-
tial to the validity of a traditional observance,
that some satisfactory reason should be as-
signed for its original institution; and when
different observances have prevailed in differ-
ent Churches, it is our duty, ^°Mie says, to
enquire which of the two is more agreeable to
the rule of life laid down by Scripture. In
relation to the subject now treated of, there
is only one point in which I discover any differ-
ence of opinion between Tertullian and the
framers of our Articles. He sometimes appears
10^ De Corona, cc. 3, 4.
^^ Rationem traditioni, et consuetudini, et fidei patroci-
naturam aut ipse perspicies, aut ab aliquo qui perspexerit
disces : interim nonnullam esse credes, cui debeatur obse-
quium. De Corona, c. 4. Sed quia eorum quae ex traditione
observantur tanto magis dignam rationem afFerre debemus,
quanto carent Scripturse auctoritate. De Jejuniis, c. 10.
Non exploratis rationibus Traditionum. De Baptismo, c 1.
^^ Tamen hie, sicut in omnibus varie institutis et dubiis
et incertis fieri solet, adhibenda fuit examinatio, quae magis
ex duabus tam diversis consuetudinibus disciplinas Dei con-
veniret. De Virginibus velandis, c. 2.
U
306
to contend that an uniformity of ceremonies
ought to be maintained in all the ^°'' particu-
lar Churches, of which the visible Church is
composed ; and that any Church, which breaks
this uniformity, divides the body of Christ.
^°^ Our Church, on the contrary, though it
asserts that every individual member of a
Church is bound to comply with the observ-
ances ordained in it by competent authority ;
yet, avaihng itself of that liberty in things in-
different which the Apostle of the Gentiles
allows, declares that " Traditions and ceremonies
need not be in aD places one and utterly
like: but may be changed according to the
diversities of countries, times, and men's man-
ners," with this single proviso, " that nothing
be ordained against God's word." Our author,
however, is not always consistent with himself;
^"•^for in another place he speaks as if it were
^^* Noil possumus respuere consuetudinem, quam damnare
non possumus, utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum,
cum quibus scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen frater-
nitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus,
eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. Semel dixerim,
una Ecclesia sumus. Ita nostrum ^est, quodcunque nostro-
rum est. Caeterum dividis corpus. De Virginibus velandis,
c. 2.
105 Article 34.
1"^ Annon putas omni Jideli licere concipere et constituere,
duntaxat quod Deo congruat, quod disciplinae conducat, quod
saluti proficiat ? dicente Domino, cur autem non et a nobis
ipsis quod jnstum est judicatis? et non de judicio tantum,
sed de omni sententia rerum examinandarum. De CoronA,
c. 4.
307
lawful, not merely for every Church, but for
every Christian to appoint observances ; if they
are but agreeable to the Word of God, tend
to promote a Christian temper and life, and
are profitable unto salvation. Before we quit
the subject of Tradition, we must, in justice
to Tertullian, remark, that when, in opposition
to the Tradition of the Church, he contended
for the reception of the new discipline of Mon-
tanus, he was not chargeable with inconsist-
ency : since, conceiving as he did that Mon-
tanus was divinely inspired, he conceived him
to possess at least equal authority with the
Apostles themselves.
We will now proceed to enquire what in-
formation the writings of Tertullian supply
respecting the canon of Scripture. His quo-
tations include all the Books of the Old Testa-
ment, excepting Ruth, the two Books of
Chronicles, the Book of Nehemiah, and the
prophecies of Obadiah and Haggai. Of the
apocryphal books he quotes Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus ; ^"^Baruch under the name of
c 4. Tertullian in this passage could scarcely mean to
assert that observances appointed by one individual were obli-
gatory upon others.
^^7 Scorpiace, c. 8 The quotation is from the sixth Chap-
ter, which is called in our Bibles the Epistle of Jeremiah.
u 2
308
Jeremiah ; ^°^ the Song of the three Children
under the name of Daniel; the Stories of
^°^ Susannah and of ^^'^ Bell and the Dragon, and
the first Book of Maccabees. "^ He quotes all
the books of the New Testament, excepting
the second Epistle of St. Peter, the third of
St. John, and perhaps the "^Epistle of St.
James; for we concur in "^Lardner's opinion
that there is sufficient ground for believing
some words to have dropped out, towards the
conclusion of the fifth Book against Marcion,
which contained a reference to the Epistle to
Philemon. The reader will find, in "Hhe
fourth Book against Marcion, some valuable
remarks upon the genuineness and integrity of
^^ Cui etiam inanimalla et incorporalia laudes canunt
apud Danielem. Adv. Hermogenenij c. 44.
^^^ De Corona, c. 4.
^^** De Idololatria, c 18. De Jejuniis, c. 7. sub fine.
"* In the Index locorum ex Scripturis Sacris, annexed
to the Paris edition, the second (or fourth) Book of Esdras and
the second Book of Maccabees occur ; but the supposed quota-
tions are of a very doubtful character. The former is pro-
bably referred to in the first Book de Cultu Foeminarum,
c. 3.
"^ See Lardner, Credibility, c. 2?. Sect. 11.
"^ Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27- Rigault
thinks that there is an allusion to the Epistle to Philemon
in the following passage from the Tract adv. Valentinianos,
Et forsitan parias aliquem Onesimum ^onem, c. 32. St.
Paul speaks of Onesimus as liis son, begotten by him,
V. 10.
"* CO. 2, 3, 4, 5. In e. 5. the Apocalypse is ascribed to
St. John.
309
the Gospels. "^ Tertullian states St. Luke to
have been the author of the Acts of the
Apostles. The account which Tertullian gives
of the Septuagint translation is, that Ptolemy
Philadelphus, at the suggestion of Demetrius
Phalereus, obtained a copy of the Hebrew
Scriptures, in order to place it in his library ;
and afterwards caused it to be translated by
seventy-two interpreters, who were sent to him
by the Jews for that purpose. This Tertul-
lian states on the authority of Aristaeus or
Aristeas; and adds that the "^Hebrew copy
was preserved in his own time, in the temple
of Serapis, at Alexandria. He evidently sup-
posed that the translators executed their work
under the influence of divine inspiration. It
is unnecessary to detail the reasons which
have induced the majority of learned men to
treat the narrative of Arista^us as a fable.
"^We will content ourselves with observing
115 Porro quum in eodem commentario Luc£e. De Jeju-
niis, c. 10. The allusion is to the second Chapter of Acts.
^^^ Tertullian must have been mistaken in conceiving that
the Hebrew copy was extant in his day, if, as Gibbon tells us,
the old library of the Ptolemies was totally consumed in
Caesar's Alexandrian war. Chap, xxviii. note 41.
"7 Thus in citing Isaiah v. 18. Tertullian, de Poenitentia,
c. 11. reads, Vae illis qui delicta sua velut procero fune
nectunt; conformably to the Septuagint, ova\ ol e-TncnrJfxevoi
Tas dfxapria<: no's <T-)(oiv'm fxuKpw. Jerome in agreement with the
Hebrew reads, Vae qui trahitis iniquitatem in funiculis vanitatis.
310
that TertuUian, in quoting the Old Testa-
ment, appears either himself to have translated
from the Greek ; or to have used a Latin
version made from the Greek, not from the
Hebrew.
TertuUian ^^^ quotes, more than once, the
prophecy of Enoch. In "^one place he admits
that it was not received into the Jewish
canon; but supposes that the Jews rejected it
merely because they were unable to account
for its having survived the deluge. He ar-
gues, therefore, that Noah might have received
it from his great-grandfather Enoch, and
handed it down to his posterity ; or if it was
actually lost at the deluge, Noah might have
restored it from immediate revelation, ^"°as
Ezra restored the whole Jewish Scripture.
" Perhaps," he adds, " the Jews reject it because
it contains a prediction of Christ's advent;
at any rate the reference to it made by the
Apostle Jude ought to quiet all our doubts
^'^ De Idololatria, c. 15. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii.
c. 10.
"'^ Scio Scripturam Enochs quse hunc ordinem Angelis
dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nee in armarium Judaicum
admittitur. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 3.
120 We are not certain whether TertuUian borrowed thi^
statement respecting the restoration of the Hebrew Scriptures
from the Apocryphal Book of Esdras xiv. 21. or drew an in-
ference from Nehemiah viii.
311
respecting its genuineness." For a more detailed
account of this book we refer the reader to the
dissertation, prefixed by ^'^ Dr. Laurence to his
translation of the Book of Enoch the Prophet,
from an Ethiopic JNIS. in the Bodleian library.
Such of our readers as are acquainted with
the late Professor Porson's Letters to Arch-
deacon Travis will remember the Archdea-
con's interpretation of an expression used by
Tertullian, when speaking of the Apostolic
Churches. ^" " Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas,
apud quas ipsas adhuc Cathedree Apostolorum
suis locis prEesident, apud quas ipsas Authen-
tic£e Literee eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem
et ireprsesentantes faciem uniuscuj usque." By
the words autlienticce liters the Archdeacon
understood Tertullian to mean the autographs
of the Apostles. If, however, we turn to the
^-^ Tract de Monogamia, we find our author,
^^^ Now Lord Archbishop Cashel. The work was pub-
lished at Oxford in 1821.
^^ De PrHescriptione Haereticorum, c. SQ.
^^ c. 11. The passage is 1 Cor. vii. Sp. The MSS. now
extant lend no countenance to Tertullian's assertion. Does
not, however, the assertion prove that a Latin Version was
actually extant in his time, in opposition to Semler's notion
stated in Chap. IL note 38 ? See Lardner, Credibility, c. 27-
Sect. 19. The following passage in the Tract against Praxeas
seems to remove all doubts on the subject. Ideoque jam
in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, Ser-
monem dicere in primwdio apud Deiim fuisse, c. 5.
312
after he has given the Latin version of a pas-
sage, stating that it was differently read in
Grceco mithentico ; that is, in the original Greek,
as contradistinguished from a translation. In
like manner he uses the expressions ^^^ originalia
instrumenta Christi; originale instrumentum
Moysi ; meaning of course, not an autograph
either of Christ or Moses, but the Gospels and
the Pentateuch, as they were originally written.
^"^Berriman, therefore, and others suppose that
Tertullian by the words autlienticae Uterce meant
only the genuine unadulterated Epistles.
^^^ Lardner conceives that our author intended
to appeal, not to the Epistles which St. Paul
addressed to the particular Churches mentioned
by Tertullian ; but to all the Scriptures of
the New Testament, of which the Apostolic
Churches were peculiarly the depositaries. But
Lardner's argument is, in my opinion, founded
on a misapprehension of TertuUian's immediate
object in the passage in question. He there
appeals to the Apostolic Churches as bearing
'^* De Carne Christi, c. 2. Adv. Hermogenem, c. ip-
^^^ Tertullian says of Valentinus, de Ecclesia aiithenticce
regulae abrupit, he separated himself from the Church which
possessed the genuine rule of life. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4.
In another place he says of our Saviour, ipse authenticus Pon-
tifex Dei Patris. He was the true, the original priest, of
whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies.
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 35.
^^^ Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27.
313
witness, not to the genuineness and integrity of
the Scriptures, but to the true and uncorrupted
doctrine of the Gospel. For this he tell us that
we must look to those Churches which were
founded by the Apostles, and were able to pro-
duce the authority of epistles addressed to
them by the Apostles. The words liter cb au-
thenticcB may, therefore, mean, epistles pos-
sessing authority. It is, however, of little con-
sequence to which of the above meanings we
give the preference ; since the whole passage
is evidently nothing more than a declama-
tory mode of stating the weight which Ter-
tuUian attached to the authority of the Apo-
stolic Churches. To infer from it that the
very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or
that the very Epistles which they wrote, then
actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome,
ho,, would be only to betray a total ignorance
of Tertullian's style.
TertuUian ^^^ expressly ascribes the Epistle
'^7 De Pudicitia, c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus
ad Hebraeos : adeo satis auctoritatis viro^ ut quern Paulus
juxta se constituent in abstinentiae tenore: aid ego solus et
Barnabas non habevms hoc operandi pofestatem? Et utique
receptior apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho
Pastore mcechorum. Tertullian then proceeds to quote a pas-
sage from the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Lardner thinks it doubtful whether Tertullian's works contain
any other allusion to the Epistle.
314
to the Hebrews to Barnabas : he does not
say that it was universally received in the
Church, but that it was more generally re-
ceived than the Shepherd of Hernias. He
^^^ mentions also a work falsely ascribed to St.
Paul, but composed by an Asiatic presbyter,
who was impelled, as he himself confessed,
to commit the pious fraud by admiration of
the Apostle. The work appears to have been
quoted in defence of a custom wl)ich had crept
in of allowing females to baptise.
In speaking of the mode in which the
canon of the New Testament was formed,
^^^Lardner says, that it was not determined
by the authority of councils. This may in
one sense be true. Yet it appears from a
passage in the Tract de Pudicitia, ^^^ referred
to in a former Chapter, that in TertuUian's
time one part of the business of councils was
to decide what books were genuine, and what
spurious ; for he appeals to the decisions
^"'^ De Baptismo, c. 17- sub fine. Jerome, Catalogus Scrip-
torum Ecclesiasticorum under St. Luke. He appears to have
supposed that the work in question was entitled the Travels
of Paul and Thecla.
^^^ History of the Apostles and Evangelists, c. 3.
^^ Chap. iv. note 51. Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pas-
toris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset
incidi : si non ab omni concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum
inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, c. 10.
315
of councils in support of his rejection of thS
Shepherd of Hermas. ^^^ We have seen that
TertuUian appeals to the original Greek text
of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. This
fact appears to militate strongly against the
theory of the author of a recent work en-
titled PalcBoromaica, who asserts that the said
Epistle, as well as the greater part of the New
Testament, was originally written in Latin.
When we contrast the acuteness which the
anonymous author of that work occasionally,
and the extensive reading which he always
displays, with the extraordinary conclusions at
which he arrives, we are strongly tempted to
suspect that he is only playing with his
readers; and trying how far intrepid assertion
will go towards inducing men to lend a
favourable ear to the most startling para-
doxes. To take a single instance from the
Epistle just mentioned. His solution of the
celebrated difficulty respecting the power which,
^^- according to St. Paul, a woman ought to
have on her head, is — that ^^^in the original
Latin the word was habitus, which the ig-
*3i See note 123. ^^ 1 Cor. xi. 10.
^^ Supplement to Palaeoromaica, p. 6l. note 5. The author
does not inform us how the word habitus came to be
translated etymologically e^ovala ; does he mean that the
translator confounded c'^c? and i^ova'ia ?
316
norant translator rendered etymologicaUy e^ovala.
In support of this fancy he quotes the follow-
ing words from TertuUian's Treatise de Virgi-
nibus velandis, c. 3. " O sacrilegas manus, quae
dicatum Deo hahitum (the veil) detrahere
potuerunt !" — meaning his readers to infer that
Tertullian found habitus in the verse in ques-
tion ; but omitting to inform them that it is
^^* twice quoted by Tertullian in this very
Tract, and that in both instances the reading
is potestas. That the omission proceeded, not
from inadvertence, but design, is, we think,
rendered certain by the still more extraordinary
solution subjoined by the author, that vestitus
was the original reading; which, when pro-
nounced by a Jew, might easily be confounded
yN\\\\ potestas. It is impossible that the author
could be serious in throwing out either of
these conjectures.
We wiU mention one other argument of
a more plausible character, alleged by the au-
thor in support of his theory. ^^^ The author
contends that the very titles of the existing
Greek gospels, to evayyeXiov Kara MaTOaloVj Kara
AovKav, prove them to be translations. The
Version of the Septuagint was called Kara.
"* cc. 7. 17.
'^ Supplement to Palaeoromaica, p. 3. note 2.
317
Toi)? 'Ej^^ofJitjKoi'Ta, that of Aquila Kara 'A/cuXaV.
But why does he stop short in his inference?
If the argument proves any thing, it proves,
not merely that the existing Greek gospels
were translations, but also that Matthew, Luke,
&c. were the translators. The true answer
however is, that the force of the preposition
Kara depends entirely upon the word with
which it is connected. The title to evayyeXiov
Kara MarOaiov means "the glad tidings of sal-
vation as delivered by St. Matthew:" or as
paraphrased by Hammond, "That story of
Christ which INIatthew compiled and set down."
For though the word tvayyeXiov was employed
at a very early period to signify ^^^a written
book, yet it continued to be used in its pri-
mitive meaning ; as by Tertullian, when he calls
^^^ St. INIatthew, fidelissimus Evangelii commen-
tator, the most faithful expositor of the life
and doctrine of Christ. We will take this
opportunity of remarking, that our author, in
speaking of the Scriptures, sometimes calls them
^^^ Instrumentum, sometimes Testamentum ; but
^36 See de Res. Carnis, c 3S. De Came Christi, c. 7- Adv.
Marcionem, L. i. c 1. L. iv. cc. 1. 3. L. v. 1. Scorpiace, c. 2.
^^7 De Carne Christi, c. 22. See also de Res. Carnis, c S3.
The word commentator is similarly used adv. Marcionem,
L. iv. c. 2.
^^ Vetus Instrumentum. Apology, c. 47- Ex instruraento
divinarum Scripturarum. Adv. Judaeos, c. 1. The two words
are joined together adv. Praxeam, c. 20. Instrumentum
utriusque testamenti.
318
says on ^^^one occasion that the latter term
was in more general use. He calls them also
'"^ Digesta.
Some ^"learned men have contended that
the Epistle, which in our Bibles is inscribed
to the Ephesians, should be entitled to the
Laodiceans. Tertullian ""in one place says,
that the Heretics alone gave it that title ; ""^ in
another, that Marcion had at one time mani-
fested an intention to alter the title of the
Epistle. Semler's inference is that some of
the Epistles were without inscriptions, and
received in consequence a variety of titles.
There are in Tertullian, as well as in the
other Fathers, quotations purporting to be
taken from Scripture, but which cannot be
found in our present copies. Thus in the
^^^ Alterum alterius instrumenti, vel (quod magis usui
est dicere) testamenti. Adv. Marcioneni, L. iv. c. 1.
^^^ Et inde sunt nostra digesta. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv.
c. 2. Si quid in Sanctis ofFenderunt digestis. Apology, c. 47.
^*^ Lardner. History of the Apostles and Evangelists,
c. 13.
^^ Prsetereo hie et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios
perscriptam habemus; Haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. Adv.
Marcionem, L. v. c. 11.
^^ Ecclesi* quidem veritate, Epistolam istam ad Ephe-
sios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei
titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto dili-
gentissimus explorator. Adv. Marcionem, L, v. c. 17.
319
Tract de Idololatria, c. 20. Nam siciit scriptum
est ecce Jiomo et facta ejus, ita, "* ex ore tuo
justificaheris. The commentators have not been
able to trace the former of the two quo-
tations, and some suppose it to have been
taken from the book of Enoch. '^^On three
different occasions Tertullian quotes the words
Dominus regnamt a Ugno as a portion of the
tenth verse of the 95th (or 96th) Psahu ; from
which, according to Justin Martyr, the words
corresponding to a Ugno had been erased by the
Jews. In the Tract de Carne Clu-isti, c. 23.
we find the following sentence: Legimus qui-
dem apud Ezechielem de vacca ilia, '^^ quiB pepe- ^
rit et non peperitf the words are also quoted
by "'^Clemens Alexandrinus, but he does not
refer to any particular portion of Scripture.
In the ^^^ Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis,
TertuUian says, Cautum in Levitico, Sacerdotes
met non plus mibent; but the "^prohibition, as
it stands in our Bibles, is that a Priest shall
not marry a widow or divorced female. Ter-
tullian's writings afford many exemplifications
of the justice of Porson's remarks respecting the
1^ Matthew xii. 37-
^^ Adv. Judasos, cc. 10. 13. Adv. Mai-cionem, L. iii. c. ip.
See Thirlby's note on Justin Martyr against Trypho, p. 298. D.
1*^ Strom. L. vii. p. 890. Ed. Potter. See Porson's Letters
to Travis, p. 275.
^*' c. 7- Compare de Monogamia, e. 7-
^^ Leviticus xxi. 7- 13, 14.
320
want of correctness and precision observable
in the quotations of the Fathers from the
Scriptures. "^He sometimes refers his readers
to one part of Scripture for passages which
belong to another; and he so mixes up the
quotations with his own words, that it is diffi-
cult to distinguish between them. The ^^'^ con-
sequence has been that his inferences and
explanations have been mistaken for various
readings; and have in some instances found
their way into the text of the Sacred Volume.^^^
We proceed to the seventh Article; on
which it will be sufficient to remark that — as
the Heretical opinions of Marcion were founded
on the notion that the God, who created the
world and gave the law, was opposed to the
Supreme God — he maintained as a necessary-
consequence, that the Old Testament was con-
trary to the New : — our author, therefore,
who undertakes to confute him, ^^^must have
^♦3 Thus in the Scorpiace, c. 13. a passage extant in the
first chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, is quoted
as from the Epistles to the Thessalonians.
^^'^ See an instance in Person's Letters to Travis, p. 273.
or in Semler's Dissertation, Sect. 9-
^^^ The author might have produced numerous other instances
in confirmation of the statements made in this paragraph ;
but he was unwilling to swell the bulk of the volume.
1^2 See particularly adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 11. where
are some judicious observations respecting the relation in
which the Law stands to the Gospel.
321
held that the two Testaments were not at
variance.
We ^^Miave seen that Tertullian, when
arguing against the Heretics, uniformly re-
presents the rule of faith maintained in the
Apostolic Churches to be the same which the
Apostles originally delivered. He does not
indeed state that they compiled any creed or
public declaration of belief, to which all the
members of the Church were bound to give
their assent. ^^^But in the commencement of
the Tract de Virginibus Velandis, he describes
what he calls the one, fixed, unchangeable
rule of faith ; which will be found to contain
nearly all the articles of what is now termed
the Apostles' Creed. Those which are there
wanting may be supplied, either from another
summary of faith ^^^ in the second chapter of
^^ Chap. iv. note xi.
^^* Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis
et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omni-
potentem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus lesum Christum,
natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertio
die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in coeKs, sedentem
nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mor-
tuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem. Compare de Praescrip-
tione Haereticorum, c. 13.
^^^ Nos vero, et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores
per Paracletum, deductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum
quidem Deum credimus ; sub hkc tamen dispensatione, quam
olKovofxiav dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius, Sermo ipsius,
qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine
X V^o
322
the Tract against Praxeas, or from detached
passages of our author's writings. Thus the
conception by the Holy Ghost is stated in the
Treatise against Praxeas, c. 27- Certe enim de
Spiritu Sancto Virgo concepit: and we have
seen in our remarks on the third Article, that
Tertullian believed the doctrine of Christ's
' descent into hell. ^^^ Schlitingius indeed con-
tended, on the authority of the passage just
quoted from the Tract de Virginibus velandis,
that a belief in the Holy Ghost formed no
part of the faith required from a Christian in
the time of Tertullian ; but the whole tenor
of the Tract against Praxeas confutes the
assertion, and proves that the divinity of the
Holy Ghost was then received as one of the
doctrines of the Church. With respect to the
next clause — the Holy Catholic Church — by
which I understand, with Pearson, ^^^a visible
qtio factum est nihil. Hunc missum a Patre in Virginem,
et ex ea natum, hominem et Deum, filium hominis et filium
Dei, et cognominatum lesum Christum. Hunc passum,
hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum Scripturas, et resus-
citatura a Patre, et in coelos resuraptum, sedere ad dexteram
Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. Qui exinde
miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a Patre Spiritum
Sanctum, Paracletum, Sanctificatorem fidei eorum, qui credunt
in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Hanc regulam
ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, &c. See also, cap. ult. Si
non exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, tres crediti,
unum Deum sistunt.
i^** Pearson on the Creed, Article viii. p. 307.
^•'^ Article ix. p. 339. Tertullian, however, speaks some-
times
323
Church on earth — Tertullian repeatedly speaks
of a Church, which was founded by the ^^^ Apo-
stles, especially by ^^^ St. Peter, according to
the promise made by Christ to him, and is
composed of all the Christian communities
throughout the world, ^*^" which are united by
the profession of a common faith, by the
same hope in Christ Jesus, and by the same
sacrament of baptism. To this Church Ter-
tullian applies also the term ^^^ Catholica. Of
the doctrine contained in the next clause of
the Apostles' Creed, — The Communion of
Saints — as it is explained by Pearson, I find
no traces in Tertullian's writings ; and with
respect to the remission of sins, ^''^we have
seen that, though after he became a Mon-
tanist he denied to the Church the power
times of a heavenly or invisible Church. Emissa de coelis, ubi
Ecclesia est area figurata. De Baptismo, c. 8. Una Ecciesia
in coelis, c. 15. Jam tunc de mundo in Ecclesiam. Adv. Mar-
cionem, L. ii. c. 4. Here, however, the expression is ambi-
guous; it may mean the transition from Paganism to Chi-istianity
Apud Veram et Catholicam Hierusalem, &c. L. iii. c. 22.
^^^ In Ecclesiam, quam nondum Apostoli struxerant.
De Baptismo, c. 11.
^"^ In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum. De
Pudicitiii, c. 21.
^''^ Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus,
eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. De Virginibus
velandis, c. 2.
^^^ De|Praescriptione Haeretlcorum, ^cc. 26. 30.
>«2 Chap. IV. p. 254.
X 2
324
of forgiving certain sins in this life, lie still
supposed that the offender might, through the
blood of Christ, upon sincere repentance obtain
pardon in the life to come. The inference,
therefore, to be drawn from a comparison of
different passages scattered through Tertul-
lian's writings is, that the Apostles' Creed in
its present form was not known to him as a
summary of faith ; but that the various clauses
of which it is composed were generally re-
ceived as articles of faith by orthodox Christ-
ians. When we come to speak of the Tract
against Praxeas, we shall have an opportunity
of ascertaining how far the opinions of our
author coincided with the language employed
in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
We proceed to the ninth Article of our
Church — on Original Sin — a subject on which
we must not expect Tertullian to speak with
the same precision of language which was
used by those who wrote after the Pelagian
controversy had arisen. ^'^^In describing the
163 pgj. quern (Satanam) homo a primordio circumventus
ut prseceptum Dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus,
exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suae etiam dam-
nationis traducem fecit. De Testimonio Animae, c. 3. Homo
damnatur ad mortem ob unius arbusculae delibationem, et
exinde proficiunt delicta cum pcenis, et pereunt jam omnes,
qui Paradisi nullum cespitem norunt. Adv. Marcionem^
L. i. c. 22.
325
cause and consequences of Adam's fall, he says
that our first parent, havmg been seduced into
disobedience by Satan, was delivered over unto
death; and transmitted his condemnation to
the whole human race, which was infected
from his seed. The effect of this condemna-
tion was to involve mankind in sin as well
as in punishment. ^*^*In our accovmt of the
Treatise de Anima, we stated that our author
expressed his approbation of the Platonic divi-
sion of the sovd into rational and irrational.
According to him, the rational was its natural,
original character, as it was created by God:
the irrational was introduced by Satan, and
has since been wrought so completely into the
soul, as to have become as it were its natural
character. ^'^^In the same Tract he says also
that every soul is numbered in Adam, until,
being born of water and the Spirit, it is num-
bered anew in Christ. He does not, however,
appear to have admitted a total corruption of
man's nature. ^^^ " Besides the evil," he says,
^*'* c 16. Compare c. 11, where Tertullian speaks of
Adam's soul.
^^^ Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donee
in Christo recenseatur, c. 40. In the Tract de Patientia, c. 5.
Tertullian says that the sin of Adam consisted in impatience,
i. e. under the commandment of God ; but in the Tract
de Pudicitia, c. 6. he ascribes the fall to what the Apostle
terms the lust of the eye (1 John ii. I6.).
1^^ De Anima, c. 41.
326
" which the soul contracts from the interven-
tion of the wicked Spirit, there is an ante-
cedent, and in a certain sense natural evil,
arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we
have already observed, the corruption of our
nature is another nature ; having its proper
God and Father, namely the author of that
corruption. Still there is a portion of good in
the soul ; of that original, divine, and genuine
good, which is its proper nature. For that
which is derived from God is rather obscured,
than extinguished. It may be obscured, be-
cause it is not God: but it cannot be extin-
guished, because it emanates from God. As,
therefore, light, when intercepted by an opake
body, still remains, though it is not seen : so
the good in the soul, being weighed down
by the evil, is either not seen at all, or is par-
tially and occasionally visible. Men differ
widely in their moral characters, yet the souls
of all form but one genus : ^*^" in the worst
there is something good; in the best there is
something bad. For God alone is without sin ;
and the only man without sin is Christ, since
Christ is God. Thus the divine nature of the
soul bursts forth in prophetic anticipations, the
consequences of its original good : and con-
scious of its origin it bears testimony to God,
^''^ Compare adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 23.
S27
its author, in exclamations like these — Detis
bonus est, Deus videt, Deo commendo. As no
soul is without sin, neither is any without the
seeds of good. INIoreover when the soul em-
braces the true faith, being renewed in its
second birth by water and the power from
above, then the veil of its former corruption
being taken away, it beholds the light in all
its brightness. As in its first birth it was
received by the unholy, in its second it is re-
ceived by the Holy Spirit. The flesh follows
the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part
of the bridal portion ; no longer the servant
of the soul, but of the Spirit. O happy mar-
riage, if no violation of the marriage vow
takes place !"
The language of the passages now cited
appears to differ little from that of our Ai'ti-
cle. ^^^ The original state of Adam was a state
of righteousness : in his nature, as he was cre-
ated, good was the pervading principle, good
immediately derived from God and akin to
the divine goodness ; or as Tertullian expresses
himself on another occasion, ^'^^the original
168 pg Pudicitia, c. 9. Tertullian speaking of the pro-
digal son says^ Recordatur Patris Dei, satisfacto redit,
vestem pristinam recipit, statum scilicet eum quern Adam
transgressus amiserat. Compare de Monogamia, c 5.
^^^ Recipit enim ilium Dei Spiritum, quem tunc de afflatu
ejus acceperat, sed post amiserat per delictum. De Baptismo,
c. 5.
328
righteousness of Adam consisted in a partici-
pation in the Spirit of God, which he lost
by his transgression. ^^° The effect of his trans-
gression has been to make his offspring the
heirs of his condemnation — to entail vipon them
a corruption of nature, from which no man
born into the world is exempt, and for which
there is no other remedy than to be born again
by water and the Holy Spirit. Although,
therefore, TertuUian denies that the corruption
of man's nature is total, and that the seeds of
good are altogether extinguished in it: yet he
expressly states that man cannot by his own
efforts restore himself to the favour of God,
but reqviires that his soul should be renewed
by grace from above. Had our author ad-
mitted the total corruption of human nature —
had he used the language which is sometimes
c. 5. TertuUian's notion here seems to be, that God made
man i?i his image, that is, in the form which Christ was
to bear during his residence on earth ; this image man retained
after the fall. (Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. sub in.)
But God also made man after his likeness, that is, immortal ;
this likeness man lost at the fall, but it is restored to him
in baptism through the Holy Spirit. In the second Book
against Marcion, c 2. TertuUian applies to Adam at the
time of his transgression, the term homo animalis, that is,
without the Spirit of God, as opposed to spiritalis.
^70 See de Jejuniis, c 3. where speaking of the effects
of Adam's fall, TertuUian says, in me quoque cum ipso
genere transductam. So in the Tract de Exhortatione Cas-
titatis, c. 2. Semini enim tuo respondeas necesse esse. See
also de Pudicitia, c. 6".
329
used in our own day, that man is wholly
the offspring of the devil — his adversary INIar-
cion might have turned round vipon him and
said, " This is my doctrine, for I affirm that
man was made by a being distinct from the
supreme God and at variance with him."
It ^^^must, however, be admitted that there
is, in the Tract de Baptismo, a passage which
seems to imply a denial of the doctrine of origi-
nal sin. Tertullian recommends delay in admi-
nistering the rite of baptism, particularly in the
case of children ; and asks, ^^^ " why should the
age of innocence (infancy) be in haste to obtain
the remission of sins?" Here is an evident in-
consistency. ^^^The passages which we have
already cited prove that our author was strongly
impressed with the conviction that baptism is
necessary, in order to relieve mankind from the
injurious consequences of Adam's fall. We
might, therefore, reasonably have expected to
find him a strenuous advocate of infant bap-
tism. As we shall have occasion to recur to
this passage when we come to treat of the
rites and ceremonies of the Church, we shall
say nothing more respecting it at present.
171 c. 18.
172 The expression innocens cctas occurs again in the fourth
Book against Marcion, c. 23. See also de Anima, c. 56. sub fine.
173 See particularly the passage quoted in note l65.
330
We will take this opportunity of noticing
two strange opinions of Tertullian. ^^*One is,
that the prohibition given to Adam in Para-
dise contained in it all the precepts of the
decalogue; — ^^Hhe other, that Eve was a vir-
gin when tempted by the serpent — an asser-
tion which he does not attempt to reconcile
with the divine blessing, " Be fruitful and
multiply." It marks, however, his strong dis-
position to exaggerate the merit of a Ufe of
celibacy.
Tertullian's notions on free-will — the sub-
ject of the tenth Article of ovir Church — may
be collected from a passage in his ^^^ Treatise
de Anima. He is arguing against the Valen-
tinians ; who maintained that men were of
three kinds, spiritual, animal, and terrestrial —
and that, as this distinction took place at their
birth, it was consequently immutable : — as a
thorn cannot produce figs, or a thistle grapes,
an animal man cannot produce the works of
the Spirit ; or the contrary. " If this were so,"
answers Tertullian, " God could neither out of
stones raise up sons to Abraham, nor could
^74 Adv. Judaeos, c. 2.
^75 De Carne Christi, c 17- Compare de Monogamia,
c. 5. Christus innuptus in totum, quod etiam primus Adam
ante exilimTi.
^''^ c. 21;, partly quoted in chap. III. note iS.
331
the generation of vipers bring forth the fruits
of repentance; and the Apostle was in error
when lie wrote, Ye were once darkness, and we
also were once hy nature the children of wrath,
and ye were of the same number, hut now ye
have heen washed. The declarations of Scrip-
ture are never at variance with each other : —
a bad tree will not produce good fruit, unless
a graft is made upon it ; and a good tree will
brins: forth bad fruit, unless it is cultivated;
and stones will become the sons of Abraham,
if they are formed into the faith of Abraham ;
and the generation of vipers will bring forth
the fruits of repentance, if they cast out the
poison of a malignant nature. Such is the
power of divine grace; being stronger than
nature, and having subject to itself the free
power of the will within us, which the Greeks
call ^"^"^ avre^ovGiov. This power is natural and
changeable ; consequently in what direction
soever it turns, the nature (of man) turns in that
direction with it. For we have already shewn
that man possesses by nature freedom of will."
^"^On another occasion, Tertullian is disputing
^77 Tertullian appears not to have held the notion of a
self-determining power of the will : for he speaks of it as
determined by something extraneous. Nam et voluntas
poterit necessitas contendi : habens scilicet unde cogatur. De
Corona, c. 11.
^78 Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. cc 5, 6, 7, 8- Compare
cc. 10. 25.
332
with Marcion, who contended that the fall
of Adam was irreconcileable with the attri-
butes of God ; who must be deemed deficient
either in goodness if he willed, in prescience
if he did not foresee, or in power if he did
not prevent it. Our author answers that the
cause of Adam's fall must be sought, not in
the attributes of God, but in the condition
and nature of man. Adam was created free:
for God would not have given him a law and
annexed the penalty of death to transgression,
unless it had been in his power either to obey
or disobey. Precepts, threats, and exhortations
all proceed upon the assumption that man acts
freely and according to his will.- -" But did
not God foresee that Adam would make an
ill use of his freedom? how then can we re-
concile it to his goodness that he should have
bestowed a gift which he foresaw that Adam
would abuse ?" To this question, TertuUian
replies in a laboured argument, the object of
which is to prove that God, having deter-
mined to create man after his own imaore
and likeness, and consequently to make him
a free agent, could not consistently interpose
to prevent him from using his freedom as he
pleased. We must observe that throughout
this passage TertuUian is speaking of the ori-
ginal state of Adam ; not of his state after
333
the fall, or of the state in which all men are
born into the world. Before man in his pre-
sent state can repent and do that which is
good, his will must be brought under sub-
jection to the grace of God. ^^^ The great
object of Tertullian is to vindicate the deal-
ings of God with man ; and to prove that,
when men sin, the guilt is strictly and pro-
perly their own. Adam sinned voluntarily:
the tempter did not impose upon him the
inclination to sin, but afforded him the means
of gratifying the inclination which already
existed. We may think Tertullian's reasoning
incorrect, and deny that his solution of the
difficulties connected with the questions of the
divine agency and the freedom of man is satis-
factory : where indeed are we to look for a
satisfactory solution ? But it is evident that
nothing could be more remote from his inten-
tion than so to assert the freedom of man's
will, as either to deny the necessity or to
detract from the efficacy of divine grace ; from
the sole operation of which ^^°he conceived
^79 Compare de Monogamia, c. 14. Nee ideo duritia im-
putabitur Christo de arbitrii cujuscunque liberi vitio. "Ecce,
inquit, posui ante te bonum et malum." Elige quod bonum
est ; si non potes, quia non vis (posse enim te, si velis^ ostenditj
quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit) discedas oportet ab
eo cujus non facis voluntatem.
^^ Nisi quod bonorum quorundam, sicuti et malorum, in-
tolerabilis naagnitudo est, ut ad capienda et prsestanda ea
sola
334
patience and the other moral graces to take
theu' origin.
What I remarked with respect to the doc-
trine of original sin is equally applicable to
that of justification, the subject of the eleventh
Article of our Church. No controversy on the
subject existed in Tertullian's time. That which
occupied so large a portion of St. Paul's atten-
tion, the dispute respecting the necessity of
observing the Mosaic ritual as a means of jus-
tification, appears to have died away imme-
diately after the expulsion of the Jews by
Adi'ian. We must not, therefore, expect in
Tertullian's language, when he speaks on this
subject, the precision of controversy. He de-
scribes, however, ^^^ the death of Christ as the
whole weight and benefit of the Christian name,
and the foundation of man's salvation. He
sola gratia divinae inspirationis operetur. Nam quod maxirne
bonum, id maxime penes Deum, nee alius id quam qui
possidet dispensatj ut cuique dignatur. De Patientia, c 1.
^^^ Totum Christian! nominis et pondus et fructus, mors
Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse Apostolus demandat,
utique veram, summum earn fundamentum Evangelii con-
stituens, et salutis nostrae, et praedicationis suae : Tradidi enim
inquit, vobis in primis, quod Cliristus mortuus sit pro peccatis
nostris, S^^c. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 8. See also L. ii. c. 26.
Christum — oblatorem animae suae pro populi salute; and the
Scorpiace, c. 7- Christus est qui se tradidit pro delictis nostris.
De Idololatria. Quum Christus non alia ex causa descenderit,
quam liberandorum peccatorum.
335
says ^^^in one place, that we are redeemed by
the blood of God; ^^^in another, by the blood
of the Lord and the Lamb. ^^* He asserts that
such is the efficacy of the blood of Christ,
that it not only cleanses men from sin and
brings them out of darkness into light, but
preserves them also in a state of purity, if
they continue to walk in the Ught. He speaks
of a *^^ repentance which is justified by faith,
pcenitentiam ex fide justificatam ; and ^^^ of jus-
tification by faith, without the ordinances of
the law. If, therefore, on other occasions, we
find him dwelling in strong terms on the
^^^ efficacy of repentance, we ought in fairness
to infer that he did not mean to represent it
as of itself possessing this efficacy ; but as
deriving its reconciling virtue from the sacri-
fice of Christ. In the same sense we must
understand other passages, in which he ascribes
182 ]sJqj^ sumus nostri, sed pretio empti ; et quali pretio ?
sanguine Dei. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c 3.
^^ Itaque si exinde quo statum vertit (caro) et in Christum
tincta induit Christum, et magno redempta est, sanguine
scilicet Domini et Agni. De Pudicitia, c. 6.
^^* Haec est enim vis Dominici Sanguinis, ut quos jam
dehcto mundarit, et exinde in lumine constituerit, mundos
exinde praestet, si in lumine incedere perseveraverint. De
Pudicitia, c. IQ.
185 Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 18. sub fine.
18G £jj^ g(jg j^j^ justificandos sine ordine legis. Adv. Mar-
cionem, L. iv. c. 35.
'^^ See de Poenitentidj cc. 4. 9.
336
to ^^^ bodily mortifications a certain degree of
merit, and the power of appeasing the divine
displeasure. The case, in which Tertullian's
language approaches most nearly to the Roman
Catholic doctrine of merit, is that of martyr-
dom. ^^^To this undoubtedly he ascribed the
power of washing away guilt : still, we conceive,
under the restriction under which he ascribes
the same power to baptism. The efficacy which
martyrdom possessed was derived solely from
the death of Christ. This at least is certain,
that he positively denied all superabundance
of merit in the martyr. '^'^"Let it suffice,"
he says, speaking of the custom then prevalent
of restoring penitents to the communion of
the Church at the intercession of martyrs,
"let it suffice to the martyr to have washed
away his own sins. It is a mark of ingra-
titude or presumption in him to scatter pro-
fusely upon others, that which he has himself
1^ In primis adflictatio carnis hostia Domino placatoria
per humiliationis sacrificium, &c. De Patientia, c. 13. De
Res. Carnis, c. p. Quo plenius id quod de Eva trahit (igno-
miniam, dico, primi delicti et invidiam perditionis humanae)
omni satisfactionis habitu expiaret. De Cultu Foeminarum,
i,. i. c. 1. De Jejuniisj cc 3, 4>, 7. et passim.
i«9 Ubi accessit, pati exoptat, ut Dei totam gratiam redi-
mat, ut omnem veniam ab eo compensatione sanguinis sui
expediat ? Omnia enim huic operi (martyrio) delicta donan-
tur. Apology, sub fine.
190 De Pudicitia, c. 22.
337
acquired at a great price. For who but the
Son of God can by his own death reheve
others from death? He indeed delivered the
thief at the very moment of his passion : for
he had come for this very end, that being
himself free from sin and perfectly holy, he
might die for sinners. You then who imi-
tate Christ in pardoning sins, if you are your-
self sinless, suffer death for me. But if you
are yourself a sinner, how can the oil out of
your cruse suffice both for you and me?"
We have observed nothing in Tertullian's
works which bears upon the twelfth Article
of our Church ; but with reference to the
thirteenth — which involves the question respect-
ing the nature of heathen virtue — he is sup-
posed by his editor Rigault, in ^^^ a passage in
the Tract de Spectaculis, to express a doubt
whether a heathen can be actuated by a really
virtuous principle ; literally, whether a heathen
has any savour of that which is good. In
the ^^- Tract ad Martyres, a distinction is made
between the principles in which the fortitude
of a Christian and of a heathen originates.
But in neither case is the language of that
'^^ Quam melius ergo est nescire qvium mali puniuntur,
ne sciam et quum boni pereunt, si tamen bomini saphmt,
c. 19.
1^2 c. 4. sub fine.
338
clear and express character which will warrant
us in building any decided conclusion upon
it. The fair inference, however, from the
"^general tenor of Tertullian's writings is, that
he deemed all heathen virtue imperfect; and
could not, therefore, ascribe to it any merit
of congruity.
From the passage which has been just
quoted from the ^^'^ Tract de Pudicitia, it is
manifest that Tertullian entirely rejected, with
our fourteenth Article, the notion of works of
supererogation : and in the same passage, the
reader would remark, that in agreement with
our fifteenth Article, he declared Christ alone
to be without sin. The same statement is
repeated in ^^^ various parts of his writings;
and it is amusing to observe the anxiety of
several of the Romish commentators to limit its
application, and to assure us, that the Virgin
is not to be included in this general charge
^^^ Quia nihil verum in his (foeminis) quae Deum nesciunt
praesidem et magistratum veritatis. De Cultu Fceminarum,
L. ii. c. 1. Igitur ignorantes quique Deum, rem quoque
ejus ignorent necesse est. De Pcenitentia, c. 1. Philosophi
quidem qui alicujus sapientiae animalis deputantur. De
Patientia, c. 1. Cui enim Veritas comperta sine Deo? Cui
Deus cognitus sine Christo ? Cui Christus exploratus sine
Spiritu Sancto? &c. De Anima, c. 1.
^9* c. 22. referred to in note I90.
^^ De Oratione, c 7- De Anima, c. 41. De Carne Christi,
c. l6. De Praescriptione Hsereticorumj c. 3.
339
of sinfulness. ^^'^AU the other descendants of
Adam contract guilt ; and that too after they
have received marks of the divine favour. In
proof of this assertion, our author appeals to
the cases of Saul, and David, and Solomon.
^^'" These," he says, "are they who soil their
wedding garment, and provide no oil in their
lamps; and having strayed from the flock,
m;ust be sought in the mountains and woods,
and be brought back on the shoulders of the
shepherd."
With respect to the recovery of those who
fall into sin after baptism — the subject of the
sixteenth Article — ^"^we have seen that the
opinions of Tertullian underwent a material
alteration ; and that, after he had adopted
the notions of INIontanus in all their rigour, he
allowed a place of repentance only to those
who fell into venial transgressions ; maintaining
that ^^^the stain of mortal sin after baptism
196 j)g Prgescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3.
^^^ Prospexerat et has Deus imbecillitates conditionis
humanae, adversarii insidias, rerum fallacias, seculi retia,
etiam post Lavacrum periclitaturam fidem, perituros plerosque
rursum post salutem : qui vestitum obsoletassent nuptialem,
qui faculis oleum non praeparassent, qui requirendi per montes
et saltus, et humeris essent reportandi. Scorpiace, c. 6.
198 Chap. iv. p. 254.
^^ Posuit igitur secunda solatia et extrema prsesidia, dimi-
xiationem martyrii, et lavacrum sanguinis exinde securum.
Scorpiace, c. 6.
y2
340
could only be washed away by martyrdom, by
the baptism of the sinner in his own blood.
Of the sin against the Holy Ghost he makes
no express mention. With respect to Per-
severance, TertuUian appears to have thought
that the true Christian will either persevere
to the end, ^°° or will only fall into those lighter
offences from which no man is free. ^°^He
who does not persevere, never was a Christian ;
so that, if in order to accommodate Tertul-
lian's language to the controversies of later
times, we substitute the word elect for Christ-
ian, perseverance, according to him, is the
evidence of election ; "°^ though he did not
think that Christians can be assured of their
final perseverance. On comparing, therefore,
the later opinions of TertuUian with the doc-
trine of the Church of England in its sixteenth
Article, we find that they are directly opposed
to each other. He regards perseverance as the
evidence that a man is a Christian; or in the
language of the Article that he has received
the Holy Ghost. But when he says that he
alone is a Christian who perseveres to the
end, his words seem to imply that he who
200 j)g Pudicitia, c. 19- prope finem.
^"^ Nemo autem Christianas, nisi qui ad Jinem usque per-
severaverit. De Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 3.
^"^ Optantes perseverare id in nobis, non tamen praesu-
mentes. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 2.
I
341
does not persevere never was a Christian —
had never received grace; whereas the express
declaration of the Article is, that a man may
receive grace and afterwards fall from it; and
such indeed is the declaration of our author
himself, in the ^°^ passage which has been just
quoted, respecting the defection of Saul, David,
and Solomon. This apparent contradiction
leads me to observe, that in reading the
works of the Fathers we should be careful
to distinguish between incidental or general
remarks, and remarks made with reference to
the particular controversies then subsisting. In
the former they must not be supposed to speak
with the same precision as in the latter. There
was no controversy in TertuUian's day on the
subject of perseverance ; we must, therefore,
not construe his expressions too strictly.
Of Predestination, as the term is defined
in our seventeenth Article, we find no trace in
the writings of Tertullian. The doctrine, as
proposed in the Article, is the result of a num-
ber of texts of Scripture, describing the va-
rious steps of a true believer's progress towards
salvation. What Tertullian says on the sub-
ject has a closer connexion with the questions
agitated in the schools of philosophy, respecting
^^ See note I97. Compare de Poenitentia^ c. 7-
342
fate and free-will, than with the Scriptures.
His controversies with the Heretics of his time,
who appear to have lost their way in the vain
search after a solution of the difficulties re-
specting the origin of evil, frequently oblige
him to speak of the purpose or will of God
in the natural and moral government of the
world; and to contend that this purpose or
will is not inconsistent with human liberty.
^^'^ " Some," he says, " argue that whatever hap-
pens, happens by the will of God ; for if God
had not willed, it would not have happened.
But this is to strike at the root of all virtue,
and to offer an apology for every sin. The
sophistry moreover of the argument is not less
glaring than its pernicious tendency. For if
nothing happens but what God wills, God
wills the commission of crime ; in other words,
he wills what he forbids. We must not,
therefore, so refer all events to the will of
God, as to leave nothing in the power of
man. Man has also a will, which ought
always to conspire with the will of God, but
is too often at variance with it." In the chap-
ter which immediately follows, our author dis-
tinguishes between the will by which God
ordains, and the will by which he permits;
^^* De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. Compare adv. Prax-
eam, c. 10. sub fine.
343
calling the former pura voluntas, the latter
itwita voluntas. Yet at other times he seems
to have been aware that this in the case of
the Almighty is a verbal, not a real, distinc-
tion; for in reasoning upon the Apostle's de-
claration, that ""^ " there must be heresies that
they which are approved may be made mani-
fest," he says, that the very purpose of here-
sies being to try the faith of Christians, they
must necessarily pervert those whose faith is
not well-grounded and stedfast. For that which
is ordained to be (for instance, heresies), as it
^^ Conditio praesentium temporum etiam hanc admonitio-
nem provocat nostram, non oportere nos mirari super Haereses
istas, sive quia sunt : J'uturw enim prcenuntiahanhir : sive
quia Jidem quorundam suhvertunt ; ad hoc enim sunt, ut Jides,
habendo tentationem, hahcat etiam probationem. Vane ergo
et inconsiderate plerique hoc ipso scandalizantur, quod
tantum Haereses valeant. Quantum si non fuissent? quum
quod sortitum est ut omni modo sit, sicut causam accipit
ob quam sit, sic vim consequitur per quam sit, nee esse non
possit. (We have adopted in part the reading of Semler's
edition.) Febrem denique, inter caeteros mortificos et crucia-
rios exitus, erogando homini deputatam, neque quia est
miramur; est enim; neque quia erogat hominem; ad hoc
enim est. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 1, 2.
Tertullian seems also to have been aware that election
implied reprobation ; (Praelatio alterius sine alterius contu-
melia non potest procedere, quia nee Electio sine Reproba-
tione. Apology, c. 13. Again, adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 25.
Nam sicut ad salutem vocat, quem non recusat vel etiam
quem ultro vocat ; ita in perditionem damnat, quem recusat.)
as well as of the futility of the distinction which is at-
tempted to be drawn, when it is said that God does not
positively reprobate, but only does not elect or passes by.
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. 29.
344
has a cause or purpose on account of whicli
it is (the trial of the faith of Christians) ; so
it must also possess a power by which it is,
and cannot but be what it is (cannot but be
subversive of the faith of unstable Christians);
as in the case of fevers and other mortal
diseases, which are ordained as modes of re-
moving men from this world, and must, there-
fore, possess the power of effecting the end
for which they were ordained — that of killing.
Here our author evidently supposes that the
existence of heresy is not merely permitted,
but ordained for a particular end. Still he is
careful to add that, if any individuals are
perverted, the fault is their own. Had their
faith been of a firmer character, which de-
pended upon themselves, they would not have
fallen away. We may further observe that
Tertullian appears to have considered fore-
knowledge as the consequence of predestina-
tion; or that events are foretold because they
are pre-ordained. '"^For in assigning the rea-
son why in the prophetic writings future
€vents are frequently spoken of as if they had
^^ Nam et divinitati competit, quaecunque decreverit, ut
perfecta reputare, quia non sit apud illam differentia tem-
poris, apud quam uniformem statum temporum dirigit aeter-
nitas ipsa : et divinationi propheticse magis familiare est
id quod prospiciat, dum prospicit, jam visum atque ita jam
expunctum, id est, omni modo futurum demonstrare. Adv.
Marcionem, L. iii. c. 5.
345
already happened, he says that there is no dis-
tinction of time in the divine mind. God
regards that which he has decreed to do, as
if it were already done.
We ^"^have seen that TertuUian was in-
dined to ascribe a certain degree of divine
inspiration to the philosophers who had ridi-
culed the absurdities of the national polythe-
ism. With respect, however, to the Gentile
world in '°^ general, his opinion was that it was
under the dominion of the powers of dark-
ness ; and consequently in a state of alienation
from God. The question which is involved in
the eighteenth Article of our Church — whether
a heathen, who framed his life according to the
light of nature, could be saved — appears never
to have presented itself to TertuUian's mind.
Had it been proposed to him, entertaining
the opinions which he did respecting the ne-
^ A-d Nationes, L. i. c. 10. quoted in Chap. III.
note 1.
2"^ See the passages quoted in note 193. particularly the
commencement of the Tract de Pcenitentia, and that from
the second Tract de Cultu Foeminarum, in which TertuUian
says, that the Gentiles, though they might not be devoid of
all feelings of remorse or of all sense of modesty, yet could
not possibly comprehend the true notion of repentance and
chastity. See also ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 2. Quis autem sapiens
expers veritatis, qui ipsius sapientise ac veritatis patrem et
dominum Deum ignoret?
346
cessity of Baptism to salvation, he must have
replied in the negative.
Having ""^already laid before the reader all
the information which the writings of our
author supply respecting the Church, and its
authority, and the authority of general coun-
cils; the subjects of our nineteenth, twentieth,
and twenty-first Articles— we proceed to the
twenty-second, entitled of Purgatory.
The Roman Catholic commentators, as we
might naturally expect, are extremely anxious
to discover their doctrine of Purgatory, in the
writings of Tertullian. -'°In our review of
his Tract de Anima, we stated his opinion to
be, that the souls of ordinary Christians, im-
mediately after death, are transferred to a place
to which he gives the name of Liferl, and there
remain until the general resurrection, when they
will be re-united to their respective bodies— that
209
Chap. iv. pp. 229, 244. Chap. v. pp. 304, 314.
210 Chap. iii. p. 211. Omnes ergo animae penes Inferos, in-
quis. Velis ac nolis, et supplicia jam illic et refngeria : habes
pauperem et divitem Cur enim non putes animam et
puniri et foveri in Inferis interim sub expectatione utrius-
que judicii in quadam usurpatione et Candida ejus.?
Delibari putes judicium, an incipi ? praecipitari, an praminis-
trari.? Jam vero quam iniquissimum etiam apud Inferos,
si et nocentibus adhuc illic bene est, et innocentibus non-
dum. De Animd, cap. ult.
U7
While they remain there, the souls of the
good enjoy a foretaste of the happiness, and
the souls of the wicked of the misery, which
will be their eternal portion — and that, until
the soul is re-united to the body, the work
of retribution cannot be complete. We need
scarcely observe that this opinion, which
makes the final state of man a continuation
only of the intermediate state just described,
is directly opposed to the doctrine of Purga-
tory. It must, however, be admitted that
there are ^^Mn Tertullian's writings passages
^^^ Thus in the very Chapter of the Tract de Animii^ to
which we have just referred, In surama, quum carcerem ilium,
quern Evangelium demonstrat, (See Matt. v. 25. or Luke xii.
58.) Inferos intelligamus, et novissimum quadrantem, modi-
cum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum in-
terpretemur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes
Inferos, salv^ resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quo-
que. Again, in c. 35. Et Judex te tradat Angelo execu-
tionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet infernum, unde non
dimittaris, nisi modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis
expenso. See also de Res. Carnis, c. 42. Ne inferos ex-
periatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos ; and de
Oratione, c 7- See Bingham, L. xv. c. 3. Sect. l6. Perhaps
the correct statement of Tertullian's opinion, after he became
a Montanist, is, that he conceived the souls of the wicked
to remain in a state of suffering apiid Inferos till the general
judgement; the souls of the Saints to be re-united to their
bodies, not at once, but at different times, according to their
different merits, pro meritis maturius vel tardius r-esur gentium,
in the course of the thousand years during which the reign of
the Saints on earth was to last. At the end of those thousand
years the general judgement would take place- The souls
of the wicked being re-united to their bodies, they would
be
348
which seem to imply that, in the interval
between death and the general resurrection,
the souls of those, who are destined to eter-
nal happiness, undergo a purification from the
stains which even the best men contract
during their lives. Though he was, ^^^as we
have seen, fully aware of the mischief which
had arisen from blending the tenets of philo-
sophy with the doctrines of the Gospel, he
was unable to keep himself entirely free from
the prevalent contagion; for there can be no
doubt that the notion of a purification, which
is necessary to the soul before it can be ad-
mitted to the happiness of heaven, is of ^^^ Pla-
tonic origin.
Of Pardons, in the sense in which the word
is used in our twenty-second Article, there is
no mention in Tertullian's writings.
The same remark applies to image-worship
be consigned to eternal misery ; while the bodies of the Saints,
who had already risen, would undergo the transformation
mentioned in our account of the Tract de Res. Carnis. See
this Chapter, p. 285. and note 26l. According to this opinion,
the souls even of the Saints require purification, though in
different degrees, apud Inferos.'
212 Chap. III. p. 175.
21* Our author, however, refers the origin of the notion
to the revelations of the Paraclete. Hoc etiam Paracletus
frequentissime commendavit. De Anima, cap. ult.
349
and to the ^^* invocation of saints. It is, however,
impossible to read our author's animadversions
on the Gentile idolatry, without being convinced
that he would have regarded the slightest
approach to image-worship with the utmost
abhorrence.
On the other hand, we find more ^^^ than one
allusion to the practice of praying and offering
for the dead; and of making '^''oblations in
honour of the martyrs, on the anniversary of
their martyrdom.
We may take this opportunity of observing,
that ^^^Pearson maintains the perpetual virginity
of the mother of our Lord, on the ground that
^^* Ut quern (Deum) ubique audire et videre fideret, ei
soli religionem suam ofFerret. De Oratione, c. 1. This re-
mark would scarcely have been made by one who allowed the
invocation of saints.
^^^ Neque enim pristinam (uxorem) poteris odisse, cui
etiam religiosiorem reservas affectionemj ut jam receptae
apud Deum, pro cujus Spiritu postulas, pro qua ohlationes
annuas reddis ? De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 11. Enim-
vero et pro anima ejus orat, et refrigerium interim ad-
postulat ei, et in prim^ resurrectione consortium, et ofFert
annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. De Monogamia, c. 10.
^^^ Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die
facimus. De Corona, c. 3. In one place Bingham speaks as
if this practice applied to the dead generally ; Book xv. c. 3.
Sect. 15. in another, as if it had been confined to martyrs.
Book xiii. c. 9- Sect. 5.
217 Article iii. p. 173.
350
it has been believed by the Church of God
in all ages. He admits indeed that Tertullian
had been appealed to as an assertor of the op-
posite opinion; and that ^^^ Jerome, instead of
denying the charge, had contented himself with
replying, that Tertullian was a separatist from
the Church : — but he thinks, though he does not
state the grounds of his opinion, that Jerome
might have denied the charge. There is,
however, a passage in the Tract de ^^^Mono-
gamia which, though not entirely free from
ambiguity, appears to be inconsistent with
the notion of the perpetual virginity.
What "°has been already stated respecting
Tertullian's notion of the Church, sufficiently
proves that in agi-eement with our twenty -third
Article, he considered no one at liberty to
preach the Word of God, without a regular
commission. ^^^ The Apostles, he says, were
^^^ Adversus Helvidium, Ep. 53. Et de Tertulliano qui-
dem nihil amplius dico, quam Ecclesiae hominem non fiiisse.
2^^ c 8. Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est, semel] nup-
tura post partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi
censu dispungeretur, per matrem et virginem et univiram.
But Semler instead of post reads ob. See also de Carne
Christi, c. 23. Et virgo, quantum a viro ; non virgo, quan-
tum a partu.
220 Chap. iv. p. 229.
221 Cum Discipulis autem quibusdam apud Galilaeam,
Judaeae regionem, ad quadraginta dies egit, docens eos quae
docerent : dehinc ordinatis iis ad officium praedicandi per or-
bem.
351
appointed by our Lord to the office of preach-
ing the Gospel throughout the world. They
appointed persons to preside in the different
Churches which they founded ; and thus an
uninterrupted succession of bishops had been
kept up to the very time at which he wrote.
^^^We have seen also that, among other
charges which he brought against the Here-
tics, he particularly alleged that they made
no sufficient enquiry into the qualifications of
the persons whom they ordained ; and that
they even enjoined laymen to perform the
sacerdotal functions. "*^ Those passages of his
writings in which he appears to claim for
Christians in general the right of administer-
ing the sacraments, on the ground that the
priestly character is, if I may use the term,
inherent equally in all Christians, refer only
to cases of necessity.
The prevalent, perhaps the universal, opi-
nion of the early Christians was, that Baptism
bem, circumfusa nube in ccElum ereptus est. Apology,
c. 21. See also de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 32. refer-
red to in Chap. iv. note 10.
^^ De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c 41. quoted in Chap,
iv. note 9-
223 See de Baptismo, c. 17- De Exhortatione Castitatis,
c. 7- quoted in Chap. iv. note 6. De Monogamia, c. 12.
quoted in the same chapter, note 8.
352
was absolutely necessary to salvation. This
opinion they grounded upon the words of
Christ to Nicodemus — " Except a man be born
of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God." In those days cases
must frequently have occurred in which per-
sons, suffering under severe illness, and ex-
pecting the near approach of death, were
anxious to receive Baptism; but could not
procure the attendance of a regularly or-
dained minister. What then was to be
done ? The answer of reflecting men at the
present day would probably be, that when
a sincere desire exists to receive Baptism, as
well as the devout frame of mind necessary
to its worthy reception, the unavoidable omis-
sion of the outward act will never constitute,
in the sight of a merciful God, a reason for
excluding a believer from the benefits of the
Christian covenant. But TertuUian and the
Christians of his day reasoned otherwise : — they
were impressed with the belief that the ex-
ternal rite was absolutely necessary to salva-
tion. In cases, therefore, such as I have now
described, they thought it better that the
rite should be performed by a layman, than
that it should not be performed at all; and
they justified this deviation from the esta-
blished discipline of the Church, by the notion
353
that the priestly character is impressed upon
all Christians indifferently at their Baptism.
Still our author's reasoning clearly proves his
opinion to have been, that this latent power,
if it may so be termed, was only to be called
into actual exercise in cases of necessity.
Laymen, who in the present day take upon
themselves to administer the rite of Baptism,
in cases in which the attendance of a regu-
larly ordained minister can be procured, must
not appeal to the authority of Tertullian in
defence of their rash assumption of the sacred
office.
Were it not for a "^''passage in the Tract
de Baptismo, in which the inherent right of
the laity to baptise is expressly asserted, we
should have been inclined to regard Tertul-
lian's reasoning as an argument ad Jiorninem of
the following kind. " It is a favourite notion
with you (laymen), that all Christians are priests,
and may consequently exercise the sacerdotal
functions. Be consistent with yourselves. If
you assume the power of the clergy, conform
yourselves to the rule of life prescribed to
them. Do not say, the clergy may not con-
tract a second marriage, but the laity may.
The distinction between the clergy and laity
^•^ c. 17.
Z
354
is a distinction of office, and does not affect
the relation in which they stand to the great
rules of morality. These they are both alike
bound to observe; and what is criminal in
the clergy, is also criminal in the laity."
Viewed in this light, Tertullian's reasoning is
correct, though it proceeds upon the errone-
ous assumption that a second marriage is for-
bidden to the clergy.
With regard to the twenty-fourth Arti-
cle, although our author does not expressly
tell us in what language the service of the
Church was performed, the necessary inference
from his writings is, that it was performed
in a language with which the whole congre-
gation was familiar. In order to remove the
distrust with which the Roman governors re-
garded the Christian assemblies, he states, *^^in
^^ Corpus sumus de conscientia religionis, et disciplinae
unitate, et spei foedere. Coimus ad Deum, ut quasi mami facta
precationibus ambiamus. Haec vis Deo grata est. Oramus
etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum ac potes-
tatibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora
finis. Coimus ad Literarum Divinarum commemorationem,
si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut prsemonere cogit
aut recognoscere. Certe fidem Sanctis vocibus pascimus,
spem erigimus, fiduciam figimus, disciplinam praeceptorum
nihilominus inculcationibus densamus, c. 39- quoted in
Chap. iv. p. 222. The expression quasi manu facta preca-
tionibtis ambiamus, implies that all present joined in prayer.
The passage in the second Tract ad Uxorem^ c. 6. relates
rather
355
the Apology, the object of those meetings.
" We form," he says, " a body ; being
joined together by a community of religion,
discipHne, and hope. We come together
for the purpose of offering our prayers to
God; and as it were extorting, by our num-
bers and united supplications, a compliance
with our desires. Such violence is pleasing to
God. We pray also for the emperors, for
their officers, for all who are in authority :
we pray that the course of this world may
be peaceably ordered, and the consummation
of all things be deferred. We come together
for the purpose of reading the Holy Scrip-
tures ; when the circumstances of the times
appear to call for any particular admonitions,
or for the careful discussion of any particular
topics. Of this at least we are sure, that our
faith will be nourished, our hope elevated,
our confidence confirmed, by listening to the
words of Scripture ; and that the Christian
rule of life will be impressed upon us with
increased effect, through the inculcation of
holy precepts." It is evident that none of
the objects which Tertullian here enumerates
could have been attained, if the prayers had
rather to Family-Devotion. Quae Dei raentio? quae Christi
invocatio ? ubi fomenta fidei de Seripturarum interjectione ?
ubi Spiritus ? ubi refrigerium ? ubi divina benedictio?
z2
356
been offered, or the Scriptures read, in a
tongue to which the majority of the persons
assembled were strangers.
We now proceed to the twenty-fifth
Article — De Sacramentis. ^^"^The contro-
versy between the Romish and English
Churches, respecting the number of Sacra-
ments, seems in a great measure to have arisen
from the laxity with which the Latin Fathers
used the word Sacramentum. In classical
writers sacramentum means an oath or pro-
mise, ratified by a sacred or religious cere-
mony; thus the oath taken by the military
was called sacramentum; and in this sei^se the
word is ^^^ frequently used by TertuUian. In
strict conformity with this its original signifi-
cation, it is used to express ^^Hhe promise
made by Christians in baptism. From the
22^ Now that the word Sacrament has been strictly de-
fined, the case is very different ; and the question between
the two Churches respecting the number of sacraments be-
comes of great importance.
227 Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis
suis, nisi destitutis signis et Sacramentis Principis sui. De
Spectaculis, c. 24. De Idololatria, c. 19- De Corona, c. 11.
Scorpiace, c. 4. De Jejuniis, c. 10. Ad Martyres, c 3.
^^ De ipso Sacramento nostro interpretaremur nobis, ad-
versas esse fidei ejusmodi artes. Quomodo enim renuntiamus
Diabolo et Angelis ejus, si eos facimus. De Idololatri^,
c. 6. Semel jam in Sacramenti testatione ejeratae. De
Coron^, c. 13.
357
oath the transition was easy to the ceremony
by which it was ratified. Thus "'^ sacramen-
tum came to signify any religious ordinance ;
and in general to stand for that which in
the Greek is expressed by the word /xvaTt'jpiov —
any emblematical action of a sacred import;
any external rite having an internal or secret
meaning. By a similar transition the ^^"word
was also used to express that which the con-
vert promised to observe, the whole Christian
doctrine and rule of life.
With respect to Baptism and the Eucharist,
Tertullian calls the former Sacramentum
-'^ Aquffi, ^'^Lavacri, ^'^'Fidei; the latter, '''' Sa-
cramentum Eucharisti^e. In the Tract de Bap-
tismo we find the expression — sacramentum
'■^^^ Apology, cc. 7, 47. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 16. sub fine,
De Praescriptione Haereticorura, c. 26, Dominus palam edixit,
sineullasignificationealicujus tecti Sacramenti. c. 40. et passim.
^^'^ Hoc prius capite, et omnem hie Sacramenti nostri
ordinem haurite. Apology, c. 14. sub fine, compared with
c 16. sub fine. Quae omnia, conversi jam ad demonstrati-
onem religionis nostrce, repurgavimus. So in c. 19- in quo
videtur thesaurus collocatus totius Judaici Sacramenti, et
inde etiam nostri. See also de Praescriptione Haereticorum,
c. 20. sub fine. Addita est ampliatio Sacramento. De Bap-
tismo, c. 13. et passim.
^' De Baptismo, cc. 1, 12.
^^ De Virginibus velandis, c. 2.
'^^ De Anima, c. 1.
^^^ De Corona, c. 3.
358
sanctificationis^'"^ ; which, though not applied to
the external rite of Baptism, conveys the idea
contained in the definition of a sacrament
given in our Catechism — "an outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."
Notwithstanding the laxity with which Ter-
tullian uses the word, I do not find it ap-
plied to any of the five Romish sacraments,
-^^ excepting Marriage ; and then with a par-
ticular reference to Ephesians v. 32. ; where he
renders the words lueya /mvcxT^ptov, magnum sacra-
mentum. In '^Hhe Tract against Praxeas I
find the expression unctionis sacramentum; but
Tertullian is there speaking of the anointing
of our Saviour by the Holy Ghost.
Soon after the time of Tertullian, a con-
troversy arose respecting the validity of He-
retical Baptism. Cyprian contended that it
was invalid ; and that all persons so baptised,
if they wished afterwards to become members
of the Church, must be re-baptised. Stephen,
the Bishop of Kome, thought otherwise; and
'^^ c. 4. Igitur omiies aquae de pristina praei'ogativa
Sacramentum sanctificationis consequuntur, invocato Deo.
All water acquires from ancient prerogative (because the
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Genesis
i. 2.) the sacramental power of sanctification (vim sanctifi-
candi, as Tertullian afterwards expresses himself), through
prayer to God.
^^ De Jejuniis, c. 3. ^^"^ c. 28. sub initio.
359
tlie Church, though long divided on the sub-
ject, appears finally to have adopted his opi-
nion. -^^All Baptism by water performed in
the name of the Holy Trinity, by whomso-
ever administered, was deemed to be valid and
not to be repeated. Had the dispute existed
in our author's time, it is evident, from '^Hhe
general tenor of his writings, that he would
have sided with Cyprian. "^°0n one occasion
he denies that Heretics are entitled to the
name of Christians; they could not conse-
quently possess that priestly character which
he supposed all Christians to receive at their
Baptism. It is indeed probable that in this
instance, as in others, Cyprian formed his opi-
nion from the perusal of his master's works.
The case which was discussed in Cyprian's
day differed in one material point from that
contemplated by our twenty-sixth Article. The
disqualification in the minister, which was
supposed to affect the validity of the sacra-
ments when administered by him, existed ah
initio ; he was not a member of the true
2^ Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, L. v. Sect. 62.
^^^ See particularly de Baptismo, c. 15. We should,
however, bear in mind, that the Heretics, whom Tertullian
had in view, were the Marcionites, Valentinians, &c. who
denied that the God of the Old Testament was the Su*
preme God.
^^? Si enim Haeretici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt.
De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 37. See also c. l6.
360
Church. The case, which our Article has in
view, is that of a minister regularly ordained,
who after ordination falls into gross immora-
lities ; and the question arising out of it is,
whether his profligacy vitiates the sacraments.
This question does not appear to have pre-
sented itself to our author; nor could it fre-
quently happen in those days, when the dis-
cipline of the Church was stiU maintained in
its original purity and vigour. An openly
vicious minister would then have been im-
mediately degraded, and cut off from the
communion of the Church. Standing, there-
fore, on the footing of a heathen, he would
have been deemed incapable of administering
any of the rites of the Church.
We shall defer the consideration of the
Articles relating to Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, until we come to speak of the rites and
ceremonies of the Church. Indeed we observe
nothing in Tertullian's works, which bears upon
the twenty-ninth or the thirty -first Article. We
proceed therefore, to the thirty-second Article,
De Conjugio Sacerdotum. That the clergy in
Tertullian's time were not obliged to lead a
life of celibacy, must be admitted by every
person who has perused his writings. "*' Yet
^■*' Quanti igitur et quantti^ i't Ecrlcsiaalicis Ordinibus
de
361
the austerity of his character would certainly
have impelled him to impose upon them this
restriction, could he have discovered any plau-
sible pretence for doing it. "^^He remarks
with evident satisfaction that of all the Apo-
stles, as far as his researches extended, St. Peter
alone was married: — and having admitted
in ^^^ the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis that
the Apostles were allowed to carry about their
wives with them, he afterwards '^^in the
Tract de Monogamia gives a different inter-
pretation of the passage; and asserts that the
females there spoken of were not wives, but
women who ministered to the Apostles, as
Martha and others had done to Christ. ^^^ The
arguments, however, by which he endeavours
to prove that laymen ought not to contract
a second marriage, show that the clergy were
de continently censentur, qui Deo nubere malueruntj qui
carnis suae honorem restituerunt, quique se jam illius aevi
filios dicaverunt, occidentes in se concupiscentiam libidinis,
et totum illud quod intra Paradisum non potuit admitti.
De Exhortatione Castitatis, cap. ult. sub fine. This passage
proves that, although many Ecclesiastics led a life of celi-
bacy, it was not required of all.
242 De Monogamia, c 8. ^43 ^ g_
2'** c. 8. 1 Cor. ix. 5. This change of opinion seems to
confirm the statement made in Chap. I. p. 6l. that Tertullian,
when he wrote the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, had not
embraced the tenets of Montanus in all their rigour.
24^ See de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7- De Monogamia,
c. 12. quoted in Chap. IV. notes 6 and 8.
362
at liberty to marry once: and his interpreta-
tion of -^Hhe texts in the Epistles to Timo-
thy and Titus leads to the same conclusion.
We know also that he was himself married;
but "^" the Romish commentators attempt to get
rid of this perplexing fact by saying that,
when he became a priest, he ceased to cohabit
with his wife.
In ^^^ our observations upon the govern-
ment of the Church, we referred to a ^^^ pas-
sage in the Apology, in which TertuUian says,
that in the assemblies of the Christians cen-
sures were pronounced, and offenders cut off
from the communion of the Church. It may,
however, be inferred from his words, that
Excommunication, the subject of our thirty-
third Article, did not then imply an inter-
ruption of all civil intercourse with the
offending party, but only an exclusion from
all participation in religious exercises — " a
2*6 1 Tim. iii. 2. Titus i. 6.
2*7 The reader will find in the Life of Tertullian, by
Pamelius, under the year 201, the reasons alleged by that com-
mentator in support of the opinion mentioned in the text;
and in Allix's Dissertation, c. 2. reasons for doubting its
correctness. If TertuUian and his wife had separated by
mutual consent, it seems scarcely necessary for him to have
cautioned her against contracting a second marriage after
his death.
2*8 Chap. IV. p. 251. 249 c. 39.
363
communicatione orationis, et conventus, et
omnis sancti commercii."
The thirty -fourth Article of our Church is
entitled de Traditionibus Ecclesiasticis : but
in our remarks upon the sixth Article we
have already laid before our readers all the
information which the writings of TertulUan
supply with respect both to traditional doc-
trines and practices.
Passing over the *^° thirty-fifth and thirty-
sixth Articles, we proceed to the thirty-seventh,
De Civilibus Magistratibus. '^^ It is evident,
from variovis passages of Tertullian's works,
that he deemed the exercise of the functions
of the magistracy incompatible with the pro-
fession of Christianity; not merely on account
of the danger to which, under a Pagan go-
vernment, a magistrate was continually ex-
posed, of being betrayed into some idolatrous
act ; but also because '^' the dress and other
250 De Homiliisj and de Episcoporum et Ministrorum
Conseeratione.
-^* At enim nobis ab omni glorige et dignitatis ardore fri-
gentibus nulla est necessitas coetus, nee ulla magis res
aliena, quam publica. Apology, c. 38. See also cc. 31. and
46. Si de modestia certem, ecce Pythagoras apud Thurios,
Zeno apud Prienenses tyrannidem affectant : Christianas vero
nee aedilitatem.
-^2 De Spectaculis, c. 12. But see particularly de Ido-
lolatria, cc. 17, 18. where the question is regularly discussed.
364
insignia savoured of those pomps and vanities,
those works of the devil, which Christians
renounce at their baptism. He -^^does not
expressly say that capital punishments are pro-
hibited by the Gospel ; but he certainly
thought that Christians *^* ought not to sit as
judges in criminal causes, or -^^ attend the
amphitheatre, or be present at an execution.
In ^^^the Treatise de Corona he enters into
a regular discussion of the question, whether
it is allowable for a Christian to engage in
the military profession. This question he de-
termines in the negative, for ^^' reasons suffi-
ciently weak and frivolous. It might, he was
aware, be objected, that neither did John the
Baptist command the soldiers who came to
2^ Nee isti porro exitus violenti, quos justitia decernit,
violentice vindex. De Anima, c 56.
^^^ Jam vero quae sunt potestatis, neque judicet (Christia-
nus) de capita alicujus vel pudore (feras enim de pecunia,)
neque damnet, neque prgedamnet, neminem vinciat, neminem
recludat, aut torqueat. De Idololatria, c. 17- Tertullian calls
the judicial proceedings of the magistrates Jiistitiam seaili, an
expression which implies an indirect condemnation. De
Anim^, c 33. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 15. Seculum Dei
est, secularia autem diaboli; and de Idololatria, c. 18. Nam
Daemonia magistratus sunt seculi.
255 De Spectaculis, c. 19.
256 c. 11. Compare de Idololatria, c. IQ.
257 For instance, that a Christian, who has pledged his
allegiance to Christ in baptism, cannot afterwards take the
military oath to a mortal monarch.
365
his baptism, nor Christ the centurion, to re-
nounce the military life ; but he gets rid of
this objection by drawing a distinction be-
tween the case of one who is actually a
soldier when he embraces Christianity, and
that of a Christian who becomes a soldier.
In the ""^ Apology, however, where our author's
object is to prove that Christians are not un-
profitable to the state, he says, that they were
to be found in the Roman armies : and this
fact is necessarily assumed in the celebrated
story of the Thundering Legion.
We find nothing in Tertullian's works
from which it can be inferred, that he main-
tained the doctrine — against which the thirty-
eighth Article is directed — of a community of
goods among Christians, as touching the righty
title, and possessio7i of the same : ^^^ though he
describes them as contributing without reserve
from their own substance towards the relief of
their brethren, and living as if there was no
distinction of property among them.
With respect to oaths — the subject of the
^^ Navigamus et nos vobiscum, et vobiscum militamus^
c. 42.
^^ Itaque qui animo animaque miscemur, nihil de rei com-
municatione dubitamus; omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos,
praetei- uxores. Apology, c Sg.
366
thirty-ninth Article — ^"^"he appears to have
understood our Saviour's injunction, "Swear
not at all," literally; and to have thought
that an oath was not under any circum-
stances allowable.
Among King Edward's Articles is one
against the Millenarians. In ^^^ my account of
^^^ Taceo de perjurio, quando ne jurare quidem liceat. De
Idololatrid, c. 11. Ne juret quidem^ c. 17- See also c. 23.
^^^ Chap. I. p. 20. We will give the passage at full
length. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. De restitutione vero
Judaeae, quam et ipsi Judaei ita ut describitur sperant,
locorura et regionum nominibus inducti, quomodo allegorica
interpretatio (Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 62.) in Christum
et in Ecclesiam et habitum et fructum ejus spiritaliter com-
petat, et longum est persequi^ et in alio opere digestum,
quod inscribimus De Spe Fidelium ; et in praesenti vel
eo otiosum, quia non de terrena, sed de coelesti promissione
sit quaestio. (Compare L. iii. c. l6.) Nam et confitemur in
terra nobis regnum repromissum, sed ante coelum, sed alio
statu, utpote post resurrectionem, in mille annos, in civi-
tate divini operis, Hierusalera, coelo delata, quam et Apo-
stolus matrem nostram sursum designate et TroAjreujua
nostrum, id est, municipatum, in ccelis esse pronuntians,
alicui utique coelesti civitati eum deputat. Hanc et Ezechiel
novit, et Apostolus loannes vidit, et qui apud fidem nostram
est Novae Prophetiae Sermo testatur, ut etiam effigiem civi-
tatis ante repraesentationem ejus conspectui futuram in signura
prsedicaret. Denique proxime expunctum est Orientali Ex-
peditione. Constat enim, Ethnicis quoque testibus, in Judaea
per dies quadraginta matutinis momentis civitatem de coelo
pependisse, omni mceniorum habitu, evanescentem de profectu
diei et alias de proximo nullam. Hanc dicimus excipien-
dis resurrectione Sanctis et refovendis omnium bonorum
utique spiritalium copi4, in compensationem eorum qute in
seculo vel despeximus vel amisimus, a Deo prospectam.
Siquidem
367
TertuUian I stated that he had adopted the
notion of a Millennium; and referred to a
story, in the third Book against Marcion, of
a city, which had been seen in Judea sus-
pended in the air for forty successive days,
during the early part of the morning. This
city, according to him, was the image of the
New Jerusalem, destined for the reception of
the Saints during their reign of a thousand
years on earth; in the course of which, their
resurrection will be gradually effected accord-
ing to their different degrees of merit; and
which is to be followed by the conflagration
of the world and the general judgement.
TertuUian states, however, that the enjoy-
ments and delights of this New Jerusalem
will be purely, or as Mosheim understands
the passage, chiefly spiritual. In ^^Hhe Tract
de Pudicitia he connects the hope of Christ-
ians with the restoration of the Jews, We
Siquidem et justum et Deo dignum illic quoque exsultare
famulos ejus, ubi sunt et afflicti in nomine ipsius. Haec
ratio regni terreni : post cujus mille annos, intra quam aeta-
tem concluditur Sanctorum resurrectio pro meritis maturius
vel tardius resurgentium, tunc et mundi destructione et
judieii conflagratione commissa, demutati in atomo in ange-
licam substantiam, scilicet per illud incorruptelae superindu-
mentum, transferemur in cceleste regnum. See Mosheim, De
Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Seculum tertium, c. 38.
^^ Christianum enim restitutione Judaei gaudere et non do-
lere conveniet ; siquidem tota spes nostra cum reliqua Israelis
expectatione conjuncta est, c 8.
368
may take this opportunity of observing that
^^'^ he notices and ridicules the Platonic or
Pythagorean notion, that, after an interval of
a thousand years has elapsed, the dead are
recalled to life, and again run their course on
earth.
Another of King Edward's Articles was
directed against those who maintained that all
men, even the most impious, after suffering
punishment for a certain time, would be finally
saved. Tertullian appears to have coincided in
opinion with the framers of this Article. He
^^* asserts distinctly that all men will not be
saved; and ^^^ maintains, that the punishments
of the wicked will endure for ever.
In ^^^ the early ages of the Church a notion
was very generally prevalent among its mem-
bers that the end of the world was at hand;
*<^ De Anima, c. 30. sub fine.
^^* Non enim omnes salvi fiunt. Adv. Marcionem, L. i.
c. 24.
^^ De Anima, c. 33. sub fine. Apology, cc. 48, 49.
^''^ Ad Uxorem, L. i. c 5. sub fine. De Exhortatione Cas-
titatis, e. 6. from 1 Cor. vii. 29. De Monogami^, c. I6. De
Fuga in Persecutione, c. 12. Antichristo jam instante. In
the two passages last-cited Tertullian speaks of the near
approach of the dreadful persecutions which were to follow
the appearance of Antichrist. De Pudicitia, c. 1. sub initio-
De Jejuniis, c. 12. sub initio.
369
and sceptical writers have insinuated that the
Apostles themselves were not entirely exempt
from this erroneous persuasion. That the
notion took its rise from expressions in the
Apostolic Writings may be admitted; but
that it existed in the minds of the writers
themselves is far from certain ; since the pas-
sages may very reasonably be supposed to
refer to the capture of Jerusalem by the
Romans, and the total subversion of the
Jewish polity. The general belief, as stated
by TertuUian, was that the end of the world
would immediately follow the downfal of
the Roman empire; which was conceived to
be the obstacle, mentioned by -'^'^ St. Paul, to
the revelation of the man of sin. Our author
268 yj.ggg ^i^js belief as a reason why the Christ-
ians, far from entertaining hostile designs
against the empire, prayed earnestly for its
2^7 2 Thess. ii. 6. Quis ? nisi Romanus status, cujus ab-
scessio in decern reges dispersa Antichristum superducet.
De Res. Carnis, c. 24.
^^ Est et alia major necessitas nobis orandi pro Imperato-
ribus, etiam pro omni statu imperii rebusque Romanis, qui
vim maximam universo orbi imminentem, ipsamque clausulam
seculi acerbitates horrendas comminantem, Roraani imperii
commeatu sciraus retardari ; itaque nolumus experiri, et dum
precamur differri, Romanse diuturnitati favemus. Apology,
c 32. See also c. 39- pro mora finis. Ad Scapulam, c. 2.
Cimi toto Romano imperio, quousque seculum stabit ; tamdiu
enim stabit.
Aa
370
continuance and prosperity. He is not, how-
ever, always consistent with himself; for we
have seen that in '^Hhe Tract de Oratione he
condemns those who pray for the longer
continuance of the present world ; on the
ground that, such a petition is at variance
with the clause in the Lord's Prayer, Thy
kingdom come.
Having now gone through the Articles of
our Church, and laid before the reader such
passages of TertuUian's works as appeared to
throw any light upon the doctrines contained
in them, we will briefly compare the result
of our enquiries with the account given by
Mosheim, of the doctrines of the Church in
the second century. "'" His first remark is,
that in this century the simplicity of the
Gospel began to be corrupted, and its beauty
to be impaired, by the misguided diligence of
men, who endeavoured to explain and define
the Christian system by a reference to the
tenets of Pagan philosophy. We '^^ have seen
that Tertullian was not insensible to the mis-
chief which had arisen from this cause;
^^^ c. 5, Compare de Res, Cai-nis, c. 22. sub initio,
referred to in Chap. I. note 33.
270 Century II. Chap. III. Sect. 2, 3.
271 Chap. III. p. 175.
371
although, with respect to the particular in-
stance alleged by Mosheim in illustration of
the above remark, he appears himself to have
been in some degree liable to censure. " Plato,"
says Mosheim, "had taught that the souls of
heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philo-
sophers alone ascended after death into the
mansions of light and felicity ; while those of
the generality, weighed down by their lusts
and passions, sunk into the infernal regions,
whence they were not permitted to emerge
before they were purified from their turpitude
and corruption. This doctrine was seized with
avidity by the Platonic Christians, and ap-
plied as a commentary upon that of Jesus.
Hence a notion prevailed that the martyrs
only entered upon a state of happiness imme-
diately after death ; and that for the rest a
certain obscure region was assigned, in which
they were to be imprisoned until the second
coming of Christ, or at least until they were
purified from their various pollutions." Our
author cannot with propriety be denominated
a Platonic Clu'istian ; yet he certainly enter-
tained the opinion on which Mosheim here
animadverts. In this instance, as in many
others, there appears to have been a process
of the following kind. The tenets of the phi-
losophers were first employed in illustration
A a2
372
or amplification of the doctrines of the Gospel ;
and passages of Scripture were afterwards per-
verted, in order to defend the notions which
resulted from this mixture of heathenism and
Christianity. The Platonic fancy described by
Mosheim gave rise to the notion, that mar-
tyrs alone were admitted to an immediate
participation in the happiness of heaven; and
this notion was confirmed by an appeal to
^^^the Book of Revelations, in which St. John
is represented as having seen the souls of
none but martyrs under the altar.
Mosheim's ^^^ second remark relates to the
veneration with which the Scriptures were re-
garded by the early Christians. Tertullian's
numerous quotations from them afford suffi-
cient evidence that his mind was deeply im-
pressed with this feeling of reverence. We
shall perhaps recur hereafter to his quota-
tions and expositions of Scripture. For the
present, therefore, we shall content ourselves
with observing that, although of a very dif-
ferent school of divines from that to which
Clemens Alexandrinus belonged, he is by no
means exempt from the fault which Mosheim
imputes to the latter author — of dealing in
^^ c. 6. V. 9- See de Anim^, c. 55.
^^ Ubi supra. Sect. 4, 5.
373
forced and extravagant and mystical interpre-
tations.
IMosheim *'* remarks thirdly, that no at-
tempts had yet been made to exhibit the
Christian doctrines in a systematic form: or at
least, no such attempts have come to our
knowledge. The latter part of the remark is
undoubtedly true; for the Apologies which
were published from time to time were, as we
have seen, designed rather to repel the calum-
nious accusations brought against the Christians,
than to give a connected view either of the
evidences or doctrines of the Gospel. But we
know that the Catechumens passed through
a course of instruction before their admission
to the baptismal font; and this fact seems
almost necessarily to imply that the instruction
was communicated upon some regular and sys-
tematic plan. When we come to the consi-
deration of Tertullian's controversial writings,
we shall find that his reasonings, on the par-
ticular points of doctrine which he undertook
to maintain against the Heretics, are neither
deficient in perspicuity nor in force. Mosheim
indeed has spoken, in the most contemptuous
terms, of the reasoning powers and controver-
sial qualifications of the early Fathers. Two
'^* Sect. 6, 7, S.
374
of his observations may be thought more par-
ticularly applicable to Tertullian. "One," he
says, "laying aside the Sacred Writings, from
which all the weapons of religious controversy
ought to be drawn, refers to the decisions of
those bishops who ruled the Apostolic Churches.
Another thinks that the antiquity of a doc-
trine is a mark of its truth, and pleads pre-
scription against liis adversary, as if he was
maintaining his property before a civil magi-
strate ; than which method of disputing nothing
can be more pernicious to the cause of truth."
To the reader who remembers our remarks
upon the subject of Tradition it can scarcely
be necessary to observe, that this statement of
Mosheim is a most unfair and erroneous repre-
sentation of the line of argument pursued by
Tertullian, in his Tract de Prsescriptione Haere-
ticorum. So far is he from laying aside the
Sacred Writings, that "^^ his main charge
against the Heretics is, that they had substi-
tuted the tenets of the Heathen Philosophers
in the place of the doctrines of the Gospel ;
and, in order to effect their purpose, had cor-
rupted the Sacred Volume, or perverted its
meaning by forced and imnatural interpreta-
tions. '''^ Tertullian uniformly insists that Christ
27'^ De Praescriptione HEereticorum, cc. 6, 7.
27« Ibid. cc. 9, 13, 14.
375
had delivered one, and only one rule of faith —
the rule which was to be found in the Scrip-
tures. But here commenced the difference
between himself and his opponents: they re-
jected several Books of Scripture, which he
deemed genuine, and put different interpre-
tations upon those portions of Scripture which
they, as well as he, received. "^"On both these
points Tertullian appealed to the authority of
the Church ; contending that in it as well the
genuine Scriptures as their genuine interpreta-
tion had been preserved: and further contend-
ing, that '^Mt was useless to seek the true
interpretation among the Heretics, since they
differed from each other as widely as they did
from the Church. When, therefore, Tertullian
refers to those bishops who ruled the Apostolic
Churches, he does it, not for the purpose of
laying aside the Sacred Writings, but of
establishing their authority ; and it is with the
same view that he urges the plea of prescrip-
277 Ibid. C. 36.
27** c. 10. Another argument urged by Tertullian is
founded on the nature of faith ; which must, he says, have
some ascertained truths for its object: those truths we
must seek, and having found, must acquiesce in them.
There must be a point, at which enquiry ceases, and faith
begins. But with the Heretics it is one interminable
search : they never attain to the truth ; and consequently,
having no fixed object of faith, have in reality no faith,
cc. 10. 14.
376
tion. He contends that the doctrines which
had always been maintained, and the Scrip-
tures which had always been received, in those
Churches which were founded by the Apostles,
were more likely to be true and genuine, than
the doctrines and Scriptures of the Heretics,
whose origin was known to be of very recent
date. Wherein, let me ask, consists the fallacy
of this mode of reasoning? or how can it pos-
sibly be injurious to the cause of truth? If
I can, through independent channels, trace
back a doctrine to the age of the Apostles,
and at the same time shew that it is con-
tained in those Scriptures which have always
been recognised as authentic by the Apostolic
Churches, I have surely done much, not only
towards proving its truth, but also towards
confirming the genuineness of the Scriptures
themselves.
Mosheim '^^ places the rise of the Ascetics
in the second century ; and says that they were
produced by the double doctrine of certain
Christian moralists, who laid down two dif-
ferent rules of life, the ordinary and the
extraordinary : — the one adapted to the gene-
ral mass of Christians, the other to those
only of a more sublime and exalted character.
27" Ubi supra. Sect. 11, 12, 13, 14.
377
To the former class of doctrines they gave
the name of Precepts ; which were obligatory
upon all orders of men : — to the latter that of
Counsels ; which were voluntarily obeyed by
such Christians as aimed at higher degrees of
virtue. Mosheim traces the origin of this
double doctrine to the Platonic and Pytha-
gorean schools of philosophy ; which taught
that the continual aim of him, who aspired
to the envied title of the sage or tnily wise,
must be to abstract his mind from the senses,
and to raise it above the contagious influence
of the body, which he was in consequence to
extenuate by severe discipline and a spare diet.
With the same view he was to withdi-aw
himself from the world, and to affect a life of
solitude and contemplation. In ^^*^our account
of the tenets of Montanus we observed, that
Clemens Alexandrinus was the earliest Christ-
ian writer in whose works this distinction
between the ordinary and the extraordinary
rules of life is expressly laid down. Tertullian
drew a distinction of a different kind, between
spiritual and animal Christians — between those
who received, and those who rejected, the pro-
phecies of Montanus. Yet in the ^^^ second
280 Chap. I. p. 34.
281 Quanto autem nubere in Domino perpetrabile est uti
nostrsB potestatis^ tanto culpabilius est non observare quod
possis. Eo acceditj quod Apostolus, de Viduis quidem et
Innuptis,
378
Tract ad Uxorem we find him also distinguish-
ing between precepts and counsels ; or to use
his own language, between jussa and suasa,
and grounding the distinction upon St. Paul's
expressions in 1 Cor. vii. Although, however,
it is certain that the discipline of Montanus
was of an ascetic character, and that great
stress was laid in it upon fasts and other mor-
tifications, we discover nothing in the writings
of TertuUian from which we should infer that
either the monastic or the eremitical mode of
life was practised in his day. There is in the
Apology a '^- passage which would rather lead
to the opposite conclusion.
The ^^^rise of pious frauds is also placed
by Mosheim in the second century, and
in like manner ascribed to the pernicious
Innuptis, ut ita permaneant siiadet, quum dicit, Ciipio aatem
omnes meo exemplo pcrscvcrare ; de nubendo vero in Domino
quum dicit, tanhiin in Domino, jam non suadcf, sed exerte
jiibet. Igitur in ista maxime specie, nisi obsequimur, peri-
clitamur. Quia suasum impune quis negligat^ quam jussum :
quod illud de consilio veniat et voluntati proponatur, hoc
autem de potestate descendat et necessitati obligetur : illic
libertas, hie contumacia delinquere videatur, c 1.
'^^ Sed alio quoque injuriarum titulo postulamur, et infi'uc-
tuosi in negotiis dicimuv. Quo pacto? homines vobiscum
degentes, ejusdem victus, habitus^, instructus, ejusdem ad
vitam necessitatis ? neque enim Brachmanae^ aut Indorum
Gymnosophistac sumus, silvicola^^ et exules vita?, c 42.
283 u|ji giipra. Sect. 15.
379
influence of the Platonic philosophy. *-^^Ter-
tuUian has recorded a fraud of this kind, prac-
tised by a presbyter, who endeavoured to
palm upon the Christian world a spurious
work under the name of St. Paul. As he
pronounces no severe condemnation upon the
offender, it may be thought that he did not
look upon the offence as of a very heinous
character. Yet his writings appear to us to
furnish no ground for affirming, that he is
himself justly liable to the charge of practising
similar deceptions. We can perceive in him
extreme reluctance to admit any fact which
militates against the cause which he is de-
fending; and equal readiness to adopt without
due examination whatever tends to promote
his immediate purpose. But the same dispo-
sitions are discernible in the controversialists
of all ages; and to make them the pretence
for refusing credit to the Fathers in particular,
is to display a great deficiency either in in-
formation or in candour.
In '-^^his chapter on the Doctrine of the
Church, Mosheim gives a short account of
what he calls its penitential discipline. Having
already discussed this subject in our account
^^ See note I29. of this Chapter.
28-^ Ubi supra, Sect. 17-
380
of the government of the Church, under which
head it appeared more properly to fall, we
shall now only remark, that we have found
in Tertullian's writings no confirmation of
Mosheim's assertion, that the Christian disci-
pline began, even at that early period, to be
modelled upon the forms observed in the
heathen mysteries.
In ^^^his strictures upon the qualifications
of the Fathers of the second century as moral
writers, Mosheim alludes to the controversy
between INI. Barbeyrac and the Pere Cellier
on that subject. On no one of the Fathers
has M. Barbeyrac animadverted with greater
severity than on our author; and an exami-
nation of his charges will enable us to form
a tolerably accurate estimate of the degree of
deference which ought to be paid to the de-
cisions of the Fathers in general, upon ques-
tions of morals.
But before we enter upon this examination,
we must in justice to the early Fathers remark,
that nothing can be more unfair or more un-
reasonable than to require in them that per-
spicuity of arrangement, or that precision of
language, which we find in the moral wi-iters
28« Sect. 10. note
381
of modern times. They never studied mora-
lity as a system, nor did they profess to teach
it systematically. '**^ We ought also, before we
censure them too harshly for their errors, duly
to weigh the circumstances under which they
wrote. -^M¥hat we observed with respect to
the extravagant terms, in which they speak
of the merit of martyrdom, is no less appli-
cable to the present subject. They lived at
a time when the path of the professor of
Christianity was beset with dangers : when he
might at any moment be called to suffer pri-
vation, pain, or even death, on account of his
faith. It was of the utmost importance to
the cause of the Gospel, that he should betray
no unmanly fear in the hour of trial — no weak
desire to consult his safety by the sacrifice
of his principles. Nor was it less important
that his moral character should be free from
stain — tliat he should prove himself no less
^^^ The just and candid mode of estimating the works of
the Fathers, when not directly controversial, is to consider
them, not as argumentative treatises^ but as popular dis-
courses ; in which the author is less solicitous to reason
accurately, than to say what is striking and calculated to
produce an effect upon his readers. Were we to subject
many popular treatises on religion published at the present
day, to the same severe scrutiny to which M. Barbeyrac has
subjected the works of Tertullian, the illustrations, I fear,
would sometimes be found as impertinent, the premises as
unsound, and the conclusions as illogical.
-«« Chap. II. p. 154.
superior to the seductions of pleasure, than
to the terrors of persecution. Yet instances
of human frailty would frequently occur ; and
the Fathers would be compelled to bewail
the apostacy or the immorality of their bre-
thren. Hence in their anxiety to avert the
evil consequences to the Church, which must
result from the weakness and vices of its
members, they would, especially if, like Ter-
tullian, they were m.en of austere tempers,
be liable to run into extremes — '^^to imagine
that the most effectual mode of preventing
the convert from indulging in criminal gra-
tifications was to persuade him that he must
debar himself even of those which are inno-
cent; and that the most effectual mode of
preparing him for the trials, to which his
profession might expose him, was to accus-
tom him to a life of voluntary hardship and
mortification. Let it not be supposed that we
mean, by these remarks, to justify the extra-
vagancies of which the Fathers were guilty ;
we offer them only in extenuation.
We proceed to M. Barbeyrac — who grounds
^^°his first charge on the unqualified manner
in which our author condemns every art and
-^^ See the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 1.
^^ Traite de la Morale des Peres, c. 6. Sect. 5.
383
profession connected even in the most remote
degree with the heathen idolatry. It cannot
be denied that in some instances Tertullian's
zeal carries him beyond all reasonable bounds;
as "^^ when he involves in the guilt of idolatry
the unhappy trader in frankincense, because
it was burned on the altars of the idols. He
seems not to have perceived the clear dis-
tinction between the case of the artificer who
formed the idols, and of the merchant who
dealt in any of the articles employed in ido-
latrous worship. An idol is made in order
that it may be worshipped, that is, for a for-
bidden purpose; the very use for which it is
designed is unlawful. But frankincense may
be employed, as our author -^^ himself admits,
291 De Idololatria, c. 11. See the Apology, c 42. The
trades and occupations which Tertullian in his Treatise de
Idololatria states to be incompatible with the profession of
the Gospel, are those of the makers of idols (c. 4 — 8.) ; of
those who build, or in any way adorn, their temples or altars
(c. 8.) ; of astrologers (c. 9-) ; of schoolmasters, among other
reasons, because they tavight the heathen mythology (c. 10.);
of merchants, who deal in any article used in the worship
of idols, as in frankincense, (c. 11.) According to TertuUian,
no Christian could, without contracting guilt, pay or receive
money on the legal days, because tliey were sacred to
some heathen god (c. 13.); or suspend lamps or garlands
at his door (c. 15.) He was also guilty of idolatry, if he
either swore, or allowed himself to be adjured or blessed,
by the name of any heathen God (cc. 20—22.)
^^" De Corona, c. 10. Et si me odor alicujus loci offen-
derit, Arabiae aliquid incendo; sed non eodem ritu, nee
eodem habitu, nee eodem apparatu, quo agitur apud idola.
384
on many occasions not only innocently, but
beneficially. To burn it on the altar of an
idol is not to use, but to abuse it; and the
guilt of the abuse must rest with the pur-
chaser:— to make the seller accountable for the
purpose to which the buyer applies it is con-
trary to every principle of reason and of justice.
That TertuUian should have overlooked this
distinction is the more remarkable, because in
the same Treatise he has recourse to one nearly
similar. He says, '^^ that a Christian, may, with-
out incurring guilt, be present, as a spectato7\
at the sacrifices with which it was customary
to celebrate the assumption of the toga virilis,
a marriage, or the naming of a child : because
in these cases he is not invited expressly to
attend the sacrifice, but to join in a ceremony
which has in it nothing of an idolatrous
character. Before, however, we proceed too
severely to censure Tertullian for the error,
which is the subject of M. Barbeyrac's animad-
version, let us endeavour for a moment to put
ourselves in his place. For this purpose, we
must imagine to ourselves the ^^^ feelings with
which the primitive Christians regarded the
worship paid to the gods of the nations: — the
pious horror which they felt when they saw
^^^ De Idololatria, c. 16. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 8.
^* See ad Martyres, c. 2. De Corona, c. 10.
385
the homage, due only to the Creator, trans-
ferred to an idol, the work of man's hands.
They were moreover aware of the strong
hold which idolatry possessed upon mankind,
through the gratifications which it afforded to
their sensual appetites; and were, therefore,
desirous to place the convert as far as possible
out of the reach of its temptations. ^^^ Some-
times in their anxiety to guard themselves and
others from pollution, they might perplex their
minds with unfounded scruples, or subject
themselves to unnecessary restraints. But we
shall perhaps be induced to think more favour-
ably even of their discretion, when we reflect
that, had their descendants persisted in the
same stedfast determination to hold no inter-
course with idolatry, neither would the friends
of the Gospel have occasion to lament that,
for a long series of years, a gaudy ritual, cal-
culated only to affect the senses, was sub-
stituted almost universally in the place of
its pure and spiritual worship : nor would its
enemies be enabled to object that the mytho-
logy and superstitious practices of Pagan Rome
still subsist, changed only in name, throughout
the larger portion of Christendom.
^^ On the subject of intercourse with Gentiles, and com-
pliance with Gentile customs, see de Idololatria, c. 14. and
de Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. e. 11.
Bb
386
M. Barbeyrac's ^^Second charge relates to
Tertullian's notions respecting the incompati-
bility of a military life with the profession of
Christianity. Having '^^in our remarks upon
the thirty-seventh Article of our Church, ex-
posed the weakness of the grounds on which
he maintained this opinion, we have now
nothing further to add on the subject.
The ^^^ Treatise de Corona Militis furnishes
M. Barbeyrac with matter for another charge
against TertuUian. ^^^When the Emperors
distributed largesses to the army, it was cus-
tomary for the soldiers to appear with crowns
of laurel on their heads. A Christian soldier
on an occasion of this kind, instead of wear-
ing the crown upon his head, bore it in his
hand. Being questioned why he was guilty
of this breach of discipline, he replied that
his religion would not allow him to wear a
crown. Persisting in his refusal to place it
on his head, he was thrown into prison and
sentenced to death. His conduct appears to
have been disapproved by the majority of his
Christian brethren. The warm and vehement
temper of TertuUian led him to view it in
^^ Ubi supra^ Sect. 6. et seq. ^^^ p, ggo.
^^ Ubi supra, Sect. 14. et seq.
299 De Corona Militis, c. 1.
387
a very different light. He regarded the sol-
dier's refusal as an act of truly Christian
heroism and self-devotion ; and imputed the
censures which were cast upon it to the luke-
warmness and pusillanimity of the censurers.
The reasons by which he justifies the act are
not, it is true, of the most satisfactory nature.
^"° He admits that the Scriptures are silent
on the subject, but says that it was not cus-
tomary for Christians to wear crowns; and
urges this fact as a proof that the tradition
of the Church was unfavourable to such a
practice. ^"^^ He next contends that flowers, of
which crowns were for the most part composed,
were intended to gratify the senses of sight
and smell; consequently, to weave them into
garlands and to wear them on the head is
to pervert them from their natural use, by
placing them in a situation in which they can
neither be seen nor smelt. But as this argu-
ment would apply only to crowns composed
of flowers, he ^'''proceeds to enumerate the
different heathen gods to whom the invention
of the different crowns was ascribed. Orna-
ments, originally suggested by daemons, and
still consecrated to their service, could not
^^ cc. 2, 3, 4. Compare Apology, c. 42. Non emo capiti
coronam, &c.
*>i cc. 5, 6. ^2 ^^ 7^ 8
BE 2
388
be fit for the head of a Christian. ^«'«We
find," he continues, "no evidence in the Old
Testament that crowns were ever worn by the
prophets or priests, or suspended in the tem-
ple, or placed upon the ark or altar, or upon
any part of the furniture of the sacred edifice."
^*He enquires lastly into the occasions on
which crowns were worn, and discovers that the
practice was always connected either with some
idolatrous observance, or some secular art, or
profession, or employment, which was forbidden
to Christians. The point upon which the whole
question really turned — whether, in the par-
ticular case under consideration, to have worn
a crown, would have implied a participation in
an idolatrous act — is scarcely touched by Ter-
tullian. ^°^ He calls it indeed an idolatrous act,
but does not state wherein the idolatry con-
sisted. For further information on this point,
the reader may consult ^*"^ Binghain ; who says
that it was purely a civil act, performed in
honor of the Emperors on such days as they
gave their largesses or donations to the soldiers.
^"^Milner regards it in the same light, and
pronounces an unqualified condemnation of
303 c. 10. 304 c, 11, et ggq
305 See c. 12. ^^ L. xvi. c. 4. Sect. 8.
307 Vol. I. 315.
389
the opinions advanced by Tertullian in this
Treatise.
Among our author's works is a Tract
written for the express purpose of proving
that a Christian could not, without incurring
a certain degree of guilt, attend any of the
public games. ^°^The principal reason which
he assigns is, that all those games — having been
originally instituted, and continuing to be
celebrated in honour of some god — must be re-
garded as idolatrous ceremonies; all, therefore,
who attended them were necessarily involved
in the guilt of idolatry. This, however, is not
his only argument. ^°^He reasons also upon
the moral effect of the games, and upon the
tumult of passions which they were calculated
to excite in the bosom of the spectator; who
could scarcely fail to be transported as it were
out of himself, and to give way by turns to
hope and fear, to sorrow and resentment. On
two passages of this Tract, Gibbon has con-
ferred celebrity by his animadversions. We
shall offer a few remarks upon one of them,
3"^ De Spectaculis, c. 4. The strange application of
Psalm i. in e. 3. is deserving of notice, as a specimen of the
mode in which the Fathers wrested Scriptures to their
purpose. Compare the Apology^ c. 38. where all the argu-
ments, urged in the Tract de Spectaculis, are comprised
in two sentences. •""' c. 15.
390
as it illustrates an opinion to which we shall
hereafter have occasion to allude. Gibbon
^^^ says that TertuUian " is particularly offended
at the dress of the actors, who by the use of
the buskin impiously endeavoured to add a
cubit to their stature." Now in the passage
alluded to, our author is establishing the point
on which his whole argument turns — the con-
nexion of all the public games, and among the
rest of the theatrical exhibitions, with idolatry.
He had previously traced their origin to Satan :
he now proceeds to shew that the author of evil
suggested the pomp and circumstance of the
public exhibitions — the chariot race — the various
gymnastic exercises — the dress of the actors, the
buskin, the mask, &c. In all these devices
Satan availed himself of the partial discoveries
which he had been able to make, of what
Christ would say, and do, and suffer, on earth :
accommodating his suggestions to those dis-
coveries— ""^^ sometimes deceiving mankind by
an imitation of Christian rites — at others be-
traying them into a violation of the precepts
of the Gospel. ^^^ Thus, anticipating as it were
310 Chap. XV. note 41. See Barbeyrac, Traite de la Mo-
rale des Peres, c. 6. Sect. 20.
•^" Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7- sub fine.
31^ Sic et tragoedos cothurnis extulit (Diabolus) quia nemo
potest adjicere cubitum unum ad staturam suam. Men-
dacem facere vult Christum.
391
Christ's declaration, that no man can add a
cubit to his stature, he invented the buskin;
in order that, through the medium of the
actors who wore it, he might practically make
Christ a liar. Gibbon's remark scarcely con-
veys a correct notion of Tertullian's object;
which is to caution men against taking part
in the theatrical exhibitions, lest they should
imconsciously render themselves the instru-
ments of the devil. The other passage, quoted
by ^^^ Gibbon, is from the concluding chapter
of the Tract; and is a striking specimen of
Tertullian's vehemence and proneness to exag-
geration.
Having ^^* already considered, what is suf-
ficiently obnoxious to censure, Tertullian's
notion that Christians ought neither to aspire
to, nor to accept any civil office, we shall
proceed to his condemnation of second mar-
riages, which furnishes '^^ M. Barbeyrac with
ample matter of animadversion. On this sub-
ject, as we have before observed, we find a
gradually increasing severity in our author's
opinions. ^^^ In our brief notice of the two
Tracts ad Uxorem, we stated, that in the
313 Chap. XV. p. 474. Ed. 4to.
31* p. 359. 315 ujji supra^ Sect. 30. et seq.
316
Chap. I. p. ^S.
392
former TertuUian dissuades his wife, in case
she should survive him, from contracting a
second marriage ; in the latter, fearful that she
might be unwilling to impose upon herself
so great a restraint, he cautions her at least
not to marry a heathen. ^^^ Such a marriage
he brands with the name of adultery ; appeal-
ing, in support of this harsh sentence, to
1 Cor. vii. 39- where the Apostle says that
a widow may marry whom she will, tantum in
Domino, only in the Lord, that is, according to
our author's interpretation, only a Christian.
In the Treatise de Exhortatione Castitatis,
written after he had become a Montanist, but
probably before he had adopted the opinions of
Montanus in all their rigour, he proceeds a step
further. The name of adultery, which he had
before applied to a marriage contracted with
a heathen, he now applies ^^^to second mar-
^^'' Ad Uxorem, L. ii. cc 2, 3. Haec quum ita sintj
Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subeurites stupri reos esse
constat et arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis, ex
literis Apostoli dicentis^ cum ejusmodi nee eihum sumendum.
Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 7- De Monogamia,
cc. 7- 11.
^'^ Si penitus sensus ejus interpretemur, non aliud dicen-
dum erit secundum matrimonium, quam species stupri —
Ergo, inquis, jam et primas, id est, unas nuptias destruis;
nee immerito : quoniam et ipsae ex eo constant quo et stu-
prum, c. 9- See also c 4.
393
riages in general : and that for reasons, some of
which, as he himself admits, are equally appli-
cable to a first marriage. The object of the
Treatise is to dissuade a Christian brother, who
had lost his wife, from marrying again. " There
are," ^^^ Tertullian says, " three degrees of holi-
ness : — the first exists in those, who have con-
tinued chaste from their birth — the second in
those, who have continued chaste from their
second birth, that is, their baptism ; either
separated from their wives, if living, by mutual
compact; or remaining single, if they have
lost their wives— the third in those, who hav-
ing been once married (after baptism) do not
marry again." One of the arguments, virged
in this Treatise, affords a striking example of
the fallacious reasoning by which Tertullian
occasionally imposed upon himself. ^"""You
have lost your wife," he says ; " it was, there-
fore, the will of God that you should become
a widower: by marrying again you cease to
be a widower, and thereby strive against the
^^^ c. 1. It is worthy of remark, that M. Barbeyrac
agrees with Tertullian in asserting, that a person, who has
once been married, has a stronger inducement to contract
a second marriage, than an unmarried person has to marry.
Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 8. and de Virgin, vel. c. 10.
with the Traite de la Morale des Peres, c 4. Sect. 30.
^^ c. 2. Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c 7- De Monogamia,
c. 9-
394
will of God." — ^^^ A considerable portion of the
Tract is occupied by a commentary on the
seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians; the design of which is to shew
that, when St. Paul asserted, as a reason for
allowing a second marriage, that " it is better to
marry than burn," he evidently regarded such
a marriage merely as the less of two evils. In
the course of this commentary, TertuUian alludes
to the distinction made by the Apostle between
that which he delivered from himself, and that
which he delivered from the Lord. In the
latter case, he thinks that St. Paul spoke from
the extraordinary inspiration which was pecu-
liar to him as an Apostle: in the former, only
as an ordinary Christian, possessing the ordi-
nary gifts of the Spirit. I notice this circum-
stance because the late Mr. RenneU, in his
Proofs of Inspiratio7i, he, has referred to this
passage of TertuUian, in a manner which
may lead his readers to form a very erroneous
notion of its real purport. ^" Mr. Rennell —
whose object is to prove that what St. Paul de-
livered as from himself was equally the dictate
of Divine inspiration with that which he de-
livered as from the Lord — says that "the Apo-
^^^ c. 3. Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c 3.
^^ p. 28. with the note. The part quoted by Mr. Ren-
nell is from Quum continentiam indicit— rto fastigium red-
deret.
395
stle decided the question concerning virgins,
in 1 Cor. vii. 25., not as an ordinary man, but
as one wJio had ohta'med mercy to he faithful;
by which expression he meant to assert the
grace and authority of an inspired minister
and Apostle." Let us now turn to TertuUian —
who begins his remarks with the following
words; ^'^In primis autem non videbor irre-
ligiosus, si, quod ipse profitetur, animadvertam,
omnem ilium indulgentiam nuptiarum de suo,
id est, de humano sensu, non de divino prae-
scripto induxisse. He then proceeds to comment
upon several verses of the chapter, and con-
cludes with the passage, part of which has
been quoted by Mr. Rennell : Sed ecce rursus,
mulierem marito defuncto dicit nubere posse,
si cui velit, tantum in Domino. Atenim feli-
cior erit, inquit, si sic permanserit secundum
meum consilium. Puto autem, et ego Dei Spi-
ritum haheo. Videmus duo consilia, quo supra
nubendi veniam facit, et quo postmodum con-
tinentiam nubendi indicit. Cui ergo, inquis,
adsentabimur ? Inspice et lege. Quum veniam
facit, homiiiis prudentis consilium adlegat. Quum
continentiam indicit, Spiritiis Sancti consilium
adfirmat. Sequere admonitionem cui divinitas
patrocinatur. Spiritum quidem Dei etiam
fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles Apostoli.
396
Qimm ergo qui se Jidelem dixerat, adjicit postea
Spiritum Dei se habere, quod nemo dubitaret
etiam de fideli, idcireo id dixit, ut sibi Apo-
stoli fastigium redderet. ^"^^ Proprie enim Apo-
stoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus
prophetias, et efficacia virtutum, documentisque
linguarum ; non ex parte, quod cseteri. Now
it must be evident to every person who reads
the above extract, that ^^^ Tertullian agrees with
Mr. Rennell only in one particular — that in the
expression — / think that I have the Spirit of
God — St. Paul meant to assert his own inspi-
ration. On two important points our author
is directly opposed to ^^"^Mr. Rennell. In the
^* Does Tertullian here mean to assert that none but
the Apostles possessed miraculous gifts ? or that all those
gifts were united in the Apostles, which other Christians
possessed only in part, with reference to 1 Cor. xii. 4. &c. ?
^^ Compare de Pudicitia, c. l6. De Monogamia, c. 3.
^^ There is in the Tract de Coron^ a passage, in which
Tertullian makes a nearer approach to Mr. Rennell's opinion.
Dicit et Apostolus, si quid ignoratis, Dens vobis revelabit,
solitus et ipse consilium subministrare, quum prseceptum
Domini non habebat, et qticcdam edicere a semetipso, sed et
ipse Spiritum Dei habens deductorem ornnis veritafis. Itaque
consilium et edictum ejus divini jam praecepti instar obtinuit,
de rationis divinae patrocinio, c. 4. In this passage our au-
thor's object is to place observances, for which no written
command could be produced from Scripture, on the same
footing with those for which such command could be pro-
duced; on the ground that they were probably enjoined
by the Apostles, and were consequently to be deemed of
divine origin. His language varies with the object which
he has in view.
397
first place, TertuUian makes a decided distinc-
tion between the advice given by St, Paul as
a prudent or sagacious man, and that given by
him at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit. In
the second, so far was he from thinking
that the Apostle, when he spoke of him-
self as one who had ohtained merctj to he
faithful, meant to assert the grace and autho-
rity of an inspired minister and Apostle ; that
by the word Fideles he understood an ordinary
Christian, as contra-distinguished from an Apo-
stle, who was endowed with extraordinary
gifts. Let me here observe, that I am not
contending for the accuracy of Tertullian's
interpretation : I am only anxious that his
testimony, if urged at all, should be correctly
stated.
But to proceed to the Tract de Mono-
gamia, in which TertuUian pursues nearly the
same line of argument as in the Tract de
Exhortatione Castitatis; but with greater ex-
travagance both of sentiment and language,
because he was then in a state of avowed
separation from the Church. He affirms
^^^for instance, that, in point of criminality, it
^^ Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit,
an pariter singulae duas fecerint. Idem numerus conjuncto-
rum et separatorum. Semel tamen vim passa institutio Dei
per Lamech constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius, c. 4.
398
is immaterial whether a man has two wives
at the same time, or marries a second wife
after the death of the first. He urges also
the example of Christ, who ^'^was unmarried
in the flesh; if, therefore, we aim at his per-
fection, we must also remain unmarried : but
if the infirmity of our flesh wiU not allow
this, we must follow in the flesh the exam-
ple which he has set us in the spirit. He
has one Spiritual Spouse, the Church ; we,
therefore, must be content with a single mar-
riage. In our remarks upon the thirty-second
Article of our Church, we noticed the differ-
ent interpretations of 1 Cor. ix. 5. given by
TertuUian in the Tracts de Exhortatione Cas-
titatis and de Monogamia. Towards the con-
clusion, however, of the latter Tract, a sus-
picion appears to cross his mind, that his
expositions of St. Paul are far-fetched, and
may not be satisfactory to his readers. ^'^ In
order, therefore, to silence all gainsayers, he
adds that, as Christ took away the liberty of
divorce, in which Moses had indulged the
Jews on account of the hardness of their
^^ Quando novissimus Adam, id est Christus, innuptus in
totum, quod etiam primus Adam ante exilium, c. .5. He ap-
plies the name Spado to Christ (see also c. 3.) as well as to St.
Paul {ibid.) and to John the Baptist (c. 17-) but evidently
not in the literal sense of the word.
329 c. 14.
399
hearts; so the Paraclete now takes away that
liberty of contracting a second marriage,
which St. Paul had allowed the members of
the infant Church of Corinth on account of
the infirmity of their flesh.
The train of reasoning, if it may so be
called, which conducted the early Fathers to
these strange conclusions, was, according to
^^" ]VI. Barbeyrac, somewhat of the following
kind. They observed that men were impelled
to the commission of many irregularities and
crimes, by the desire of gratifying certain ap-
petites which constitute a part of human
nature. They could not condemn the appe-
tites themselves without at the same time
condemning the author of nature; they hit,
therefore, upon another expedient. They said
that those appetites were given us for parti-
cular ends — the appetite of hunger, for instance,
in order to preserve the life of man,^the
sexual appetite in order to ensure the con-
tinuance of the human species. So long then
as the acts, which originate in those appe-
tites, are performed solely with reference to
the ends for which the appetites were given,
all is right. But the instant that we annex
the idea of pleasure to the act, and perform
•■"" c. 4. Sect. 34, 35.
400
it with a view to the gratification which we
shall derive from it, then it becomes sinful.
That this is a correct account of the mode in
which many of the Fathers reasoned, may be
true, and we may discern some traces of it
in Tertullians writings. But it is certain
that he also attached a ^^^ degree of impurity
to the act itself, without any reference to the
purpose for which it was performed — a cer-
tain incompatibihty with the perfection of the
Christian character. He regards marriage as
only allowed under the Gospel, in condescen-
sion to human infirmity. ^^^"The union of
the sexes was, it is true, in the beginning
blessed by God; being devised for the pur-
pose of peophng the earth, and on that ac-
count permitted. The Patriarchs were even
allowed to have a pluraUty of wives. Then
came the Law ; and afterwards the Gospel,
which restrained the licence before given, and
confined a man to one wife. Lastly, the
^^ Speaking of the intercourse between the sexes even
in the married state, he uses the expressions contumeham
communem. De Virg. vel. c. 10. Dedecoris voluptuosi. Ad
Uxorem, L. i. c. 1. He argues also that it unfits the soul for
devotional exercises. De Exhortatione Castitatis, cc. Q, 10.
He calls it on one occasion permissam voluptatem. De
Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c 9-
^2 Ad Uxorem, L. i. cc. 2, 3. See also c. 4. De Exhor-
tatione Castitatis, cc. 5, 6. De Monogamia, c. 3.
401
Apostle, as speaking to those upon wliom the
ends of the world were come, did not in-
deed forbid marriage, lest man should be
tempted to sin; but recommended a life of
celibacy, as best suited to the situation of
Christians in seasons of difficulty and ^^^ per-
secution." The inference which our author
draws from this historical sketcli is, that the
Apostle's permission to marry was not willingly
given, but extorted by necessity.
But though TertuUian attached a degree
of impurity even to the married state, and
"^^ would certainly have enforced a total absti-
nence from marriage if the human species
could have been continued without it, as he
would have prohibited eating and drinking if
the life of man could have been sustained with-
out food — yet we find occasionally in his writings
passages of a different complexion. In ^^^the
second Tract ad Uxorem, he breaks out into
a glowing description of the blessedness of that
^^ We have seen that in the Tract de Monogami-i, cc 2,
3, 14. TertuUian states that it was reserved for the Paraclete
to prohibit second marriages. During the ministry of our
Blessed Lord, men were not yet able to bear so severe a
restraint.
^* Nos quoque, ut possumus^ os cibo excusamus, &c. De
Res. Carnis, c. 6l. Compare de Jejuniis, c. 3.
^^ Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matri-
monii, quod Ecclesia conciliat, &c. ? c. 9.
Cc
402
marriage, in the celebration of which none of
the forms required by the Church has been
omitted; and ^^Mn other places he speaks of
the married state, not only as pure, but even
honourable. As ^^^we remarked with reference
to another subject, Tertullian's language varies
with the object which he has in view. When
he speaks his genuine sentiments, he exag-
gerates the merit of celibacy ; and speaks of
the married state as rather permitted, than
approved by God. But ^^^when he is con-
^^ Natura veneranda est, non erubescenda. Concubitum
libido, non conditio foedavit. Excessus, non status, est im-
pudicus. Siquidem benedictus status apud Deum : Crescite et
in midtitudinem prqficite. Excessus vero maledictus — adulteria,
et stupra, et lupanaria. De Anima, c. 27' Sanctitas — quae
non matrimoniura excludat, sed libidinem — quae vas nostrum
in honore matrimonii tractet. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c 15.
337 See note 326. of this Chapter.
338 De Monogamia, sub initio. Adv. Marcionem, L. i.
e. 29- Sine dubio ex damnatione conjugii ista institutio
(the Marcionite custom of refusing baptism to married per-
sons) constabit. Videamus, an justa : non quasi destructuri
felicitatem sanctitatis, ut aliqui Nicolaitae, assertores libidinis at-
que luxuriae ; sed qui sanctitatem sine nuptiamm damnatione
noverimus, et sectemur, et praeferamus, non ut malo bonum,
sed ut bono melius ; non enim projicimus, sed deponimus
nuptias ; nee praescribimus, sed suademus sanctitatem ; servan-
tes et bonum et melius pro viribus cujusque sectando: tunc
denique conjugium exerte defendentes, quum inimice ac-
cusatur spurcitiae nomine in destructionem Creatoris, qui
proinde conjugium pro rei honestate benedixit in cremen-
tum generis humani, quemadmodum et universum condi-
tionis in integros et bonos usus. Non ideo autem et cibi
damnabuntur, quia operosius exquisiti in gulam committunt ;
ut nee vestitus ideo accusabuntur, quia pretiosius comparati
in
403
tending against IMarcion and the other Here-
tics, who condemned marriage altogether, as
an institution of the Demiurge who was op-
posed to the Supreme God, he stands forth
in its defence; though he still asserts the
superior pvu'ity of a life of celibacy.
We will take this opportunity of intro-
ducing two observations in some measure con-
nected with the subject immediately before us.
The first is, ^^Hhat in Tertullian's time the
practice of making vows of continence had
already commenced, and ^^°had been found to
be productive of evil consequences. The
females who made such vows were called
^'^^ Brides of Christ. The second observation
in ambitionem tumescunt. Sic nee matrimonii res ideo des-
puentur, quia, intemperantius difFusae in luxuriam inardescunt.
Multum difFert inter causam et culpam, inter statum et ex-
cessum. Ita hujusmodi non institutio, sed exorbitatio, re-
probanda est, secundum censuram institutoris ipsius, cujus
est tam, Crescite et multiplicamini, quam et, Non adulterabis,
et uxorem proximi tid non concupisces. Here we find an ap-
proach to the mode of reasoning which M. Barbeyrac
imputes to the Fathers.
^^ Viderit et ipsum continentiae votum. De Virgin, vel.
c. 11. 340 See de Virgin, vel. c. 14.
^^ Quot Virgines Christo maritata;? De Res. Carnis,
c. 6l. Malunt enim Deo nubere, Deo speciosae, Deo sunt
puellae, &c. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 4. Generally, however,
such expressions as Christi solius ancillae. De Virgin, vel.
c. 3. Dei ancillae. De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 4. L. ii.
cc 1, 11. Nuptae Christo. De Virgin, vel. c. l6'. Benedictae.
De Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c. 5. Filiae sapientiae. ibid. c. 6.
C c 2 Foeminae
404
is, that the Roman Catholic notion of the
indissolubility of marriage was then unknown.
Tertullian ^^^on all occasions affirms that it
may be dissolved on account of adultery :
and though his peculiar tenets wovild natu-
rally lead him to deny to either party the
liberty of marrying again, yet '^^he admits
that such marriages actually took place in the
Church.
Two charges which M. Barbeyrac brings
against Tertullian remain to be mentioned.
One is, that, in opposition to our Saviour's
express injunction, he passes a sentence of
condemnation upon all who in time of per-
secution consult their safety by flight. The
other, that he advances opinions so extra-
vagant and irrational on the subject of
Christian patience that, were they generally
adopted, the effect must be to place the
honest and peaceable part of the community
Fceminae ad Deum pertinentes. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 1. mean
only Christian females, as ancilla Diaboli, De Cultu Foem.
L. ii. c. 11. means a heathen female, and Angeli Dei, ibid.
c. 3. Christians in general.
^^ Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 2. De Monogamia, c. 9- Tam
repudio matrimonium dirimente quam morte. De Patienti^,
c. 12.
^*^ Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 1. Quarumdam exemplis admo-
nentibus, quae divortio vel mariti excessu oblata continentiae
occasione, &c.
405
at the mercy of the robber and ruffian. ^" In
our remarks upon the External History of the
Church we gave an account of Tertullian's
opinions on the former of those points ; and
with respect to the ^"latter, it will be suffi-
cient to observe, that his error appears to have
arisen partly from too close an adherence to
the letter of our Saviour's injunctions ; and
partly from a strange misapprehension of their
meaning.
We will conclude our review of M. Bar-
beyrac's animadversions, by observing that he
seems to have overlooked a passage ^^*^in the
fourth Book against Marcion ; in which Ter-
tullian argues, from a passage in Ezekiel, that
no interest ought to be taken for the loan
of money.
34* Chap. II. p. 147.
^ See the Tract de Patientia, cc. 7, 8, 10. In this
Tract, which is a panegyric upon patience, TertuUian exhorts
his readers to the practice of that virtue, by setting forth the
forbearance which God at all times exerts towards sinful
man ; and the patience exhibited by Christ in taking upon
him human flesh, and submitting to every indignity during
his residence on earth. There are, however, some passages
not unworthy of attention, as c. 9- in which TertuUian en-
forces the duty of patience under the loss of relations and
friends.
^*" c. 17. There is an ambiguity in Tertullian's expres-
sions ; but we believe that we have given the true meaning.
CHAP. VI
ON THE CEREMONIES USED IN THE CHURCH.
JVlosHEiM, ^ in the beginning of his Chapter
on the Ceremonies of the Church in the
second century, observes, that "in this cen-
tury many vmnecessary ceremonies were added
to the Christian worship, the introduction of
which was extremely offensive to wise and
good men." In support of this statement, he
refers to a passage in the Tract de Oratione ;
in which Tertullian complains that various
forms and observances had been introduced
into the Christian worship, of which some
bore too close a resemblance to the customs
and practices of the Gentiles. Of these ob-
servances he specifies several — "the practice, for
instance, of washing the hands, or even the
whole body, before the commencement of
prayer; which he calls a superstitious prac-
1 Century II. Part II. Chap. IV.
^ De Oratione, c. 1 1 . Compare de Baptismo, c. p. sub
fine. Quum deditur in crucem, aqua intervenit ; sciunt Pilati
manus.
407
tice, originally suggested by the act of Pilate
when he delivered up Christ to the Jews;
and consequently unfit to be adopted by
Christians : — ^ and that of putting off the cloke
before the commencement of prayer, which he
disapproves because the heathens had a similar
custom. He assigns the same reason for ob-
jecting to the practice of sitting down after
the conclusion of the public prayers; though
he supposes its introduction into the Church
to have arisen from a misapprehension of a
passage in the Shepherd of Hermas.
From the passage just alluded to and
from other passages of TertuUian's works, it
appears that, in the act of prayer, Hhe
early Christians raised their hands to heaven,
and expanded them in imitation of the mode
in which our Saviour's arms were stretched
upon the cross. They Visually prayed in
3 c. 12.
^ Nos vero non attollimus tantum, sed etiam expandi-
mus, a dominicd passione modulantes. De Oratione, c. 11.
sub fine. Apology, c. 30. manibus expansis. Ad Marcionem,
L. i. c. 23. sub fine.
^ De Corona, c. 3. Ad Scapulam, c. 4. Quando non geni-
culationibus et jejunationibus nostris etiam siccitates sunt
depulsae ? In the second Tract ad Uxorem, c. Q. we find
the word volutari applied to the act of prayer. Simul orant,
simul volutantur. Compare Pseudo-Justinus, Quaestiones ad
Orthodoxos, c. 115.
408
a kneeling posture; excepting on the Lord's
day, and in the interval between Easter and
Whitsunday : they then prayed standing, in
commemoration of the resurrection of our
Lord from the dead. The ^ men prayed with
the head uncovered. With respect to the
women, different customs appear to have pre-
vailed in different Churches : in some even
the virgins were unveiled; but ^in the Tract
de Virginibus velandis, Tertullian inveighs
vehemently against the indecency and irrever-
ence of this practice. It ^ was customary also,
in the act of prayer, to turn the face towards
the east ; a practice borrowed, according to
^ Mosheim, from the eastern nations, who con-
ceived light to be the essence of the Su-
preme, and therefore worshipped the sun as
the image of his glory. We ^"have seen
that this practice gave rise to a very general
persuasion among the Gentiles, that the Christ-
^ Capite nudo. Apology, c. 30.
' c. 2. See de Corona^ c. 4.
" Apology, c. 16'. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 13.
" Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 7- There is in
the Tract against the Valentinians, c 3. the following re-
mark : Amat figura Spiritus Sancti (Columba) Orientem,
Christi figuram, referring pei'haps to Zechariah iii. 8.
/ ivill bring forth my servant the branch. The word cor-
responding to branch in the Septuagint is avaroXriv.
"• Chap. II. p. 124.
409
iaiis worshipped the sun. After the prayers
were conchided, the ^^ persons present usually
saluted each other with the kiss of peace;
excepting on Good Friday, which was ob-
served as a solemn fast by every member of
the Church. Tertullian censures the affecta-
tion of those who, at other seasons, refused
the kiss of peace, on the ground that they
had kept a fast.
Having alluded to the Tract de Oratione,
we will take this opportunity of mentioning
that the greater part of it is occupied by
^^ a Commentary on the Lord's Prayer. After
some preliminary remarks on the injunctions
to pray in secret and not to use long prayers,
by which the Lord's prayer is introduced
in the Gospel, Tertullian observes that this
form, concise as it is, contains an epitome of
the whole Christian doctrine. In commenting
upon the different clauses, our author dis-
plays an extensive knowledge of Scripture ;
but for the most part little judgement in the
1^ Alia jam consuetude invaluit; jejunantes, habita ora-
tione cum fratribus^ subtrahunt osculum pacis, quod est
signaculum orationis. De Oratione, c. 14. Jam vero alicui
fratrum ad osculum convenire. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4.
From the latter quotation we might infer that the Christ-
ian mode of salutation was by a kiss.
^^ There are also some remarks on the Lord's Prayer,
in the fourth Book against Marcion, c. 26.
410
application. ^^ He concludes with stating that,
although in our devotions we must on no
account omit this prayer, yet we may add
to it such petitions as are suitable to our
particular circumstances ; " remembering always
that, in order to render our prayers accept-
able to God, we must approach him in a
right frame of mind — with hearts free from
anger and every other evil passion. In ad-
dition to these remarks upon the spirit in
which men ought to pray, ^^ he offers some
cautions against all extravagance of gesture
in putting up our prayers to the throne of
grace. Our gesture and countenance ought
to bespeak humility and modesty. He says
also, that we should be careful not to pray
1^ c. 9. ^* c. 10.
^* c. 13. In Semler's Edition, the Tract de Oratione con-
tains nine additional Chapters, which were published by
Muratori ; of these the first two relate to the question whether
Virgins ovight to wear veils in the Church, and are little else
than an epitome of the Tract de Virginibus velandis; the
third to the practice of kneeling in the act of prayer ; the
fourth to the place, the fifth to the hour of prayer ; the sixth
to the propriety of not allowing a Christian brother to quit the
house without joining in prayer ; the seventh to the custom of
saying Halleluiah at the conclusion of our prayers; in the
eighth, prayer is stated to be the spiritual sacrifice, by which
the ancient sacrifices were superseded ; the ninth relates to the
efficacy of prayer. From the style and tone of these addi-
tional chapters, I should infer that they were not written
by TertuUian.
411
in so loud a tone of voice as to disturb the
devotions of those near us. It is not by rea-
son of the strength of our lungs that our
prayers reach the ear of the Almighty.
In speaking of the Christian assemblies,
^^Mosheim gives the following account of
the purposes for which they were held.
*' During the sacred meetings of the Christ-
ians, prayers were repeated; the Holy Scrip-
tures were publicly read ; select discourses upon
the duties of Christians were addressed to
the people: hymns were sung; and a portion
of the oblations, presented by the faithful,
was employed in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper and the feast of charity." We need
scarcely remind the reader that this accovmt
is merely an epitome of ^''a passage in the
Apology ; which was given in the Chapter on
the Government of the Church.
There is, however, in the Apology, an
expression which has been urged by those
who object to the use of set forms of prayer,
in confirmation of their opinion. Tertullian,
^^ speaking of the primitive Christians, says,
i« Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 8.
^7 c. 39. in Chap. IV. p. 222.
^^ c. .30. Denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus.
See Bingham, Book xiii. c. 5. Sect. 5.
412
"that they prayed for the emperor without
^^/^f„^, a prompter, because they prayed from the
heart." From the words " without a prompter"
it has been inferred that their prayers were
on all occasions extemporaneous effusions. But
the context clearly shews, that TertuUian
merely intended to contrast the cordial since-
rity of their prayers for the safety and pros-
perity of the emperors, with the forced and
hollow exclamations of the heathen populace;
who required to be bribed with largesses, and
even to be prompted, before they would cry
out in the accustomed form, ^^ " De nostris
annis tibi Jupiter augeat annos."
From incidental notices scattered over Ter-
tullian's works we collect, that '"Sunday, or
the Lord's Day, was regarded by the primi-
tive Christians as a day of rejoicing; and that-
to fast upon it was deemed unlawful. The
word Sabbatum is always used to designate,
^^ Compare c. 35.
^ TertuUian uses both names ; that of Sunday, when
addressing the heathens. Apology, c. l6. ^Eque si diem Solis
laetitise indulgemus, &c. Ad Nationes, L. i. c 13; that of the
Lord's Day, when writing to Christians. De Corona, c. 3.
Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. De Jejuniis, c. 15.
De Idololatria, c. 14. De Anima, c. Q. Inter Dominica Solen-
nia. De Fugd in Persecutione, c. 14. We are not, however,
certain that TertuUian uniformly observes this distinction.
Bingham thinks that he does. Book xx. c 2. Sect. 1.
413
not the first, but the seventh day of the '.'^'
week ; which appears in Tertullian's time to
have been also kept as a day of rejoicing.
Even 'Hhe Montanists — anxious as they were
to introduce a more rigorous discipUne in
the observance of fasts — when they kept their
two weeks of Xerophagi^e, did not fast on the
Saturday and Sunday. The "'Saturday before /^X- ^■'
Easter day was, however, an exception ; that
was observed as a fast. "^ The custom of ob-
serving every Saturday as a fast, which became -
general throughout the western Church, does
not appear to have existed in Tertullian's time.
That men who, like our author, on all occa-
sions contended that the ritual and ceremonial
law of Moses had ceased, should observe the
seventh day of the week as a festival, is per-
haps to be ascribed to a desire of conciliating
the Jewish converts.
We find in Tertullian's works no notice
of the celebration of our Lord's nativity ;
although 'Hhe festivals of Easter and Whit-
^' De Jejuniis, c. 15. The Gentiles feasted on a Saturday.
Apology, c. 16.
^~ De Jejuniis, c. 14.
^ See Bingham, Book xx. c. 3.
^* De Corona, c. 3. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. Quis deni-
que solemnibus Paschae abnoctantem securus sxistinebit ? Bing-
ham supposes that our author here speaks of the Paschal Vigil
414
suntide are frequently mentioned : with refer-
ence to which it should be observed, that
the word Pascha was not used to signify
merely the day of our Lord's Resurrection,
but also the day of his Passion; or rather
the whole interval of time from his cruci-
fixion to his resurrection. In like manner
the word ^^Pentecoste signified, (not merely
Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which
intervened between Easter and Whitsun-
day. Tertullian makes no allusion to the
paschal controversy — a controversy which was
carried on with great bitterness, towards the
middle of the second century, respecting the
days on which the Death and Resurrection
of Christ ought to be commemorated. He
^^ says only in general terms that they were
always commemorated in the first month of
the year.
We have ^^ already had occasion to aUude
to the custom of making offerings at the
or Easter Eve. (Book xiii. e.g. Sect. 4. or Book xxi. c. 1.
Sect. 32.) De Baptismo, c. ip. Ad Marcionem, L. iv. c 40.
2^ De Corona, c. 3. De Idololatria, c. 14. sub fine. De
Baptismo, c. 19- De Jejuniis, c. 14.
^^ De Jejuniis, c 14.
^ Chap. V. note 21 6. Compare the Scorpiace, c. 15.
Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, quum
illic martyrii renascitur generositate.
415
tombs of the martyrs, on the anniversary of
their martyrdom. To the anniversary itself
was given the name of Natalitium or Natalis
Dies ; on the ground that it was the day of
their birth into eternal life. Some of the com-
mentators fancy that they discover, ^^ in a pas-
sage in the Tract de Corona, an allusion to
the practice of noting down the days on which
the martyrs suffered — in other words, of com-
posing martyrologies ; but the passage is not
of that decided character on which an infer-
ence can be safely built.
After Tertullian became a INIontanist, he
wrote his Tract de Jejuniis; the object of
which was to defend the number, length, and
severity of the fasts prescribed by the founder
of the sect. In order to refute the notion
that the season of our Saviour's Passion was
the only season at which Christians were
positively bound to fast, he undertakes to
establish the general obligation of fasting.
^^ With this view he goes back to Adam's
transgression. Adam was forbidden to eat of
the fruit of the tree of knowledge; he ate
and fell. As, therefore, he fell by yielding
to his appetite, it follows that the sure way
^ c. 13. Habes tuos census, tuos fastos.
^ c. 3.
416
for man to regain the favour of God is to
mortify his appetite. Adam offended by eat-
ing; we must remedy the evil consequences
of the offence by fasting. Our author ^"re-
fers also to various instances both in the Old
and New Testaments, in which punishment
had been averted, and spiritual and temporal
blessings obtained, by fasting. ^^ God, more-
over, by testifying his favourable acceptance
of fasts observed in consequence of voluntary
vows, thereby declared his will, and rendered
such fasts obligatory in future. This favour-
able acceptance supplied the place of a posi-
tive command. TertuUian, however, ^^is met
in the very outset by a perplexing objection.
"If fasting Avas designed to be the means of
recovering God's favour, how came it to pass
that, after the deluge, the liberty respecting
food was not curtailed, but extended ? That
man, who was originally confined to a vege-
table diet, was then allowed to eat flesh ?"
To this question TertuUian returns an an-
swer, for which few of his readers could,
we think, have been prepared. — At fu'st ^^the
liberty respecting food was enlarged, in order
^ cc. 7, 8. Compare de PatientiS, c 13.
31 C. 11. 32 p, 4_
33 Compare de Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c. 10. De Exhor-
tatione Castitatis, c. 8.
417
that man might have an opportunity of evinc-
ing a greater desire to please God, by a volun-
tary abstinence from those kinds of food
which he was permitted to take. ^* After-
wards when the law was given, a distinction
was made between clean and unclean animals;
for the purpose of preparing mankind for the
fasts which in due season they would be re-
quired to observe under the Gospel. — One
argument ^^ urged by TertuUian in favour of
fasting is, that it fitted the Christian to en-
counter the bodily hardships to which the
profession of his faith exposed him. ^^ Ano-
ther is grounded on the natural tendency of
fasting to render the intellectual and moral
faculties vigorous and active ; whereas a full
stomach weighs down the soul, rendering it
unfit for contemplation, and devotional exer-
cises, and intercourse with heaven. This re-
mark our author confirms by the ^^ examples
of Moses and Elias ; who fasted forty days and
forty nights, when they were admitted to the
Divine Presence.
From this treatise and from other parts of
TertuUian's writings we learn, that the fasts
34
35
c. 5. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 18.
C. 12. 36 c. 6. '
^^ Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 6l.
Dd
/
418
observed by the Church in his day were
I. ^^The Paschal Fast, which consisted in a
total abstinence from food (Jejunium) during
the interval between Christ's passion and re-
surrection. This was considered as obhgatory
upon all Christians. II. Stationary Days,
^^Dies Stationarii, Wednesday and Friday in
every week; on which a half-fast (semi-jeju-
nium) was kept, terminating at three in the
afternoon. These were ^"voluntary fasts, and
observed on the authority of Tradition ; Wed-
nesday being selected, because on that day
the Jews took counsel to destroy Christ; and
Friday, because that was the day of his
^ Certe in Evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos
putant, in quibus ablatus est sponsus (Matt. ix. 15.) et hos
esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum, abolitis
legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus. De Jejuniis, c. 2.
Compare c. 13. sub in. c. 14. De Oratione, c. 14.
^^ Cur Stationibus quartam et sextam Sabbati dicamus.''
De Jejuniis, c. 14. Sic et Apostolos observasse, nullum
aliud imponentes jugum certorum et in commune omnibus
obeundorum jejuniorum ; proinde nee stationum, quag et ipsse
suos quidem dies habeant, quartae feriae et sextae ; passive
tamen currant, neque sub lege praecepti; neque ultra supre-
mam diei, quando et orationes fere hora nona concludat, de
Petri exemplo, quod Actis refertur, c. 2. See also de Ora-
tione, c. 14. where our author supposes the word statio to be
borrowed from the Military art. Si statio de militari exemplo
nomen accipit ; nam et militia Dei sumus. Tertullian uses the
expression trium hebdomadum statione in speaking of Daniel's
fast (c. 10.) De Anim^, c. 48.
^^ See de Jejuniis, c. IS. sub in. Bingham, Book xxi.
c. 3. Sect. 2. from Augustine, Ep. 8Q. or S6. ad Casulanum.
419
crucifixion. ''^The reason assigned for termi-
nating the Statio at the ninth hour was, that
Peter is said in the ''"Acts of the Apostles to
have gone with John into the temple, at that
hour. " But whence," asks TertuUian, who
contended that the Statio ought to be pro-
longed till the evening, "whence does it ap-
pear that the Apostles had on that day been
keeping a fast? The example of St. Peter
might be more plausibly alleged for terminat-
ing the fast at the sixth hour ; for ^^ in an-
other Chapter we are told that he went up
to pray at that hour, and became very hungry,
and would have eaten." III. Xerophagias,
days on which it was usual to abstain from
flesh and wine; in imitation perhaps of the
restraint which ** Daniel is stated to have im-
posed upon himself. These ^^ fasts were not
enjoined by the Church, but were voluntary
exercises of piety on the part of individuals;
and ^^some of the orthodox appear to have
objected to them altogether, on the ground
^^ De Jejuniis, c 10. *2 (. 3 ^ j
*^ c. 10. V. 9. 44 c. 10. V. 3.
*^ De Jejuniisj c. 13.
^^ Xerophagias vero novum afFectari officii nomen et prox-
imum Ethnicag superstitioni, quales castimoniae Apim, Isidem,
et Magnam Matrem certorum eduliorum exceptione purificant.
De Jejuniis, c. 2. See also c I6.
DD 2
420
that they were borrowed from the heathen
superstitions.
The difference between the orthodox and
Montanists, on the subject of fasting, appears
to have consisted in the following particulars.
With respect to the Jejunium, or total ab-
stinence from food, the former thought that
the interval between our Saviour's death and
resurrection was the only period during which
the Apostles observed a total fast; and con-
sequently the only period during which fasting
was of positive obligation upon all Christians.
At other times it rested with themselves to de-
termine 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 pronounced
the fast obligatory upon all Christians, but
^^ prolonged it until the evening; instead of
terminating it, as w^as the orthodox custom,
at the ninth hour. In the observance of the
^-^ De Jejuniis, cc 1^13.
*** De Jejuniis, c. 1. Quod Stationes plerumque in ves-
peram producamus.
421
Xerophagiffi the ''^ Montanists abstained — not
only from flesh and wine, like the orthodox —
but also from the richer and more juicy
kinds of fruit, and omitted all their cus-
tomary ablutions. Montanus appears to have
enjoined only ^°two weeks of Xerophagise in
the year: but his followers were animated by
a greater love of fasting than their Master;
for ^^ Jerome says, that, in his day, the Mon-
tanists kept three Lents ; one of them after
Whitsunday.
We ^^ have already observed that, in Ter-
tuUian's time, the bishops exercised the power
*^ De Jejuniis, c 1. Quod etiam Xerophagias observemus,
siccantes cibum ab omni carne, et omni jurulentia, et vividio-
ribus quibusque pomis, ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel
potemus. Lavacri quoque abstinentiam, congruentem arido
victui. See also cc. 9, 10. where TertuUian defends the prac-
tice of the Montanists, as strictly conformable to the prac-
tice of holy men under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations.
The Marcionites appear to have deemed fish a holy diet.
Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14.
*" Duas in anno hebdomadas Xerophagiarum, nee totas,
exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, ofFerimus Deo. De
Jejuniis, c 15.
^^ Illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi
sint Salvatores. Ad Marcellam, Ep. 54. Et ex hujus occa-
sione testimonii Montanus, Prisca, et Maxirailla, etiam post
Pentecosten faciunt quadragesimam, quod, ablato sponso,
filii sponsi debeant jejunare. In Matt. ix. Bingham infers
that each of these Lent Fasts continued for two weeks.
Book xxi. c. 1. Sect. 15.
^^ Chap. IV. p. 236. De Jejuniis, c. 13.
422
of appointing days of fasting, whenever the
circumstances of the Church seemed to re-
quire such outward marks of sorrow and
humiliation ; and ^^ that the councils or gene-
ral assemblies, which were held in Greece for
the purpose of regulating the affairs of the
Church, were opened by a solemn fast.
Ecclesiastical history abounds with proofs
of the tendency of mankind to run into ex-
tremes ; and thus to convert institutions, which
in their original design and application were
beneficial and salutary, into sources of the
most pernicious errors and abuses. Were we
required to produce an instance in confirmation
of the truth of this remark, we should with-
out hesitation refer the reader to the subject
which we have been now considering. Fast-
ing, as it was originally practised in the
Church, was regarded as a means to a moral
end: as a means, peculiarly fitted both to the
circumstances and to the nature of man, of
nourishing in him those feelings of contri-
tion and self-abasement, and of enabling him
to acquire that mastery over his sensual ap-
petites, which are essential elements in the
composition of the Christian character. When,
at the season appointed by the Church for the
^^ Chap. IV. p. 245. De Jejuniis, c. 13.
423
commemoration of the Passion of Christ, its
members, amongst other external observances —
designed to express their lively sense of their
own unworthiness, and of the deadly nature
of sin which could be expiated only by so
great a sacrifice — abstained also from their cus-
tomary meals and recreations; surely the most
enlightened reason must approve the motive
of their abstinence ; and admit as well its suit-
ableness to the fallen condition of man, as
its tendency to encourage a devout and hum-
ble temper. To these considerations we may
add that, from the mixed constitution of
man's nature and the intimate union which
subsists between his soul and body, the occa-
sional restraints, which the primitive Christ-
ians voluntarily imposed upon themselves in
respect of food and amusement, could scarcely
fail to have a beneficial operation upon their
character; were it only by interrupting for a
time their ordinary habits, and reminding them
that the objects of sense possessed neither the
sole, nor the principal, claim to their atten-
tion. A life of habitual indulgence, even
when that indulgence leads not to positive
excess, is favourable neither to intellectual nor
spiritual improvement. It enfeebles our men-
tal powers ; it deadens our moral perceptions :
it tends especially to render us selfish and
424
regardless of the wants and feelings of others.
But when experience also tells us that such
a course of life terminates almost invariably
in excess, no further argument can be want-
ing to prove the reasonableness and utility of
occasional abstinence — if used only as a means
to an end — to invigorate the moral principle
within us, and to promote humility of temper
and purity of heart. Unhappily, however, for
the Church, from the propensity of the human
mind to run into extremes — from an increas-
ing fondness for the tenets of the Platonic
philosophy — and an indiscriminate imitation of
what is recorded in Scripture of holy men,
who, being placed in extraordinary circum-
stances, were never designed to be held up
as examples, in all points of their conduct,
to ordinary Christians — from the combined
operation of all these causes; fasting, instead
of being considered as a salutary discipline,
or as a means to holiness, came to be re-
garded as holiness itself. The piety of men
was estimated by the frequency and severity
of their fasts. In proportion as they subjected
themselves to greater privations and hardships,
they acquired a higher reputation for sanctity.
A species of rivalry was thus excited; new
and strange methods were invented of mace-
rating and torturing their bodies ; till at length
425
extravagance in practice led to error in doc-
trine ; fasts and mortifications were regarded
as meritorious in themselves — as procuring by
their intrinsic efficacy remission of sin and
restoration to the favour of God.
To the same causes, which led men into
the errors now described respecting the merit
of fasting, may be traced the erroneous opi-
nions which were gradually introduced, re-
specting the superior sanctity of the monastic
and eremetical modes of life. No man, who
has reflected upon the constitution of his own
nature and believes that he is destined to
exist in a purer and more spiritual state, can
doubt the utility, or rather necessity, of oc-
casional retirement and seclusion ; for the
purposes of self-examination, and of securing
to reUgion that paramount influence over the
thoughts and affections, which is liable to be
weakened, or even destroyed, by a constant
intercourse with the world. Here then was
a reasonable motive to induce Christians,
wisely anxious for their own salvation, to
withdraw themselves, at stated intervals, from
worldly pleasures, and cares, and occupations.
The frequency with which those intervals
recurred would depend in each case upon
the temper of the individual. INIen of an
426
austere and unsocial, as well as those of an
enthusiastic character, would naturally run into
excess; and contend that, if occasional seclu-
sion was thus favourable to the growth of
religion in the soul, the benefits to be derived
from total seclusion must be proportionably
greater : — in a word, that the most effectual
mode of securing their virtue against the
temptations of the world was to quit it alto-
gether. The deference paid in the Church to
the authority of Plato contributed to give cur-
rency and weight to these opinions. One prin-
ciple of his philosophy was, that the visible
things around us are only the fleeting and fal-
lacious images of those eternal, immutable
ideas, which alone possess a real existence.
The business, therefore, of him, who wishes to
arrive at the knowledge of the truth, and to
elevate his nature to the perfection of which
it is capable, must be to abstract his mind
from his senses — entirely to exclude from his
observation those forms of perishable matter
which serve only to bewilder and lead him
astray — and to give himself up to the contem-
plation of the ideal world. These speculative
notions, originally derived from the Platonic
school, no sooner gained a footing in the
Church, than they were reduced to practice.
Men began to affect a life of solitude and
427
contemplation, and to deem all intercourse
with the world a positive hindrance to the
attainment of that spiritual elevation at which
the Christian ought to aim. Overlooking the
clear intimations supplied by the constitution
of their own nature, that man is designed for
society — overlooking the express declarations
of Scripture and the example of our Blessed
Lord, whose ministry was one continued course
of active benevolence — they took Elias and the
Baptist for their models ; without reflecting for
a moment either vipon the peculiar circum-
stances in which those holy men were placed,
or the peculiar objects which they were ap-
pointed to accomphsh. Thus while they passed
their hours in a state of indolent abstraction —
discharging no one social duty, and living as
if they were alone in the world — they succeed-
ed in persuading themselves and others that
they were treading the path which leads to
Christian perfection, and pursuing the course
most pleasing in the sight of God — that they
were the especial objects of his regard, were
holding habitual intercourse with him, and
enjoying a foretaste of that ineffable bliss
which would be their portion, when removed
from this world of sin and misery to his im-
mediate presence. Hence the stories of dreams
and visions, which occur so frequently in the
428
lives of the saints, and have been too hastily
stigmatised as the offspring of deliberate fraud :
whereas they were in most instances the cre-
ations of a distempered mind, cut off from the
active pursuits in which it was designed to be
engaged, and supplying their place by ima-
ginary scenes and objects. It forms no part
of our plan to enter into a minute detail of
the follies and extravagancies which were the
natural fruits of the eremitical and monastic
modes of life. Let it suffice to have pointed
out the sources from which they took their
rise; and to have exposed the mischievous
consequences of setting up any one mode of
life as pre-eminently pure and holy — as ren-
dering those who adopt it the peculiar favourites
of heaven.
To return to our author. In refuting
the calumnious accusations of the Pagans, he
speaks of the Agape, or feast of charity. " Its
^^ object," he says, "is evident from its name,
which signifies love. In these feasts, therefore,
we testify our love towards our poorer brethren,
by relieving their wants. We commence the
entertainment by offering up a prayer to God ;
and after eating and drinking in moderation,
we wash our hands, and lights being intro-
^* Apology, c. 39.
429
duced, each individual is invited to address
God in a Psalm, either taken from the Scrip-
tures or the produce of his own meditations.
The feast concludes, as it began, with prayer." ^
TertuUian does not expressly say, but it may
be fairly inferred, that the materials of the
***' feast were furnished out of the oblations made
at the Eucharist ; a portion of which appears
also to have been allotted to the support of
the ^^ martyrs in prison. When we read the
above description of the Agape, we cannot
but participate in the regret expressed by
^^ Dr. Hey, that scandal should have occasioned
the discontinuance of an entertainment, so en-
tirely consonant to the benevolent spirit of
the Gospel. If, however, we may believe Ter-
tuUian, the grossest abuses were introduced
into it even in his time : for we find him, ^^ in
the Tract de Jejuniis, charging the orthodox
with the very same licentious practices in their
feasts of charity, which the Pagans were in
the habit of imputing — and according to the
statement in the Apology, falsely imputing — to
the whole Christian body. On these contra-
^^ Imo et quae justa sunt caro non amittit per curam.
Ecclesiae, agapen fratrum. Ad Martyres, c. 2.
^ Book IV. Art. 28. Sect. 5.
^7 c. 17. Sed major his est agape, quia per hanc adoles-
centes tui cum sororibus dormiunt : appendices scilicet gulaa
lascivia atque luxuria. Compare the Apology;, cc 7, 8.
430
dictoiy assertions of our autJ )r, we may remark
that the truth probably lies between them.
Abuses did exist, but neither so numerous,
nor so flagrant, as the enemies of the Gospel,
and Tertullian himself, after he became a Mon-
tanist, alleged.
Tertullian speaks ^^both of public and pri-
vate vigils; and says that it was customary
for the Christian females to bring water to
wash the feet of the brethren, and to visit the
dweUings of the poor, for the purpose, it may
be presumed, of giving them instruction and
relieving their wants. The Romish comment-
ators have endeavoured to defend the rehgious
processions of their Church by the authority of
Tertullian; who uses the word ^^ Procedendum
in the passage from which the preceding re-
marks are taken. But if we compare it with
another passage in the ^° second Tract de Cultu
^ Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per noctem
adorandum sibi Deum esse. Apology, c. 3Q. Quis nocturnis
convocationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere suo adimi libenter
feret ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c 4. Quum etiam per noctem
exsurgis oratum, c. 5. Aquam sanctorum pedibus ofFerre,
c. 4. Quis autem sinat conjugera suam, visitandorum fratrum
gratis., vicatim aliena et quidem pauperiora quaeque tuguria
circumire ? Ibid.
^9 Si procedendum erit, &c.
'•^ c. 11. Ac si necessitas amicitiarum officiorumque gen-
tilium vos vocat, cur non vestris armis indutae proceditis .>*
See also c. 12.
431
Foeminarum, we shall find that the word pro-
cedere means "to go from home;" which,
" Tertullian observes, a Christian female ought
never to do, excepting for some religious or
charitable purpose.
We will now proceed to the rite of Bap-
tism; on which Tertullian wrote an express
Treatise, in confutation of a female, named
Quintilla, who denied its necessity, affirming
that faith alone was sufficient to salvation.
In that Treatise, as well as in other parts of
his works, he speaks in strong terms of the
efficacy of Baptism. "By ^"it," he says, "we
are cleansed from all our sins, and rendered
capable of attaining eternal life. By ^Mt we
regain that Spirit of God, which Adam re-
ceived at his creation, and lost by his trans-
gression." Tertullian ^'^ connects regeneration
^^ Vobis autem nulla procedendi causa non tetrica; aut
imbecillus aliquis ex fratribus visitatur, aut sacrificium ofFertur,
aut Dei verbum administratur, c. 11.
^^ See de Poenitentia, c. 6. De Baptismo, cc. 1. 7-
*^ De Baptismo, c. 5. sub fine- Recipit enim ilium Dei
Spiritum, quem tunc de afflatu ejus acceperat, sed post
amiserat per delictum. Tertullian usually speaks as if the
soul, that is, the vital and intellectual principles, had been
communicated when God breathed into the nostrils of Adam
the breath of life. Here he appears to confound the soul
and spirit. See Chap. III. p. I9I. Chap. V. note l69- Aqua
signat, Sancto Spiritu vestit. De Praescriptione Haereticorum,
c. S6.
^^ De Anima, c 41. See Chap. V. p. 327- De Kes. Carnis,
c, 47.
432
with it; calling it our second birth, in which
the soul is formed as it were anew by water
and the power from above — and the veil of
its former corruption being drawn aside, be-
holds the full refulgence of its native light.
In the ^^ first book against Marcion, he declares
the following spiritual blessings to be consequent
upon Baptism : — remission of sins — deliverance
from death — regeneration — and participation in
the Holy Spirit. He calls it the ^^ sacrament
of washing — the ^^ blessed sacrament of water —
^^ the laver of regeneration — the ^^ sacrament of
faith, the ^° sign or seal of our faith J^ There is
an apparent inconsistency in his accounts of the
mode in which the spiritual benefits of Bap-
c. 47. De PudicitiA, cc. 6. 9- We find in the Tract de Carne
Christi, c. 4. the expression Ccelestis Rege?ieratio, and in the
Scorpiace, c 6. " Secunda Regeneratio ;" but in both cases the
allusion seems to be to the change in the body of man,
which will take place when it puts on incorruption and
immortality.
^^ c. 28.
^ Eadem lavacri Sacramenta. De Virginibus velandis,
c. 2. See Chap. V. p. 357.
^7 Felix Sacramentum aquae nostrae. De Baptismo, sub
initio.
^ Per lavacrum regenerationis. De Pudicitia, c 1.
^^ Sine Fidei Sacramento. De Anima, c 1.
"^^ In signaculo Fidei. De Spectaculis, c 24. Signaculi
nostri, c. 4. Speaking of circumcision, Tertullian uses the
expression Signaculum corporis. Apology, c. 21.
7' In the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 10. Tertullian calls the
Baptism of John, the washing of repentance.
433
tism are conferred. At one time, he "'speaks
as if the sanctification of the water used in
Baptism was effected by the immediate agency
of the Holy Spirit, who descended upon it
as soon as the prayer of invocation had been
addressed to God. At another time, he '^sup-
poses the effect to be produced through the
ministry of an angel, whom he terms Angelus
Baptismi At'biler. To this angel, who, accord-
ing to him, is the precursor of the Holy Spirit,
as the Baptist was of Christ, belongs the espe-
cial office of preparing the soul of man for
the reception of the Holy Spirit in Baptism.
We call the inconsistency of these^ two state-
ments only an apparent inconsistency; because,
occurring as they do not only in the same
Tract, but even in the same chapter, our au-
thor could scarcely have deemed them incon-
^^ Igitur omnes aquae de pristina originis praerogativd
Sacramentum sanctificationis consequuntur, invocato Deo.
Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de coelis, et aquis superest,
sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vim sancti-
ficandi combibunt. De Baptismo, c 4. quoted in Chap. V.
note 235. See also c. 8.
^^ Igitur medicatis quodammodo aquis per Angeli inter-
ventum, et Spiritus in aquis corporaliter diluitur, et caro
in iisdem spiritaliter mundatur, c. 4. Again in c. 6. Non
quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequimur, sed in aqua
emundati sub Angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur. Hie
quoque figura praecessit. Sic enim loannes ante praecursor
Domini fuit, praeparans vias ejus; ita et Angelus Baptismi
arbiter superventuro Spiritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione
delictorum. See Chap. III. p. 219.
Ee
434
sistent. The latter statement is evidently
founded "^^on the narrative in St. John's Gos-
pel, respecting the angel who imparted a heal-
ing efficacy to the waters of the pool of
Bethesda.
In the '^^ Tract de Corona Militis, Tertullian
gives a summary account of the forms used
in administering the rite of Baptism. The can-
didate, having been prepared for its due re-
ception "^^by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils,
professed, "^^in the presence of the congrega-
tion and under ^Hhe hand of the president,
"^^that he renounced the devil, his pomp, and
angels. He was then plunged into the water
^^ three times, in allusion to the Three Persons
of the Holy Trinity ; *^ making certain responses
which, like the other forms here mentioned,
74 C. 5. 75 c. 3.
7<* De Baptismo, c 20.
77 The expression is in Ecclesid, wliich Bingham trans-
lates in the Church. The translation may be correct; for
in the same Tracts c. 13. the word Ecclesia seems to mean
the place of assembly. Et ipsum curiae nomen Ecclesia est
Christi.
78 Sub Antistitis manu.
79 Compare de Spectaculis^ c. 4. De Idololatria, c. 6.
De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 2.
^^ Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in per-
sonas singulas tingimur. Adv. Praxeamj c. 26.
^^ In aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus. De
Baptismo, c. 2.
435
were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested
on custom and tradition. He then tasted a
mixture of milk and *^^ honey — was ^^ anointed
with oil, in allusion to the practice, under the
Mosaic dispensation, of anointing those who
were appointed to the priesthood, since all
Christians are in a certain sense supposed to
be priests — and ***was signed with the sign of
the cross. Lastly "^ followed the imposition of
hands; the origin of which ceremony is re-
ferred by our author to the benediction pro-
nounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph.
With us the imposition of hands is deferred
till the child is brought to be confirmed; but
in Tertullian's time, when a large proportion
of the persons baptised were adults. Confir-
mation immediately followed the administra-
tion of Baptism, and formed a part of the cere-
mony. It was usual ^^for the baptised person
to abstain, during the week subsequent to his
reception of the rite, from his daily ablutions.
Some **^also contended that Baptism ought to
^^ Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14.
^ De Baptismo, c. 7- De Res. Carnis, c. 26.
^* De Res. Carnis, c. 8.
^ De Baptismo, c. 8. De Res. Carnis, c. 8.
^'^ De Corona, c. 3.
^ De Baptismo, c 20. But compare de Jejuniis, c 8.
Ipse mox Dominus baptisma suum, et in suo omnium jejuniis
dedicavit. This variation of opinion affords an additional
presumption that the Tract de Baptismo was written before
Tertullian became a Montanist.
E E 2
436
be followed by fasting; because our Lord im-
mediately after his Baptism fasted forty days
and forty nights. But our author replies that
Baptism is in fact an occasion of joy, inas-
much as it opens to us the door of salvation.
Christ's conduct in this instance was not de-
signed to be an example for our imitation, as
it had a particular reference to certain events
which took place under the Mosaic dispen-
sation. In commenting upon the parable of
the prodigal son, ^^Tertullian calls the ring
which the Father directed to be put upon his
hand, the seal of Baptism ; by which the
Christian, when interrogated, seals the cove-
nant of his faith. The natural inference from
these words appears to be that a ring used to
be given in Baptism : but I have found no
other trace of such a custom,
Tertullian ^^ alludes to the custom of having
sponsors ; who made, in the name of the child-
ren brought to the font, those promises which
they were unable to make for themselves.
From the passages already referred to, and
^ Annulum denuo signaculum lavacri. De Pudicitia, c. Q.
Annulum quoque accepit tunc primum, quo fidei pactionem
interrogatus obsignat. Ibid.
^'* Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ?
De Baptismo, c 18. See also, c. 6.
437
^"frorn others scattered through Tertullian's
works, it is evident that in his day Baptism
was administered in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost ; and that ^^ the candidate
professed his belief in the Three Persons of the
Trinity, who were at once the witnesses of
his profession and the sponsors for his salva-
tion. We will take this opportunity of ob-
serving that, whatever might be the case with
the Montanists in after times, the writings of
Tertullian afford no ground for supposing that
the founder of the sect introduced a new form
of Baptism.
After enforcing the necessity of Baptism
by water, and describing and explaining the
forms observed in the administration of the
rite, Tertullian proceeds, in the remaining chap-
ters of the Tract de Baptismo, to discuss some
other points connected with tlie subject. He
^^ first considers the question proposed by Christ
to the Pharisees — "The Baptism of John, was
it from heaven or of men?" To this Ter-
tullian replies, that it was of divine command-
ment, because John was sent by God to
baptise. So far it was from heaven. But
^ De Baptismo, c. 13.
^' De Baptismo, c 6".
^^ c. 10. Matth. xxi. 25.
438
it conveyed no heavenly gift : it conferred
neither the remission of sins nor the Holy
Spirit. ^^ John's was the Baptism of repentance ;
designed to fit men for the reception of that
Baptism, by which, through the efficacy of the
death and resurrection of Christ, they obtain
the remission of sins and the sanctifying in-
fluences of the Spirit. ^* Until the descent of
the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the
disciples of Christ baptised only with the Bap-
tism of John ; th^t is, unto repentance. ^^ Ter-
tullian's interpretation of the words — " He shall
baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire" — is, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost
applies to those whose faith is sincere and
stedfast : — the Baptism with fire to those whose
faith is feigned and unstable ; and who are
therefore baptised, not to salvation, but to
judgement. Our ^^ author supposes the Bap-
tist's message to Christ to have originated in
the failure of his faith, occasioned by the
^ On the object of John's mission, see adv. Marcionem,
L. iv. c. 33. L. V. c. 2.
9* C. 11.
^ c. 10. sub fine. Some in Tertullian's day appear to
have contended that there was a contradiction between the
Baptist's prediction that Christ would baptise^, and St. John's
declaration (iv. 2.) that he did not baptise, c. 11.
"^ c. 10. Matth. xi. Compare de Oratione, c 1. Adv.
Marcionem, L. iv, c. 18. John iii. 30.
439
transfer of the Spirit from him to Christ: —
a notion founded on John's declaration — "He
must increase, and I must decrease."
In ^'the passage just aUuded to, Tertullian
does not merely assert that the disciples of
Christ baptised with the Baptism of John, but
assigns his reasons for making the assertion.
His words are — Itaque tingebant Discipuli
ejus (Christi) ut ministri, ut loannes ante pr^e-
cursor, eodem baptismo loannis, ne qui alio
putet, quia nee extat alius nisi postea Christi,
qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat,
utpote nondum adimpleta gloria Domini, nee
instructa efficacia lavacri per passionem et re-
surrectionem. From these words we may fairly
infer, that Tertullian knew no Baptisms con-
nected with the divine dispensations, besides
those of John and Christ. Yet Wall, in the
Introduction to his History of Infant Baptism,
has quoted a passage from this very Tract, to
prove that our author was acquainted with the
Jewish Baptism of proselytes. The passage is
in the fifth chapter — Sed enim nationes, extra-
neae ab omni intellectu Spiritalium, Potestatem
eadem efficacia suis idolis subministrant, sed
viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris
quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis ali-
97 C. 11.
440
cujus, aut Mithrse — certe ludis Apollinaribus et
Eleusiniis tinguntur. Idque se in regenera-
tionem et impunitatem perjuriorum suorum
agere prsesumunt — quo agnito, hie quoqiie stu-
dium Diaboli eognoseimus res Dei semulantis,
quum et ipse baptism um in suis exereet. On
this passage, Wall makes the following remark.
" Now the divine baptism, which he says the
devil imitated, must be the Jewish baptism.
For the rites of Apollo and Ceres, in which
he there instances as those in which the said
baptism was used, were long before the times
of the Christian baptism." This, however, is
by no means a necessary inference. ^^ In de-
scribing the notions entertained by TertuUian
respecting the nature of daemons, we men-
tioned that their chief employment and pleasure
was to prevent mankind from embracing the
worship of the true God ; and that they were
assisted in the attainment of this object by
the partial knowledge which they had acquired,
during their abode in heaven, of the natvire
of the divine dispensations. Availing them-
selves of this knowledge, they endeavoured to
pre-occupy the minds of men by inventing
rites, bearing some resemblance to those which
were to be observed under the gospel. Thus,
by their suggestion, Baptism was introduced
"" Chap. III. p, 218.
441
into the Eleusinian mysteries, as a mode of
initiation ; being, if I may vise the expression,
an imitation by anticipation of Christian Bap-
tism.
That this is a correct exposition of our
author's meaning, will be evident from a com-
parison of the different passages in which he
alludes to the subject. The reader will find
some of them quoted at length in ^^ Chapter III. ;
and reference made to a passage in the Tract
^"° de Prsescriptione Hasreticorum, which is as
follows — Tingit et ipse (Diabolus) quosdam,
utique credentes et fideles suos : expositionem
dehctorum de lavacro repromittit: et si adhuc
memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites
suos ; celebrat et panis oblationem, et imaginem
resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coro-
nam. Here we find that not merely Baptism,
but also the custom of marking the forehead
with the sign of the cross, and the consecration
of the bread in the Eucharist, were imitated
in the mysteries of INIithra. Are we, there-
fore, to conclude that the latter were also
Jewish customs ? I am aware that there are
99 Note 90.
^^ c. 40. See also the instances mentioned in the Tract
de Spectaculis, c 23, one of which is refeiTed to in Chap. V.
p. 385.
442
writers who answer this question in the affirm-
ative; and among them Bishop Hooper in his
Discourse on Lent, Part II. c. 3. Sect. 1. c. 6.
Sect. 5. But I must confess that the learned
Prelate's arguments appear to me only to
prove that, when an author has once taken
up an hypothesis, he will never be at a loss
for reasons wherewith to defend it. Wall's
conclusion is founded entirely on the assump-
tion that the imitation of divine rites, which
Tertullian ascribed to the devil, was neces-
sarily an imitation of rites actually instituted ;
whereas he held that its very purpose was
to anticipate their institution. This is not
the proper place for enquiring whether Bap-
tism was practised by the Jews before our
Saviour's advent as an initiatory rite, or only
as a mode of purification. Be this as it may,
Tertullian's express declaration, that besides the
Baptisms of Christ and John there was no
other Baptism, renders him but an indifferent
voucher for its use among the Jews, as an
initiatory rite.
To proceed with the Tract de Baptismo.
The ^^^ next question discussed by our author
is, whether the Apostles were baptised: and
if not, whether they could be saved ; since
1"! c. 12. See Chap. I. note 174.
443
our Saviour declared to Nicodemus that, " unless
a man is born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God" —
a passage which the ancients uniformly inter-
preted of Baptism. Tertullian admits that
St. Paul is the only Apostle of whom it is
expressly recorded, that he was baptised in the
Lord — that is, with Christian Baptism. He
shews it, however, to be highly probable that
the Apostles had received John's Baptism;
which, as the Baptism of Christ was not then
instituted, would be sufficient : our Lord him-
self having said to Peter, ^°" " He that is once
washed, needs not to be washed again." — "But
if," Tertullian continues, " we should admit
that the Apostles were never baptised, theirs
was an extraordinary case, and formed an ex-
ception to the general rule respecting the
necessity of Baptism." It is amusing to ob-
serve how greatly the ancients were perplexed
with this difficulty ; and to what expedients
they had recourse in order to get rid of it.
They argued, for instance, that Peter was bap-
tised, when he attempted to walk upon the
sea; and the other Apostles, when the waves
broke over the vessel in the storm on the lake
of Gennesareth.
'"^ John xiii. 10. The verse is quoted inaccurately.
444
They ^°^who denied the necessity of Bap-
tism, alleged the example of Abraham, who
pleased God by faith alone without Baptism.
" True," replies TertuUian ; " but, as since the
promulgation of the Gospel additional objects
of faith, the birth, death, and resurrection of
Christ, have been proposed to mankind, so also
a new condition of salvation has been intro-
duced, and faith will not now avail without
Baptism." He confirms his argument by a
reference to our Saviour's injunction to the
Apostles, "Go and teach all nations, baptising
them in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost ;" and to his favourite passage, the
declaration to Nicodemus.
Another ^°^ argument against the necessity
of Baptism was founded on the statement of
St. Paul in '°'the first Epistle to the Corinth-
ians, that " he was sent to preach, not to bap-
tise." Our author justly remarks, that these
words must be vmderstood with reference to
the disputes then prevailing at Corinth ; not
as meant positively to declare that it was no
part of an Apostle's office to baptise. St. Paul
had himself baptised Gains, and Crispus, and
the houshold of Stephanas.
if^ c, 13. '"*' c. 14. ^f"* c. 1. V. 17-
445
With respect to the propriety of rebap-
tising, Tertullian ^^^ says explicitly that Baptism
ought not to be repeated; but he considered
Heretical Baptism as utterly null. " As Here-
tics," he argues, " have neither the same God
nor the same Christ with us, so neither have
they the same Baptism. Since, therefore, they
never were baptised, they must be cleansed
by Baptism, before they are admitted into the
Church." We should, ^°^as has been already
observed, bear in mind that the Heretics, with
whom Tertullian had principally to contend,
were those who affirmed that the Creator of
the world was not the Supreme God.
We ^"Miave already seen that Tertullian
calls martyrdom a second baptism. He says
that martyrdom will both ^"^ supply the want
^^ c. 15. Haeretici autem nullum habent consortium
nostrae disciplinae, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa
ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis agnoscere
quod mihi est praeceptum, quia nee idem Deus est nobis
et illis, nee unus Christus, id est idem. See also de Pudi-
citia, c 19- Unde et apud nos, ut Ethnico par^ immo et
super Ethnicum, Haereticus etiam per baptisma veritatis
utroque horaine purgatus admittitur. But when the Tract
de PudicitiA was written, Tertullian had seceded openly
from the Church.
i«7 See Chap. V. notes 239, 240.
108 c. 16. See Chap. II. note 95.
^^ Hie est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum
repraesentat, et perditu.m reddit. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 13.
Quae exinde jam perierat baptismate amisso.
446
of Baptism by water, and restore it to those
who have lost it by transgression.
In our remarks upon the twenty-third Arti-
cle of the Church, we alluded to a ^^° passage
in the Tract de Baptismo, in which TertuUian
ascribes to the laity an inherent right to ad-
minister Baptism. We should now deem it
sufficient to refer the reader to what we have
there said, had we not observed that the pas-
sage has been mistranslated by Dr. Waterland,
"Mn his second Letter to Mr. Kelsall on Lay
Baptism. The passage is as follows — Dandi
quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est
Episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non
tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesite
honorem, quo salvo salva pax est. Alioquin
etiam laicis jus est ; quod enim ex aequo acci-
pitur, ex aequo dari potest ; nisi Episcopi jam,
aut presbyteri, aut diaconi "" vocantur discentes.
Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo ;
proinde baptismus, £eque Dei census, ab om-
nibus exerceri potest. Of this passage Dr.
Waterland gives the following translation.
"The Chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has
"0 c. 17. Chap. V. p. 353.
"1 Waterland's Works, Vol. X. p. 108.
"2 We believe the true reading to be vocarentur discentes.
Some editions have vocantur dicentes, which reading Water-
land follows.
447
power to give (baptism), and next to him the
Priests and Deacons (but not without the au-
thority of the Bishop) because of their honour-
able i^ost in the Church, in preservation of
which peace is preserved; otherwise even lay-
men have a right to give it; for what is re-
ceived in common, may be given in common.
Except then that either bishops, or presbyters,
or deacons intervene, the ordinary Christians
are called to it." Dr. Waterland subjoins the
following observation — " I have thrown in two
or three words in the translation, to clear the
sense of this passage; I have chiefly followed
Mr.. Bennet, ^^^both as to the sense and to
the pointing of them, and refer you to him
for their vindication." To us, however, it ap-
pears certain that both Dr. Waterland and
Mr. Bennet have mistaken the meaning of the
passage ; which is — " the Chief Priest, that is
the Bishop, possesses the right of conferring
Baptism. After him the Priests and Deacons,
but not without his authority, out of regard
to the honour {or dignity) of the Church, on
the preservation of which depends the preser-
vation of peace. Otherwise the Laity possess
the right : for that which all equally receive,
all may equally confer ; unless Bishops, or
"^ Rights of the Clergy, p. 118. Mr. Bennet does not
quote the latter part of the passage.
448
Priests, or Deacons, were alone designated by
the word Discentes, i. e. '^* Disciples. The
word of God ought not to be concealed by
any ; Baptism, therefore, which equally (with
the word) proceeds from God, may be admi-
nistered by all." — Our author then goes on to
say that, although the Laity possess the right,
yet as modesty and humility are peculiarly
becoming in them, they ought only to exer-
cise it in cases of necessity, when the eternal
salvation of a fellow-creature is at stake. He
does not, however, extend the right to women ;
oh ^^^the contrary he stigmatises the attempt
on their part to baptise, as a most flagrant
act of presumption. In the passage just cited,
Tertullian rests the right of the Laity to ad-
minister Baptism on the assumption, that a
man has the power of conferring upon another
whatever he has himself received, and on the
comprehensive meaning of the word Disciples
in John iv. 2. On "^ other occasions, as we
have seen, he rests it on the ground that all
^^^ The allusion is to John iv. 2. Though Jesus himself
baptised not, but his disciples. Tertullian frequently uses the
word discentes in this sense. Thus in c. 11. Qui tunc utique
a discentibus dari non poterat. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 22.
Tres de discetitibus arbitros futurae visionis, et vocis assumit.
See de Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 3. 20. 22. 30. 44.
"' Compare de Praescriptione Haereticorum^ c. 41.
"6 Chap. IV. note 6.
449
Christians are in fact Priests. It is not easy
to determine which of the three arguments is
the least conclusive.
The "^ next question discussed by Tertul-
lian, relates to the persons who may receive
the rite of Baptism. He says that it must
not be hastily conferred ; and recommends delay
in the case, not only of infants, but also of
unmarried persons and widows, whom he con-
siders peculiarly exposed to temptation. What
he says with respect to the Baptism of infants
has been already noticed in ^^*our remarks
on the ninth Article of the Church : we then
observed that the recommendation of delay
in their case was inconsistent with the con-
viction, which he manifests on other occasions,
of the absolute necessity of Baptism to re-
lieve mankind from the injurious conse-
quences of Adam's fall. In the "^ Treatise de
Anima, alluding to what St. Paul says respect-
ing the holiness of children either of whose
parents is a Christian, he supposes the Apo-
stle to affirm that the children of believing
parents are by the very circumstances of their
birth marked out to holiness, and, therefore,
"7 c. 18. 118 Chap. V. p. 329-
"^ c. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Compare Hooker's Ecclesiastical
Polity, Book V. c. 60.
Ff
450
to salvation. "But," he continues, "the Apo-
stle had a particular object in view when he
made the assertion; he wished to prevent the
dissolution of marriage in cases in which one
of the parties was a heathen. Otherwise, he
would have borne in mind our Lord's decla-
ration that, unless a man is horn of water and
the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the kingdom of
heaven, that is, cannot be holy. So that every
soul is numbered in Adam, until it is num-
bered anew in Christ; being, until it is thus
numbered anew, unclean, and consequently sin-
ful." It is scarcely possible to conceive words
more strongly declaratory of the universality
of original sin, or of the necessity of bringing
the children of believing parents to the bap-
tismal font, in order that they may become
partakers of the holiness for which they are
designed at their birth. ^-° Some have sup-
posed that Tertullian was led to contend for
the expediency of delaying Baptism, in con-
sequence of the opinion, which he entertained,
concerning the irremissible character of heinous
sins committed after Baptism; and the passage
in the Tract de Baptismo on which we have
been remarking, favours the supposition. But
not to detain the reader longer with the
consideration of an inconsistency for which we
^-o Hey's Lectures, Book IV. Article 27- Sect. 14.
451
do not undertake to account, we will only add
that the anti-peedobaptists lay great stress upon
this passage: although, as Wall, who has gone
into a detailed examination of it, justly ob-
serves, the fair inference from it is that, what-
ever might be Tertullian's individual opinion,
the general practice of the Church was to bap-
tise infants.
With ^"' respect to the season when Baptism
might be administered, TertuUian remarks that
every day and every hour are alike suited to
the performance of so holy a rite. He spe-
cifies, however, the interval between Good
Friday and Whit-Sunday as peculiarly appro-
priate ; because in that interval the passion,
resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well
as the descent of the Holy Ghost, took place
and were commemorated.
We now proceed to the other Sacrament
of our Church, which is called by TertuUian
^^^ Eucharistia, ^"^ Eucharistise Sacramentum, .
^'* Convivium Dominicum, '"^ Convivium Dei,
121 c. 19.
1^ De Praescriptione Haereticorura, c 36. Eucharistia
pascit.
1^^ De Corona, c. 3. referred to in Chap. V. note 234.
1^* Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4.
12^ Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9. In convivio Dei : but Semler
reads in connubio Dei.
F F 2
452
^^^Panis et Calicis Sacramentum. The term
^^' sacrificium is also applied to the Eucharist ;
but in the same general manner in which it
is applied to other parts of divine worship,
and to other modes of conciliating the divine
favour; as to ^ -Sprayer, or fasting, or bodily
mortifications. Tertullian ^^''says that the Eu-
charist, which was instituted by our blessed
Lord during a meal — the institution being
accompanied by a command which applied
generally to all present — was in his own day
celebrated in the assemblies which were held
before day-break; and received only at the
hands of the Presidents. He notices also the
extreme solicitude of the Christians to prevent
any part of the bread and wine from falling
to the ground; and speaks of the communi-
cants as standing ^^'^at the altar of God, when
126 Proinde panis et calicis sacramento, jam in Evangelic
probavimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem, ad-
versus phantasma Marcionis. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8.
This title ought to have been added to those mentioned in
our remarks on the twenty-fifth Article of the Church.
Chap. V. p. 357.
^^ See the Tract de Oratione, c. 14. De Cultu Foemi-
narum, L. ii. c. 11.
i2« Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1. De Res. Carnis;, c. 8.
^^^ De Corona, c. 3. Eucharistise sacramentum, et in
tempore victus et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam ante
lucanis ccEtibus, nee de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium
sumimus. — Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in
terram anxie patimur.
^^ Nonne solennior erit static tua, si et ad aram Dei
steteris .''
453
they received the sacrament. It may, however,
be doubted whether the expression is to be
understood literally ; or whether we are war-
ranted in inferring from it that altars had at
that early period been generally introduced into
the places of religious assembly. The kiss of
peace appears to have been constantly given
at the celebration of the Eucharist. Our author
calls it ^^^ signaculum orationis ; — an expression
from which ^^' Bingham infers that, in that age
of the Church, it was given after the prayers
of consecration ; but there appears to be no
sufficient reason for understanding the word
orationis in that restricted sense. We are
rather disposed to infer ^^^that, at the conclu-
sion of all their meetings for the purposes of
devotion, the early Christians were accustomed
to give the kiss of peace, in token of the
brotherly love subsisting amongst them.
The Roman Catholic commentators on
steteris ? De Oratione, c 14. Bingham (Book viii. c. 6.
Sect. 12.) refers to a passage in the first Tract ad Uxorem,
c. ?• Aram enim Dei mundam proponi oportet : but it is
evidently nothing to the purpose. He refers also to the
Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10. Quomodo audebit
orationem ducere ad altare? but the reading ad altare is
only a conjecture of Rigault.
^^^ De Oratione, c. 14.
^32 Book XV. c. 3. Sect. 3.
^^ See ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4, quoted in note 1 1 of this
Chapter.
454
Tertullian are naturally desirous to allege his
authority in support of the doctrine of Tran-
substantiation. When, however, the different
passages in which he speaks of the body and
blood of Christ are compared together, it will
be evident that he never thought of any cor-
poreal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He
speaks, ^^* indeed, " of feeding on the fatness of
the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist ;"
and " of our flesh ^^^ feeding on the body and
blood of Christ, in order that our soul may
be fattened of God." These, it must be al-
lowed, are strong expressions ; but when com-
pared with other passages in his writings,
they will manifestly appear to have been
used in a figurative sense. Thus, ^^^in com-
menting upon the clause in the Lord's
Prayer, ' Give us this day our daily hread^
^** Atque ita exinde opimitate Dominici corporis vescitur,
Eucharistia scilicet. De Pudicitia, c. 9- where the words
Eticharistid scilicet, bear the appearance of a gloss. See also
adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7- Adv. Juda?os, c. 14. Dominic£e
gratiae quasi viscei'atione quadam fruerentur.
'"^ Caro corpora et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima
de Deo saginetur. De Res. Carnis, c. 8.
^^ Quanquam pa?ie??i nostrum qiiotidianum da nobis hodie
spiritaliter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster
est, quia vita Christus, et vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis
vita;. Et paulo supra : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit
de cceUs. (The words are not accurately quoted.) Turn
quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur. Hoc est corpus meum.
De Oratione, c. 6. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 37-
455
he says that we shovild understand it spiritu-
ally. "Christ is our bread: for Christ is life,
and bread is life. Christ said, / am the hread
of life ; and a little before. The word of the
living God which descended from heaven^ that
is bread. Moreover his body is reckoned (or
supposed) to be in the bread, in the words
This is my hodyT It is evident, from the whole
tenor of the passage, that Tertullian affixed
a figurative interpretation to the words. This
is my body. In other places, he expressly calls
the bread the ^"^ reiwesentation of the body of
Christ ; and the wine, of his blood.
There is one passage, from which Pamelius
has so strangely contrived to extract an argu-
ment in favour of transubstantiation, that we
cannot forbear referring the reader to it. It is
^^^ in the Treatise against Praxeas, where Tertul-
^"^^ Nee panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reproesentat. Adv.
Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. Panem corpus suum appellans, ut
et hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui Jlguram pani dedisse.
L. iii. c. 19- Adv. Judaeos, c. 10. Acceptum panem et dis-
tributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus
meum dicendo, id est Jigura corporis mei — ut autem et san-
guinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Esaias.
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 40. See also ad Uxorem, L. ii.
c. 5. De Anima, c. 17- Alium postea vini saporem, quod
in sanguinis sui raemoriam consecravit.
^^ Igitur sermo in came, dum et de hoc quaerendum,
quomodo sermo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi transfiguratus
in carne, an indutus carnem? imo indutus. Caeterum Deum
immutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut aeternum.
Transfiguratio
456
lian is enquiring — " How the Word was made
flesh? was he transfigured into flesh, or did he
put on flesh ?"~" Surely, he put it on," is Ter-
tulhan's answer, " for as God is eternal, we must
also believe that he is immutable, and inca-
pable of being formed (into another substance).
But transfiguration is a destruction of that
which before existed: whatever is transfigured
into another thing, ceases to be what it was,
and begins to be what it was not." This pas-
sage, says Pamelius, makes for transubstanti-
ation. By what process of reasoning he arrived
at this conclusion, we are utterly at a loss to
conceive. TertuUian evidently means to say
that if the Word had been transfigured into
flesh, either the divine nature would have been
entirely destroyed, and the human alone would
have remained — or a third ^^^ nature have arisen
from the mixture of the former two, as the
substance called electrum from the mixture
Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini. Omne enim
quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat,
et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus autem neque desinit esse,
neque aliud potest esse, &c. c 27- The remark of Pamelius
is, Eacit hie locus pro transubstantione, quam Catholici in
Sacramento Eucharistiae adserunt.
139 Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione sub-
stantice caro factus est; una jam erat substantia lesus ex
duabus, ex carne et Spiritu, mixtura qua^dam, ut electrum
ex auro et argento; et incipit nee aurum esse, id est,
Spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro; dum alterum altero
mutatur, et tertium quid efficiturj c 27-
457
of gold and silver. In either case the sub-
stance, which is transfigured, disappears; and
that, into which it is transfigured, is alone
cognizable by the senses. Whereas according
to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread,
the substance which is changed, remains
in appearance, while that into which it is
changed, the body of Christ, is not seen. —
Pamelius takes another opportunity of en-
forcing the doctrine of transubstantiation, in
commenting on a passage in "''the first Book
against Marcion, from which an inference di-
rectly opposed to it, may be fairly drawn. —
From what has been already said, it is evident
that the Roman Catholic custom, of with-
holding the cup from the Laity, was unknown
to Tertullian; and that both the bread and
the wine were, in his day, alike offered to the
communicants."^
1*^ Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua
alii Deo tingitur, ad alienum ccfilum alii Deo expanditur,
in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii
Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium
Deum nomine eleemosynas et dilectionis operatur, c. 23.
sub fine. Tertullian is here contending that, if the doctrine
of the Marcionites was true — that the supreme God who
sent Christ was not the God who created the world — then
it would follow that he had most unjustly appropriated to
his own uses the works and productions of another.
^" A reference should here have been made to the practice
of reserving a portion of the consecrated bread, and eating
it at home before every other nourishment. Accepto cor-
pora
458
One other rite of the Church still remains
to be considered — that of Marriage. ^*^ Bingham
infers, apparently with justice, from a passage
in ^*^ the Tract de Monogamia, that the parties
were bound in the first instance to make known
their intentions to the Church and obtain the
permission of the Ecclesiastical Orders. They
were also bound to "* obtain the consent of
their parents. "^ Parties marrying clandestinely
ran the hazard of being regarded in the light
of adulterers or fornicators. That marriage
pore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est. De Ox'atione,
c. 14. Non sciet maritus quid secrete ante omnem cibum
gustas : et si sciverit panem, non ilium credit esse qui dicitur.
Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. See Bingham, L. xv. c. 4. Sect. 13.
This practice, having given occasion to abuses, was forbidden.
See the sixth Rubric after the Communion Service.
^*2 Book xxii. c. 2. Sect. 2.
^^ c. 11. Qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod iis
a quibus postulas non licet habere — ab Episcopo monogamo,
a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis quarum
sectam in te recusasti? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et
uxores, quomodo buccellas (Hoc enim est apud illos, Omni
petenti te dabis,) et conjungent vos in Ecclesia Virgine, unius
Christi unica sponsa.
^** Nam nee in terris filii sine consensu patrum rite et
jure nubunt. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9.
^*^ Ideo penes nos occultae quoque conjunctiones, id est
non prius apud ecclesiam professae, juxta moechiam et for-
nicationem judicari periclitantur. De Pudicitia, c. 4. He
applies a similar title to marriages contracted by Christians
with Heathens. Haec quum ita sint, fideles gentilium matri-
monia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni
communicatione fraternitatis. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. quoted
in Chapter V. note 319-
459
was esteemed by the Christians a strictly re-
ligious contract, is evident from a passage "^ in
the second Tract ad Uxorem ; in which Ter-
tuUian expresses his inability to describe the
happiness of that marriage, which is cemented
by the Church, is confirmed by prayers and
oblations, is sealed by a blessing, is announced
by angels, and ratified by the Father in heaven.
He mentions ^^^also the custom of putting a
ring on the finger of the female, as a part
of the rites, not of marriage, but of espovisal,
intended as an earnest of the future marriage.
He speaks of it as observed by the heathens,
but in terms which imply that he deemed it
perfectly innocent. In the "^ Tract de Virgi-
nibus velandis, the kiss and the joining of
hands are noticed as parts of the ceremony.
Tertullian, as we have seen, "^states that
^*^ See Chapter V. p. 401. Unde sufficiamus ad enarran-
dam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliate et
confirmat oblatio, et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant.
Pater rato habet? c. 9. The words ecclesia conciliat may
either mean, " when both the parties are Christians/' or
"when the sanction of the Church has been regularly ob-
tained," or may embrace both meanings.
^•^-^ Quum aurum nulla norat praeter unico digito, quem
sponsus oppignerasset pronubo annulo. Apology, c 6. See
also de Idololatria, c. I6.
^*^ Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, quia et cor-
pore et spiritu masculo mixta? sunt, per osculum et dex-
teras, &c. c. 11.
^*^ Ad Scapulam, c. 4, referred to in Chap. I. p. 35.
p-ry^ti
460
a Christian, named Proculus, cured the Empe-
ror Severus of a disorder, by anointing him
with oil. It may be doubted whether we
ought to infer from this statement that a
practice then subsisted in the Church, of anoint-
ing sick persons with oil, founded on the in-
junction in the Epistle of St. James. This,
however, is certain, that the practice, if it sub-
sisted, was directly opposed to the Romish
Sacrament of extreme Unction; which is ad-
ministered, not with a view to the recovery
of the patient, but when his case is hopeless.
We have had frequent occasion to allude
to a passage in ^^" the Tract de Corona, in which
Tertullian mentions a variety of customs, resting
solely on the authority of tradition. Among
them is the practice of making the sign of
the cross upon the forehead, which was most
scrupulously observed by the primitive Christ-
ians:— they ventured not to perform the most
trivial act, not even to put on their shoes,
until they had thus testified their entire reliance
upon the cross of Christ. The ^^^ Pagans ap-
pear to have regarded this practice with sus-
picion, as a species of magical superstition.
^^^ c. 3. See the Scorpiace, c. 1. quoted in Chapter II.
note 8. ; where the practice is described as a protection or
remedy against the bite of poisonous animals.
^^^ Ad Uxorem^ L. ii. c 5.
461
In ^^^our remarks upon the testimony af-
forded by our author's writings to the exist-
ence of miraculous powers in the Church, we
said that the only power, of the exercise of
which specific instances are alleged, was that
of exorcising evil spirits. ^^^This power, ac-
cording to him, was not confined to the Clergy
or to any particular order of men, but was
possessed by all Christians in common. Ter-
tullian mentions also the practice ^^*of exsuf-
flation, or of blowing away any smoke or
savour which might arise from the victims on
the altar, &c. in order to escape the pollution
of idolatry.
We will conclude our observations on this
branch of the Internal History of the Church,
by referring the reader to a passage, in which
there is an allusion to ^^Hhe custom of pub-
licly announcing the third, sixth, and ninth
hours.
152 Chap. II. p. 102.
1'^ Apology, cc. 23. 37' 43. De Anima, c. 5?. De Spec-
taculis, c. 26. De Idololatria, ell. De Corona, c. 11. De
Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10.
^^* De Idololatria, c. 11. Quo ore Christanus thurarius, si
per templa transibit, spumantes aras despuet, et exsufflabit,
quibus ipse prospexit .'' Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c 5. Quum aliquid
immundum flantis explodis.
^^5 De Jejuniis, c 10.
CHAP. VII.
Concerning the Heresies and Divisions
WHICH TROUBLED THE ChURCH.
We now come to the last, and unhappily not
the least extensive, of the five branches into
which Mosheim divides the Internal History of
the Church — the Heresies by which its repose
was troubled during the second century. But
before I proceed to consider his enumeration of
Christian sects, I must briefly call the reader's
attention to Tertullian's Tract against the
Jews. Mosheim, in ^his chapter on the Doc-
trine of the Church, has observed " that Justin
Martyr and Tertullian embarked in a con-
troversy with the Jews, which it was not pos-
sible for them to manage with the highest
success and dexterity, as they were very little
acquainted with the language, the history,
and the learning of the Hebrews, and wrote
with more levity and inaccuracy than such
a subject would justify." That Tertullian was
1 Century 11. Part ii. c. 3, Sect. 7.
463
unacquainted with the language of the He-
brews "may be allowed; but thoroughly con-
versant as he was with the Septuagint Ver-
sion of the Old Testament, his knowledge of
their history could be little inferior to that of
the Hebrews themselves. Whether, however,
he was well or ill qualified to manage the con-
troversy with them, it must be at once in-
teresting and instructive to enquire in what
manner the controversy was actually conducted
by the early Christians.
Our ^author begins his Tract adversus
Judffios with disputing the claim set up by
the Jews to be considered exclusively as the
people of God. In support of this claim, they
alleged in the first place, that they were the
descendants of the younger brother Jacob, of
whom it was predicted that he should rule
over the elder Esau — in the second, that the
Law was given to them by Moses. Tertullian
contends on the contrary that the Christians,
inasmuch as they were posterior in time to
the Jews, were in fact the descendants of the
younger brother: and with respect to the Law
he observes that mankind never were without
^ We have observed that Tertullian sometimes speaks
as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. Chap. I. note 145.
' cc. 1, 2. See Genesis xxv. 23.
464
a law. God gave Adam a law, ^ in which were
contained all the precepts of the decalogue.
Moreover, the written law of Moses was nothing
more than a repetition of the natural unwritten
law; by obeying which the patriarchs gained
the favour of God, although they neither kept
the Jewish sabbath nor practised the Jewish
rite of circumcision.
Hence, ^proceeds TertuUian, it is evident
that circumcision does not confer, as the Jews
pretend, an exclusive title to the favour of
God. Abraham himself pleased God, before
he was circumcised. Carnal circumcision was
designed as a mark, by which the Jews might
be distinguished from other nations in all
ages — but particularly in these latter days, when
the heavy judgements ^predicted by the pro-
phets are fallen upon them. We may also
collect with certainty, from the prophetic writ-
ings, that carnal circumcision was not intended
to be of perpetual observance. ^Jeremiah
speaks of a spiritual circumcision, as well as
* TertuUian points out the manner in which our first
parents violated each of the commandments of the decalogue
by eating the forbidden fruit, c. 2. See Chapter V. p. 330.
5 c. 3.
^ TertuUian supposes the prediction in Isaiah i. 7. to have
referred to the edict of Adrian, by which the Jews were
prevented from setting foot in Jerusalem.
7 c. iv. ver. 3.
465
of a new covenant, which God was to give
to his people.
In like manner ^the observance of the sab-
bath was not designed to be perpetual. The
Jews indeed say that God sanctified the seventh
day from the creation of the world, because
on that day he rested from his work. But
the sanctification spoken of applies to an
eternal, not a temporal sabbath. For what
evidence can be produced that either Adam,
or Abel, or Enoch, or Noah, or Abraham, kept
the sabbath ? It '^ is evident, therefore, that the
circumcision, the sabbath, and the sacrifices
appointed under the Mosaic dispensation were
intended to subsist only until a new lawgiver
should arise, who was to introduce a spiritual
circumcision, a spiritual sabbath, and spiritual
sacrifices.
Having thus shewn that the Mosaic dis-
pensation was not designed to be perpetual,
but preparatory to another system, ^°Tertullian
says that the great point to be ascertained is,
whether the exalted personage, pointed out by
the prophets as the giver of a new law — as
enjoining a spiritual sabbath and spiritual sacri-
fices— as the eternal ruler of an eternal king-
8 c. 4. » c. 5. ^^ c. 7.
Gg
466
(loin — had yet appeared on earth. " Now it is
certain that Jesus, whom we affirm to be the
j^romised lawgiver, has promulgated a new law :
and that the predictions respecting the Messiah
have been accomplished in him. Compare, for
instance, ^^ the prophecies of the Old Testa-
ment, which describe the wide extent of the
Messiah's kingdom, with the actual diffusion
of Christianity at the present moment. Na-
tions, which the Roman arms have never yet
subdued, have submitted themselves to the
dominion of Jesus and received the Gospel."
" But," ^^ proceeds our author, " there is in
the prophet Daniel an express prediction of
the time when the Messiah was to appear."
The numerical errors which have crept into
Tertullian's text, joined to his gross ignorance
of chronology, render it impossible to unravel
the difficulties in which his calculation of the
Seventy Weeks is involved. But the prin-
ciples of the calculation are, that the com-
mencement of the Seventy Weeks is to be
dated from the first year of Darius, in Avhich
" The prophecy particularly selected by Tertullian, is
from Isaiah xlv. 1. But between his version of the passage
and that given in our English Bibles, there are important
differences: in our translation it seems to apply exclusively
to Cyrus.
1^ c. 8.
467
Daniel states that he saw the vision — that
sixty-two weeks and half a week were com-
pleted in the forty-first year of the reign of
Augustus when Christ was born — and that the
remaining seven weeks and half a week were
completed in the first year of Vespasian, when
the Jews were reduced beneath the Roman
yoke. I need scarcely observe that none of
the above principles are admitted by the learned
men of modern times, who have endeavoured
to elucidate the prophecy of the Seventy
Weeks.
Tertullian ^^goes on to shew that the pro-
phecies of the Old Testament, which foretold
the birth of the Messiah, were accomplished
in Jesus. Thus it was predicted by ^^ Isaiah
that he should be born of a Virgin — that his
name should be called Emmanuel — and that,
before he was able to pronounce the names
of his father and mother, he should take of
the riches of Damascus, and of the spoils of
Samaria from the King of Assyria. The Jews
on the contrary affirmed that no part of this
prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. He was nei-
13 c. 9.
!■* Tertullian here connects, as Justin Martyr had done
before him, Isaiah vii. 14. with viii. 4. and gives a similar
explanation of the passage. See the dialogue with Trypho,
Part II. p. 303. A. p. 310. C
CxG2
468
ther called Emmanuel, nor did he take of the
spoils of Damascus and Samaria. They affirmed
also that the Hebrew word, which we trans-
late " Virgin," ought to be translated " a young
female." To these objections our author re-
plies, that as the divine and human natures
were united in Christ, he was not merely
called, but actually was Emmanuel, that is,
God with us : — and that with respect to the
spoils of Damascus and Samaria, the Jews
were misled by their preconceived notions that
the Messiah was to be a warlike prince and
conqueror; whereas the words of the prophet
were accomplished, when the Magi brought
to the infant Jesus their offerings of gold, and
frankincense, and myrrh — the peculiar produce
of Arabia and the East. Tertullian admits
that, in the Psalms and in other parts of the
Old Testament, the Messiah is spoken of as
a triumphant warrior ; but the expressions, he
observes, are to be understood of spiritual
triumphs, achieved over the corrupt hearts and
perverse dispositions of man. With respect to
the word Virgin, Tertullian observes that the
prophet begins with telling Ahaz that the
Lord would give him a sign ; meaning evi-
dently that some event would take place out
of the ordinary course of nature : whereas
the pregnancy of a young female is an event
469
of daily occurrence. In order, therefore, to give
any consistent meaning to the prophet's words,
we must suppose him to have alluded to the
pregnancy of a virgin.
One of the objections urged by the Jews
was, that in no part of the Old Testament
was it predicted that the future deliverer should
bear the name of Jesus. To this Tertullian
replies, that Joshua was the type of Christ:
and that when Moses changed his name from
Oshea to Joshua or Jesus, because he was
destined to conduct the Israelites into the
earthly Canaan, it was manifestly implied that
the Messiah, who was to introduce mankind
into the heavenly Canaan, would also be called
Jesus. Our author then shews from Isaiah xi. 2.
that the Messiah was to spring from the seed
of David — from Isaiah liii. that he was to un-
dergo severe humiliations and sufferings with the
greatest patience — from Isaiah Iviii. that he was
to be a preacher of righteousness — and from
Isaiah xxxv. that he was to work miracles. All
these marks, by which the Messiah was to be
distinguished, were actually found in Jesus.
But '^the death of Jesus on the cross
constituted, in the opinion of the Jews, the
15 c. 10.
470
strongest argument against the belief that he
was the promised Messiah. ^^ It had been ex-
pressly declared, in the Mosaic law, that "he
who was hanged on a tree was accursed of
God." Was it then credible that God would
expose the Messiah to a death so ignominious ?
nor could any passage of Scripture be pro-
duced in which it was predicted that the
Messiah was to die on the cross. To the
former part of this objection Tertullian replies,
that the persons, of whom Moses declared that
they were accursed, were malefactors — men who
had committed sins worthy of death. How
then could the declaration be applicable to
Jesus, in whose mouth was no guile, and whose
life was one uninterrupted course of justice
and benevolence ? With respect to the latter
part of the objection, Tertullian admits that
the particular mode of the Messiah's death is
no where expressly predicted in the Old
Testament ; but contends that it is in many
places obscurely prefigured — for instance, in the
twenty-second Psalm. He then goes on to pro-
duce various passages of Scripture, in which
he finds allusions to the form of the cross —
allusions, which were certainly never contem-
plated by the sacred penman, and are so
grossly extravagant that it is difficult to con-
**• Deuteronomy xxi. 22.
471
ceive how they could ever enter into the head
of any rational being. I know not whether
it will be deemed any apology for TertuUian
to observe that he was not the inventor
of these fancies ; for it argues perhaps a
more lamentable weakness of judgement to
have copied, than to have invented them :
most, however, if not all, are to be found in
Justin JNIartyr. In speaking of the circum-
stances connected with our Saviour's Passion,
TertuUian asserts that the preternatural dark-
ness at the crucifixion was predicted by the
'^ prophet Amos. " But not only," ^^ continues
our author, " did the prophets predict the death
of the INlessiah: they foretold also the disper-
sion of the Jewish people, and the destruction
of Jerusalem." The passages which he alleges
in proof of this statement are Ezekiel viii. 12.
and Deuteronomy xxviii. 64. " Here then,"
he says, addressing the Jews, " we find an ad-
ditional proof that Jesus was the Christ : —
your rejection of him has been followed by
a series of the most grievous calamities that
ever befel a nation — your holy temple has been
consumed with fire, and you are forbidden
to set foot upon the territory of your an-
cestors. " Was it not also foretold of the Mes-
*'' c. viii. 9. 1** c. 11.
7-.
-^ c. 12. Psalm ii. 7 Isaiah xlii. 6
472
siah that the Gentiles should he his inheritance
and the eyids of the earth his 'possession f was
he not described as the light of the Gentiles ?
and are not these predictions accomplished in
the diffusion of the Gospel of Jesus through
every part of the known world?"
"We, ^"therefore, do not err when we
affirm that the Messiah is already come. The
error is yours, who still look for his coming.
The -^Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem
of Judah, according to the prophet. But at
the present moment no one of the stock of
Israel remains at Bethlehem: either, therefore,
the prophecy is already fulfilled, or its fulfil-
ment is impossible." ^^ Tertullian concludes with
pointing out the source of the error of the
Jews, who did not perceive that two advents
of Christ were announced in Scripture — the
first in humiliation, the second in glory. Fix-
ing their thoughts exclusively on the latter,
they refused to acknowledge a meek and suf-
fering Saviour.
Such were the arguments by which Ter-
tullian endeavoured to shew, in opposition to
the objections of the Jews, that Jesus of Naza-
reth was the promised IVIessiah. It appears
20 c. 13. -' Micah v. 1. ^2 (.. 14.
473
from them that the controversy then stood
precisely on the same footing on which it
stands in the present day: and that the Jews
of his time resorted to the same subterfuges
and cavils as the modern Jews, in order to
evade the force of the prophecies which, as
the Christians maintained, had been fulfilled
in Jesus. If we turn to Bp. Pearson, we shall
find that the course, which he pursues in
establishing the truth of the second -^Article
of the Creed, differs not very materially from
that of our author. We notice this resem-
blance for the purpose of removing, at least
in part, the unfavourable impression which
Mosheim's strictures are calculated to create
against this portion of Tertullian's labours. In
judging also of the Treatise ad versus Judeeos,
we should bear in mind that it has come
down to us in a corrupt state, some ^* pas-
sages bearing evident marks of interpolation.
We will conclude our remarks upon it with
observing that Tertullian, when he charges the
Jews with confounding the two advents of
Christ, makes no allusion to the notion of two
Messiahs — one suffering, the other triumphant ;
whence we are warranted in concluding either
^^ See p. 76. where he shews that Joshua was a type of
Christ. See also Article III. " born of the Virgin Mary/'
and Article IV. " was crucified."
^* See c. 5. and c. 14. sub fine.
474
that he was ignorant of this device, or that
it had not been resorted to in his day.
To return to Mosheim, In his ^^enume-
ration of the heresies which divided the Church
in the second century, he first mentions that
which originated in a superstitious attachment
to the Mosaic law. This heresy is scarcely
noticed by Tertullian. There can indeed be
little doubt that, after the promulgation of
Adrian's edict, those Christians who had united
the observance of the Mosaic ritual with the pro-
fession of the Gospel, fearful least they should
be confounded with the Jews, gradually aban-
doned the Jewish ceremonies — so that, in the
time of Tertullian, the number of -'^Judaizing
Christians had become extremely small. We are
now speaking of those whom Mosheim calls
^^Nazarenes — who, though they retained the
Mosaic rites, believed all the fundamental arti-
cles of the Christian faith. The Ebionites on
^ Century II. Part ii. Chap. 5.
-*' See Wilson's Illustration of the method of explaining
the New Testamefit, &c. c. 11. where he enuraercates the
different causes which contributed to the gradual extinction
of the Judaizing Christians, or as he terms them. Christian
Jews.
^ The Jews, in Tertullian's time, appear to have called
Christians in general by the name of Nazarenes. Adv. MiU'-
cionem, L. iv. c. 8. sub initio. A})ud Hebra^os Christianos,
L. iii. c. 12.
475
the contrary, -^ who also maintained the neces-
sity of observing the ceremonial law, rejected
many essential doctrines of Christianity. They
are more than once mentioned by TertuUian,
who always speaks of them as having received
their appellation from their founder Ebion.
He did not write any express treatise against
them; but we learn from incidental notices in
his works that they ^Menied the miraculous
conception, and affirmed that ^"^ Jesus was not
the Son of God, but a mere man born accord-
ing to the ordinary course of nature.
The next Heresies, of which Mosheim
speaks, are those which he imagines to
have arisen from the attempt to explain
the doctrines of Christianity, in a manner
conjormable to the dictates of the oriental
philosophy, concerning the origin of evil.
In every age, both before and since the pro-
mulgation of the Gospel, this question has
been found to baffle the powers of the
human understanding, and to involve in an
endless maze of error all who have engaged
in the unavailing research. Of this Tertul-
^^ De Pra^scriptione Hsereticorum, c. S3.
^^ Quam utique virginem constat fuisse^ licet Ebion resistat.
De Virginibus velandis, c. 6.
^ De Praescriptione Ha;reticorum, c. 33. De Carne
Christi, cc. 14, 18, 24.
476
lian was fully aware; and he traces the rise
of many of the heretical opinions which he
"'^combats, to the curiosity of vain and
presumptuous men, venturing to explore the
hidden things of God. But though he so far
connects philosophy with heresy, as to style
the ^^philosophers the ancestors of the Here-
tics ; yet neither he, nor any other of the
early Fathers, appears to have thought that
the Heretics derived their notions from ^^the
oriental philosophy. On the contrary, ^''Ter-
tullian repeatedly charges them with borrow-
ing from Pythagoras and Plato and other
Greek Philosophers. In like manner ^^ Ire-
nseus affirms that Valentinus was indebted for
his succession of iEons to the Theogonies of
the Greek Poets. It will be said, perhaps, that
°^ Unde malum, et qiiare ? et unde homo, et quomodo ? et
quod proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde Deus? De Prae-
scriptione Haereticorum, c. 7-
^^ Hgereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi. Adv. Hermoge-.
nam, c. 8, De Anima, cc. 3, 23. Ipsi illi sapientiae prof'es-
sores, de qviorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur. Adv.
Marcionem, L. i. c. 13. See also L. v. c. I9.
^ Mosheim refers to Clemens Alexandrinus, L. vii. c. I7.
p. 898. and to Cyprian, Ep. 75. But those passages only
confirm his statement, that Basilides, Cerdo, and the other
Heretics began to publish their opinions about the time of
Adrian : respecting the Oriental origin of the opinions they
are silent.
^ Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus Nauclerus, Stoicac studi-
osus ? ubi Valentinus, Platonicac Sectator ? De Praescriptione
Haereticorum, c. 30. ^ L. ii, c. 19.
i
477
the authority of the early Fathers can be of
little weight in the determination of this ques-
tion, on account of their ignorance of the
Eastern languages; and that it matters little
whether the Heretics derived their opinions
directly from the East; or indirectly through
the medium of Pythagoras and Plato, the
germ of whose philosophy is known to have
been formed during their residence in Egypt.
The present is not a fit opportunity for en-
quiring into the reality of this alleged con-
nexion between the Oriental and Platonic
philosophies. Our object in the above ob-
servations is merely to shew that, if any
weight is to be attached to the opinions of
the early Fathers, the heresies, which Mo-
sheim calls oriental, ought rather to be deno-
minated Grecian.
Mosheim speaks of two branches, into
which the oriental Heretics were divided —
the Asiatic and the Egyptian branch. Elxai,
whom he mentions as the head of the former,
appears to have been entirely unknown to
TertuUian; nor does Mosheim himself seem
to have arrived at any certain conclusion
respecting this Heretic: for he doubts whe-
ther the followers of Elxai were to be
numbered among the Christian or Jewish
478,
sects. Of Saturninus, whom he also mentions
as a leader of the Asiatic branch, the name
occurs but ^^once in our author's writings.
He is there described as a disciple of Men-
ander, who was himself a disciple of Simon
Magus; and he is said to have maintained
the following extraordinary doctrine respecting
the origin of the human race — that man was
formed by the angels, an imperfect image of
the Supreme Being — that he crept upon the
ground like a worm in a state of utter help-
lessness and inability to stand vipright, until
the Supreme Being mercifully animated him
with the spark of life, and raised him from
the earth — and that at his death this spark
will bring him back to the original source of
his existence. ^''Of Cerdo, whom Mosheim
also numbers among the leaders of the Asia-
tic sect, TertuUian only states that Mar-
cion borrowed many notions from him. But
against Marcion himself our author expressly
composed five books, in which he has entered
into an elaborate examination and confutation
of that Heretic's errors.
From various notices scattered over Ter-
3'' De Animfi, c. 23.
•''7 Adv. Marcionem, L. i. cc 2, 22. sub fine. L. iii. c. 21-
L. iv. c. 17-
479
tiiUian's writings we may collect ^Hliat Mar-
cion was a native of Pontus — that ^^he
flourished during the reign of Antoninus
Pius and the pontificate of Eleutherius ; be-
ing originally in communion with the Church
at Rome — that he was a man of a rfestless
temper, fond of novelties, by the publication
of which he unsettled the faith of the
weaker brethren, and was in consequence
more than once ejected from the congrega-
tion— that he afterwards became sensible of
his errors, and expressed a wish to be recon-
ciled to the Church — and that his wish was
granted, on condition that he should bring
back with him those whom he had perverted
by his doctrines. He died, however, before
he was formally restored to its communion.
Tertullian refers in confirmation of some
^ De Prasscriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. Adv. Mavcio-
nem, L. i. cc. 1, 19- Tertullian frequently calls Marcion Pon~
ticus Nauclerus, because his countrymen, the natives of Pontus,
were chiefly occupied in nautical pursuits, L. i. c. 18. sub
fine. L. iii. c. 6.
^^ Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. I9. L. iv. c. 4. where it is
said that Marcion in the first fervour of his faith made a
donation of a sum of money to the Church, which was re-
turned to him when he was expelled from its communion.
Some learned men doubt the story respecting Marcion's
repeated ejections from the Church, and suppose that Ter-
tullian confounded Marcion with Cerdo. Lardner's History
of Heretics, c. 9. Sect. 3.
480
parts of this statement to a certain ^letter of
Marcion, the genuineness of which appears
to have been questioned by his followers.
*^ Marcion, like many other Heretics, was be-
trayed into his errors and extravagances, by
the desire of framing a system, which would
reconcile the existence of evil in the universe
with the perfect power and wisdom and
goodness of the Supreme Being. But the
precise nature of his opinions will be best un-
derstood from a brief analysis of the five
books written by our author against them, and
still extant amongst his works.
TertuUian had previously written two
works in refutation of INIarcion's doctrines.
*^ The first was a hurried composition, the
defects of which he intended to supply
by a second and more perfect treatise. Of
^ Sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola : et tui non
negantj et nostri probant. De Carne Christi, c. 2. But in the
fourth book against Marcion, c. 4. we find the following sen-
tence. Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos
fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius ? quid si nee
epistolam agnoverint ?
*^ Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime haere-
tici) circa mali quaestionem, Unde malum ? Adv. Marcionem,
L. i. c. 2.
^ Primum opusculum, quasi properatum, pleniore postea
compositione rescideram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis
suffectam fraude tunc fratris, dehinc apostatae, amisi, qui forte
descripserat quaedam mendosissime, et exhibuit frequentiae-
Emendationis necessitas facta est, &c. L. i. c. 1.
481
the latter a copy was obtained by a person
who, having afterwards embraced the opinions
of INIarcion, published it in a very inaccu-
rate form. Our author was in consequence
obliged in self-defence to compose the five
books, of which we shall now proceed to give
an account.
After ^^an Exordium — in which he abuses
not only INIarcion but also the Pontus Euxi-
nus, because that heretic happened to be
born upon its shores — Tertullian ^* proceeds to
say that IVIarcion held the doctrine of two
Gods, the one the author of evil, who cre-
ated the world ; the other a deity of pure
benevolence, who was unknown to mankind
until revealed by Christ. In *^ confutation of
this doctrine, TertuUian first observes, that in
the definition of God are comprised the ideas
of Supreme power. Eternal duration, and Self-
existence. " The unity of the Deity is a ne-
43 C. 1.
5"* TertuUian supposes Marcion to have adopted this notion
of a God of pure benevolence from the Stoics. Inde Mar-
cionis Deus melior, de tranquillitate^ a Stoicis venerat. De
Praescriptionibus Haereticorum, c. 7-
^ c. 3. Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest,
id definio quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet, Deum sum-
mum esse magnum, in aeternitate constitutum, innatum, in-
fectum, sine initio, sine fine.
Hh
482
cessary consequence from this definition, since
the supposition of two Supreme Beings in-
volves a contradiction in terms. Nor ^^ can
this conclusion be evaded by a reference to
worldly monarchs, who are as numerous as
the kingdoms into which the earth is divided,
each being supreme in his own dominions.
We cannot thus argue from man to God.
Two Deities, in every respect equal, are in
fact only one Deity : — ^^ nor, if you introduce
two, can any satisfactory reason be assigned
why you may not, with Valentinus, introduce
thirty. ^^ Should Marcion reply that he does
not assert the perfect equality of his two
Deities, he would by that very reply give
up the point in dispute. He would admit
that the inferior of the two is not strictly
entitled to the name of God, since he does
not possess the attributes of the Godhead; and
that the name is applied to him only in the
subordinate sense, in which we find it occa-
sionally used in Scripture."
" How ^^ absurd," proceeds Tertullian, ad-
dressing the Marcionites, " is the notion that,
'*" c. 4. Tertullian ought rather to have contended that the
illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdonl there
is only one Supfeme Power ; but the universe is God's king-
dom ; there is^ therefore, only one Supreme Power in the
universe. '*'' c 5. *^ cc. 6, 7.
483
during the whole interval between the crea-
tion and the coming of Christ, the Supreme
Being should have remained utterly unknown;
while the inferior Deity, the Demiurge, re-
ceived the undivided homage of mankind !
''^It would surely be more reasonable to assign
the superiority to that Being who had mani-
fested his power in the works of Creation,
than to him who had not even afforded any
evidence of his existence. But ^°in order to
evade the force of this argument, you affect
to despise the world in which you live; and
notwithstanding the innumerable instances of
skill and contrivance which it exhibits on
every side, you represent it as altogether un-
worthy to be regarded as the work of the
Supreme Being. Yet Christ, whom you sup-
pose to have been sent to deliver man from
the dominion of the Demiurge, has been con-
tent to allow the use of the elements and
productions of this vile world, even in the
Sacraments which he has instituted — of water,
and oil, and milk, and honey in Baptism,
and of bread in the Eucharist. Nay you
yourselves also, with unaccountable inconsist-
ency, have recourse to them for susten-
ance and enjoyment. How ^^ moreover do you
*'■' cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. ^'^ cc. 13, 14.
■^•^ c. 15.
H H 2
484
account for the fact that, notwithstanding two
hundred years have elapsed since the birth of
Christ, the old world — the work of the De-
miurge— still continues to subsist; and has not
been superseded by a new creation proceed-
ing from the Supreme Being, whom you sup-
pose to have been revealed in Christ?" Ter-
tuUian here states incidentally that, ^^accord-
ing to Marcion, the world was created by the
Demiurge out of pre-existent matter.
In answer to our author's last question,
^^ the Marcionites appear to have affirmed that,
as the Supreme Being was invisible, so also
were his works; and that the deliverance of
man from the dominion of the Demiurge was
an incontestable manifestation of his power.
^''"Why then," rejoins TertuUian, "was the
deliverance so long delayed? Why was man
left, during the whole interval between the
creation and Christ's advent, under the power
of a malignant deity? ^^And in what man-
ner was the Supreme Deity at last revealed?
We admit two modes of arriving at the
knowledge of God — by his works, and by
*2 Sed ex materia et ille fuisse debebit, eadem ratione
occurrente illi quoque Deo, quae opponeretur Creator!, ut
aeque Deo. Compare L. v. c. 19-
^3 c. 16. ^^ c. 17. ^ c. 18.
485
express revelation. But the Supreme Deity-
could not be known by his works; inasmuch
as the visible world in which we live was
not made by him, but by the Demiurge.
You ^^ will, therefore, answer, that he was
made known by express revelation: 'in the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Christ
Jesus, a Spirit of health (Spiritus salutaris),
condescended to come down from heaven.'
How then happened it that the purpose of
his coming was still kept secret from mankind?
that the full disclosure of the truth was re-
served ^^ till the reign of Antoninus Pius, when
JNIarcion first began to teach that the God
revealed by Christ was a different God from
the Creator; and that the Law and the Gos-
pel were at variance with each other?"
Marcion ^^ appears to have appealed, in
confirmation of his opinions, to the dispute
between St. Paul and St. Peter, respecting the
observance of the Ceremonial Law; and to
have argued that the part then taken by the
former, in denying the necessity of any such
observance, implied a conviction in his mind
that there was an opposition between the Law
^^ c. 19.
^'^ Tertullian places an interval of 115 years and 6^
months between Tiberius and Antoninus Pius.
*« c. 20.
486
and the Gospel. To this argument Tertullian
answers, that the inference is incorrect; since
in the Old Testament, which according to
Marcion was a revelation from the Demiurge,
the cessation of the Ceremonial Law, and the
introduction of a more spiritual system, are
clearly predicted. "But," ''he adds, "if St.
Paul had known that Christ came for the pur-
pose of revealing a God distinct from the Cre-
ator, that fact alone would have been deci-
sive as to the abolition of the Ceremonial
Law; and he would have spared himself the
unnecessary trouble of proving that it was
no longer obligatory. The real difficulty with
which the Apostle had to contend arose from
the fact, that the Law and the Gospel pro-
ceeded from the same God ; since it thence
became necessary to explain why observances,
which God had himself enjoined under the
former, were no longer to be deemed obli-
gatory under the latter." — Our author *^^then
urges the agreement of all the Churches,
which traced their descent from the Apostles,
in the belief that Christ was sent by the
Creator of this world, as a proof of the truth
of that belief.
•'■' c. 21. See Chap. V. p. o()5.
^^ See Chap. V. p. 293.
487
Tertullian ^Mastly contends that Marcion's
system does not even accomplish the main
object which its author had in view — it does
not estabUsh the pure benevolence of his
supposed Supreme Being. " For how," he
asks, "can the goodness of that Being be re-
conciled with the supposition that a malignant
Deity was so long permitted to hold the
universe in subjection? Goodness moreover
loses its character, if it is not guided by
reason and justice: but it was neither reason-
able nor just in Marcion's Supreme God to
invade as it were the territory of the Crea-
tor, and to deprive him of the allegiance of
man — his creature and subject. At best, the
goodness of Marcion's God is imperfect: — it
neither saves the whole human race, nor even
a single individual, fully and completely ; since,
according to INIarcion, the soul only is saved,
while the body is destroyed. Yet Marcion
would persuade us that his Supreme Deity
is a Deity of pure benevolence and goodness ;
who neither judges, nor condemns, nor pu-
nishes— but is in every respect similar to the
listless and indolent gods of Epicurus. Does
not then the very term goodness imply an
abhorrence of evil? and what are we to think
of a goodness which either does not forbid
'^^ c 22. ad finem.
488
the commission of evil, or overlooks it when
committed? Such doctrines proclaim impunity
to every species of profligacy and crime ; yet
with strange inconsistency ^"the JNIarcionites
profess to believe that evil-doers will finally
be punished." While, however, TertulUan as-
serts that the doctrines of Marcion lead by
necessary consequence to the encouragement
of vice, he does not appear to charge the
Marcionites with actual immorality.
The foregoing sketch of the first Book
against Marcion, will give the reader an insight
into the nature of the controversy, and the
mode in which Tertullian conducted it. With
respect to the remaining four Books, we shall
content ourselves with merely stating the sub-
jects discussed in each. We have seen that
the object of the first Book was to expose
the absurdity of maintaining that there is a
''- Their notion seems to have been that bad men would not
be pmiished by the supreme God — for perfect goodness cannot
punish — but would be rejected by him ; and being thus re-
jected, would become the prey of the fire of the Creator.
Multo adhuc vanius, quum interrogati, " quid fiat peccatori
cuique die illo," respondent^, "abjici ilium quasi ab oculis."
Nonne et hoc judicio agitur ? judicatur enim abjiciendus,
et utique judicio damnationis : nisi in salutem abjiciatur pecca-
tor, ut et hoc Deo optimo competat^ c. 27- Again^ in c. 28.
Exitus autem illi abjecto quis? ab ignc;, inquiunt, Creatoris
deprehendetur.
489
Supreme Deity distinct from the Creator of
the world. That of the second is to expose
the futility of the reasonings by which ISIar-
cion endeavoured to prove, that the Creator
of the world was not the Supreme Deity.
It has been already observed, that INIarcion's
errors originated in a desire to reconcile the
existence of evil, both in the natural and
moral world, with the goodness of God.
Whatever exists, exists, if not by the appoint-
ment, at least by the permission of God; and
a God of infinite power and goodness would
not permit the existence of evil. INIarcion
could devise no better mode of solving this
difficulty than by supposing the existence of
two Deities — one the Creator of the world —
the other the Supreme God — a God of pure and
absolute benevolence. Tertullian, on the con-
trary endeavours to shew, in the second Book,
that the appearances of evil in the world are
not inconsistent with the perfect goodness of its
Author. He ^^ expatiates upon the folly and
presumption of which a blind, imperfect being,
like man, is guilty, in venturing to canvass
the Divine dispensations. He ^^ appeals to the
proofs of the Divine goodness exhibited in the
material world, in the creation of man, and
in the law which was given to Adam ; the
^^ c. 2. f'* cc. 3, 4.
490
superiority of man to all other animals
being evinced by the very circumstance that
a law was given him, which he possessed the
power either of obeying or disobeying. To the
common argument, that the fall of Adam im-
plied a defect either in the goodness, power,
or prescience of God, ^^ TertuUian replies,
that, possessing as we do, clear and decisive
evidences of the exercise of those attributes, we
must not allow our faith to be shaken by
any speculative reasoning. God made man in
his own image; man was consequently to be
endowed with freedom of will : he abused that
excellent gift, and fell. His faU, therefore,
detracts not from the goodness of God.
^^ " But why," rejoined Marcion, " endow him
with a gift which God must have foreseen
that he would abuse ?" " Because," TertuUian
answered, " his likeness to his Maker consist-
ed partly in the freedom of his will." With-
out entering into any further detail of the
arguments either of ^^ Marcion or TertuUian,
''^ c. 5. See the observations on the tenth Article of
our Church, in Chap. V. p. 332. Compare also L. iv. c. 41.
♦^'^ cc. 6, 7, 8.
^7 One of Marcion's arguments is that, since it is the
soul which sins in man, and the soul derives its origin from
the breath of God, that is, of the Creator, sin must in some
degree be ascribed to the nature of the Creator, c. 9. quoted
in Chap. III. note 18.
491
we may remark that our author is, as might
be expected, far more successful in exposing
the errors and inconsistencies of his opponent,
than in solving the difficulties in which the
question itself is involved. Not that his
failure in the latter respect is to be attributed
to any want of acuteness or ingenuity on his
part; but to the nature of the enquiry, which
must ever baffle the powers of human reason.
Having once established that the fall of
Adam was the consequence of the abuse of
that free-wiU with which he was endowed at
his creation, Tertullian finds no difficulty in
proving that the evil, which was introduced
into the world by the faU, and stiU conti-
nues to exist, is in no way derogatory from
the goodness of God. Marcion appears to
have contended that the denunciation and in-
fliction of punishment were inconsistent with
perfect goodness. '^^ TertuUian, on the con-
trary, argues that justice is inseparable from
goodness, and that the punishment of vice is
^^ Something like a fallacy appears to pervade the whole of
Tertullian's reasoning on this point, arising out of the double
meaning of the word Bo7iifas, which he here employs as if it
meant goodness — that is, the combination of all those excel-
lencies which constitute a perfect moral character ; whereas
Marcion rather used the word to express kindness or bene-
volence, as opposed to severity, malice, &c. See c. 12.
492
nothing but an exercise of justice. ^^ To
reckon justice among the attributes of the
Deity, and at the same time to affirm that
the judgements which he brings upon men on
account of their wickedness are at variance
with his goodness, is as absurd as to admit on
the one liand that the skill of the surgeon is
beneficial to society, and on the other, to ac-
cuse him of cruelty because he occasionally
causes his patients to suffer pain. Nor must
we, when we read in Scripture of the anger,
or indignation, or jealousy of God, suppose
that those passions exist in Him as they do
in man; unless we are also prepared to assert
that He has human hands, and eyes, and feet,
because those members are ascribed to Him
in the Sacred Writings. "^^ " Even the pre-
cepts and institutions," Tertullian continues,
"which Marcion produces from Scripture as
proofs of the harshness and severity of the
God who gave the Law, will, on examina-
tion, be found to tend directly to the benefit
of man. Thus ''^the Lex Talionis was a law
adapted to the character of the Jewish peo-
ple, and instituted for the purpose of repress-
ing violence and injustice. The prohibition
of certain kinds of food was designed to in-
*'^ c. 19. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 2.
70 cc. 17, 18, 19- 71 Compare, L. iv. c. 1().
493
culcate self-restraint, and thereby to preserve
men from the evil consequences of excess.
The sacrifices and other burthensome observ-
ances of the Ceremonial Law, independently
of their typical and prophetic meaning, an-
swered the immediate purpose of preventing
the Jews from being seduced into idolatry, by
the splendid rites of their Heathen neigh-
bours."
One '^of the passages of Scripture urged
by the Marcionites was that in which God
commands the Israelites, previously to their
departure from Egypt, to borrow gold and
silver of the Egyptians. This Marcion term-
ed a fraudulent command; and denounced it
as inconsistent with every idea of goodness.
The mode in which Tertullian accounts for it
is, that the Egyptians were greatly indebted
to the Israelites ; and that the gold and silver
which the latter obtained, constituted a very
inadequate compensation for the toil and la-
bour of the many years during which they
had been detained in servitude. The "^ Mar-
72 c. 20. Compare L. iv. c 24. Philo Judaeus de Mose.
Tom. ii. p. 1 03. Ed. Mangey.
^^ c 21. Tertullian's words are, jubentis arcam circum-
ferri per dies octo. Compare L. iv. c. 12., where Rigault,
however, reads septem diebus ; and we find the same reading
in the Tract adv. Judaeos, c. 4.
494
cionites also objected to certain contradictions
which they pretended to discover in Scripture :
for example, between the general command
not to perform any manner of work on the
sabbath, and the particular command to bear
the ark round the walls of Jericho for seven
successive days, one of which must necessa-
rily have been a sabbath — between ^Hhe ge-
neral command not to make any graven
image, and the particular command to make
the brazen serpent, &c. In "'^ like manner, they
objected to those passages, in which God
is said to repent — for instance, of having made
Saul king — on the ground that repentance
necessarily implies previous error, either of
judgement or conduct. Tertullian does not
appear to have been aware of the true answer
to this objection — that when we speak of the
anger, repentance, jealousy of God, we merely
mean to say that such effects have been pro-
duced in the course of the Divine dispensa-
tions, as would, if they were the results of
human conduct, be ascribed to the operation of
those passions ; and that we use the terms, be-
cause the narrowness of human conceptions, and
the imperfection of human language, furnish us
with no better modes of , expressing ourselves.
Our "''^ author notices various other inconsisten-
7* cc. 22, 23. 75 c. 24. 7(J c, 25, cad finem.
495
cies which the Marcionites professed to find
in the Scriptures; and concludes this part of
his subject with observing, that all the reasons
assigned by those Heretics, for denying that the
God who created the world was the Supreme
God, applied with equal force to their own
imaginary Deity.
Having thus proved, as he thinks satis-
factorily, that the notion of two distinct
Deities, one the Creator of the world, the
other Supreme, was a mere fiction, and that
the former was indeed the one Supreme God,
Tertullian proceeds to refute the notion that
Jesus was not sent by the Creator. The
mode which he adopts is, to compare the pre-
dictions in the Old Testament with the ac-
tions of Jesus as recorded in the New; and
to shew that the former were exactly accom-
plished in the latter. The necessary conclu-
sion is, that Jesus must have been sent by the
same Deity who spoke by the prophets
under the Patriarchal and INIosaic dispensa-
tions, that is, by the Creator of the world.
It can scarcely be necessary to remark that,
in this part of the controversy with Marcion,
our author is obliged to take precisely the
same ground which I have already described
him to have taken in his Treatise against the
496
Jews. But before, he enters upon the in-
vestigation of particular prophecies, he makes
some general observations which are not un-
worthy of notice. He ^'^ contends, for instance,
that, unless the coming of Christ had been
predicted, the evidence of his Divine mission
would have been incomplete. The miracles
which he performed were not, as Marcion
asserted, alone sufficient to establish the point ;
it was further necessary that previous intima-
tions of his appearance and character should
have been given, in order to furnish a test
whereby to ascertain whether he was really
the person he professed to be. The conclu-
sion which TertuUian builds upon these pre-
mises is, that Jesus must have been sent by
the Creator of the world, who foretold his
coming; and not by Marcion's supposed Su-
preme Being, who had given no intimation
whatever on the subject. ^^ Our author then
mentions two circumstances which ought, he
says, always to be borne in mind by the
reader of the Prophetic Writings — that in
them future events are frequently spoken of
77 L. ill. cc. 2, 3. Lardner (Tom. iv. Ed. 4to. p. 604.),
in speaking of this part of Tertullian's work, accuses him of
rashness in weakening a very strong, if not the strongest,
argument for the truth of the Christian religion ; but Lardner's
representation scarcely does justice to our author's reasoning
on the subject. See Chap. II. note 79. 78 c. 5.
497
as if they had already happened; and that, as
tlie language of prophecy is frequently figu-
rative, men may be led into great errors by
affixing to it too literal a meaning.
His ^^ next remark is, that the IVIarcionites,
although in one respect they made common
cause with the Jews — namely, by denying that
the prophecies of the Old Testament were ac-
complished in Jesus of Nazareth — were on all
other points directly opposed to them. For the
Jews alleged the supposed disagreement be-
tween the prophecies respecting the INlessiah
and the history of Jesus, as a reason for re-
jecting the pretensions of the latter; whereas
the Marcionites alleged " it as a reason for
asserting that Jesus was sent by the Supreme
God — not by the God of the Old Testament.
^"TertuUian then proceeds almost in the same
words which he has used in his Treatise against
the Jews, to shew that they, as well as the
Marcionites, had been betrayed into their
error by not distinguishing between the two
advents of Christ — the one in humiliation, the
other in glory. He ^^ dwells at some length
on the absurd consequences which necessarily
flow from the notion of the INIarcionites, that
the body of Christ was a mere phantasm ;
79 C.6. . 8» c. 7. ^1 cc. 8, 9, 10.
Il
498
and says, that the title of Anti-Christ might
with greater propriety be applied to them,
than to the Heretics mentioned by St. John,
who denied that Christ had come in the flesh.
To the latter it appeared incredible that God
should be made flesh ; the former further de-
nied that God was the Creator of man or of
the flesh. ^^ We learn incidentally that the
Marcionites denied the reality of Christ's
flesh, because they felt that, if they admitted
it, they should also be compelled to admit
the reality of his birth, and consequently his
connexion with the Demiurge, the author of
the human body or flesh. The remainder of
the third Book consists principally of refer-
ences to the same passages in the Old Tes-
tament, which were produced in the Treatise
against the Jews, in order to prove that Jesus
was the Messiah predicted by the prophets. —
We have ^^ already noticed the inference de-
duced by Semler from this resemblance be-
tween the two Treatises, and assigned what
seemed to us satisfactory reasons for thinking
the inference unsound.
Marcion ^^ appears to have composed a
82
c. 11. Compare L. iv. c. ig. De Carne Christi, cc. 1. 2,
3, 5. 83 Chap. I. p. 87. i
^^ L. iv. c. 1. Tliis work seems to have been placed by M
Marcion 1
499
work to whicli he gave the title of Anti-
theses, because in it he had set, as it were
in opposition to eacli other, passages from the
Old and New Testaments ; intending his read-
ers to infer, from the apparent disagreement
between them, that the Law and the Gospel
did not proceed from the same author. The
object of TertuUian's fourth Book is to expose
the weakness of this attempt. He admits that,
as all previous dispensations were only pre-
paratory to the Christian, and were designed
to apply to mankind when placed under very
different circumstances, the Law and the Gos-
pel could not but differ in some respects from
each other. But he contends that this differ-
ence had been clearly pointed out by the
prophets ; and was, therefore, an argument
that the Creator, who inspired the prophets
and gave the Law, gave the Gospel also. As
the genuine Gospels did not suit Marcion's
purpose, he ^^ compiled a Gospel for himself,
out of that of St. Luke; which he appears to
Marcion in the hands of his followers, for the purpose of
instructing them in the principles of his system. Compare
L. i. c. 19. L. ii. cc. 28, 29- L. iv. cc. 4. 6.
^ cc 2, 5. Marcion does not appear to have called it
St. Luke's Gospel. He cut out from it such passages as he
conceived to militate against his own opinions; such as the
History of the Temptation, L. v. c. 6. See de Carne Christi,
c. 7- In speaking of Marcion's Gospel, TertuUian calls it
Evangelium vestrum, L. iii. cap. ult. Evangelium ejus, L. iv.
I I 2 c. 1.
500
have selected, because that Evangelist was sup-
posed to have written from the preaching and
under the direction of St. Paul, who had re-
proved St. Peter for departing from the truth
of the Gospel. The conclusion which JNIarcion
meant to draw from this circumstance was that,
in order to discover the genuine doctrines of
Christianity, recourse must be had to St. Paul,
in preference to the other Apostles. This con-
clusion our author overthrows by observing, that
St. Paul appears, from the Epistle to the Gala-
tians, to have gone up to Jerusalem for the
very purpose of ascertaining whether the doc-
trines which he preached coincided with those
preached by Peter, and James, and John.
"All ^Hhe Apostles," continues TertuUian,
"were equally commissioned by Christ to
preach the Gospel; all, therefore, preached the
genuine doctrine. Instead of setting the autho-
rity of St. Paul above that of the rest, Mar-
cion ought rather to contend that the Gos-
pels, which the orthodox use, have been
adulterated, and that his alone contains the
truth." With "respect to the Gospel of St.
c. 1. See also L. iv. c 3. L. v. c. l6. sub fine. On the sub-
ject of Marcion's Gospel, the reader will find some valuable
remarks in the Introduction to Dr. Schleiermacher's work to
which we have already referred.
«« c. 3. 87 cc. 4, 5.
501
Luke, Marcion contended that it had been
adulterated by those Judaising Christians who
were anxious to establish a connexion between
the Law and the Gospel ; and that he had
restored it to its original integrity. Tertul-
lian here enters into that discussion, respect-
ing the mode of ascertaining the ^^genuineness
of the Sacred Scriptures, to which we referred
in our observations on the sixth Article of
our Church.
He ^^next proceeds to state the point ac-
tually in controversy, between the Orthodox
and the Marcionites, respecting Christ. Ac-
cording to the latter, the Christ predicted in
the Old Testament had not yet appeared ;
but was to come at some future period, to re-
store the Jews to their native land and to
their ancient temporal prosperity : whereas the
Christ, whose actions are recorded in -the New
Testament, was sent by the Supreme God to
accomplish the salvation of the whole human
race. " It would follow," proceeds Tertullian,
88 See Chap. V. p. 308.
®^ Compare L. iii. c. 2 1 . Nam etsi putes Creatoris quidem
terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero ccelestes^ L. iv. c. 14.
c. 35. sub fine. L. iii. c. 24. sub initio, quoted in Chap. V.
note 4. ; whence it appears that, according to Marcion, the
Jews were after death to pass to a state of enjoyment in
the bosom of Abraham, L. iv. c 34. quoted in Chap. V. note 11.
502
"from this statement, that there ought to be
no resemblance, either in character or in the
transactions of their lives, between the Christ
of the Old and the Christ of the New Testa-
ment. How then happens it that the latter
has carried on the dispensations of the God
of the Old Testament — has fulfilled His pro-
phecies— has realised His promises — has con-
firmed His law — has enforced and perfected
the rule of life set forth by him?" It would
be a tedious and not very edifying task to
follow our author through all the quotations
from Scripture, by which he endeavours to
establish the exact correspondence of the ac-
tions and sayings of Christ, with those ascribed
to the promised Messiah by the ancient pro-
phets. It will be sufficient to produce a few
examples of the contradictions which Marcion
pretended to discover between the Old and
New Testaments, and of the mode in which
Tertullian accounted for them.
Marcion ^"^ contended, for instance^ that the
Lex Talionis, established by Moses, was directly
at variance with our Saviour's precept, that
we should offer our left cheek to him who
smites us on the right. Tertullian replies that,
although the Lex Talionis was suited to the
^ c. 16. See p. 492.
503
temper and moral condition of the Israelites,
and at first instituted for the purpose of re-
pressing violence, yet in the prophetic writ-
ings we find frequent exhortations to patience
under injuries. Those exhortations were in-
serted, in order to prepare the minds of men
for that prohibition of all acts of retaliation
and even of angry and revengeful feehngs,
which the IVIessiah, one part of whose office
would be to perfect the Law, would introduce
under the Gospel.
Another ^^ alleged instance of inconsistency
was, that Moses voluntarily interfered to put
an end to the quarrel between the two Is-
raelites; whereas Christ refused to interfere
between the two brethren, one of whom ap-
pealed to him respecting the division of an
inheritance. In this case TertuUian has recourse
to a most unsatisfactory solution. He says that
Christ's refusal was meant to convey a severe
reproof of the applicant ; by insinuating that,
if he were to interfere, he should probably meet
with the same ungrateful treatment which
Moses experienced from his countryman.
A ^^ third instance of contradiction urged
by IVIarcion was, that, whereas Moses permitted
91 c. 28. 92 c. 34.
504
divorce, Christ prohibited it in every case, ex-
cepting that of adultery. TertuUian answers,
that Christ had himself furnished a solution of
this apparent contradiction, w^hen he said, that
from the beginning it was not so, and that
Moses had granted the permission to the Jews
on account of the hardness of their hearts. He,
therefore, who came to take away their stony
heart and to give them a heart of flesh, natu-
rally curtailed the former licence, and restricted
divorce to the single case of adultery. — Ter-
tuUian concludes the fourth Book with assert-
ing that he has fully redeemed the pledge
which he gave at the commencement; having
shewn that the doctrines and precepts of Christ
coincided so exactly with those delivered by
the Prophets — and that his miracles, sufferings,
and resurrection were so clearly foretold by
them — as to establish beyond controversy the
fact — that their inspiration and his mission ori-
ginated with the same God — the Creator of
the world.
We have ^^ observed that Marcion com-
piled his Gospel principally from that of
St. Luke, because that Evangelist had been
the companion of St. Paul. The reason
of the preference thus given to the Apo-
^ p. 500.
505
stle of the Gentiles was his constant and
strenuous opposition to the Judaising Christ-
ians, who wished to re-impose the yoke of
the Jewish ceremonies on the necks of their
brethren. This opposition the INIarcionites
wished to construe into a direct denial of the
authority of the INlosaic Law. They contended
also from St. Paul's assertion — that he received
his appointment to the Apostolic office, not
from man, but from Christ — that he alone
delivered the genuine doctrines of the Gos-
pel. The object, therefore, of Tertullian, in the
fifth Book, is to prove, with respect to St.
Paul's Epistles, what he had proved in the
fourth with respect to St. Luke's Gospel —
that, far from being at variance, they were
in perfect unison with the writings of the Old
Testament. He begins with ^Hhe Epistle to
the Galatians ; which was written for the ex-
press purpose of confuting the error of those
who thought the observance of the Mosaic
ritual necessary to salvation. Here he urges an
argument to which we have ^^more than once
alkided — that the labour bestowed by the Apo-
stle was wholly superfluous, in case, as the INIar-
cionites supposed, he had been commissioned
to teach, that Christ was not sent by the God
who gave the INlosaic Law. For what need
^* c. 2. 9^ Chap. V. p. 295. p. 486.
506
was there, on that supposition, to enter into
a long discussion, for the purpose of proving
that the Gospel had superseded the use of the
Ceremonial Law, when the very fact, that they
proceeded from different, or, to speak more
accurately, from hostile Deities, accounted at
once for the abolition of the latter ? Tertullian
examines in like manner the ^^two Epistles to
the Corinthians, that ^^to the Romans, which
he states to have been grievously mutilated by
the Marcionites, ^Hhe two to the Thessalonians,
and those to the ^^ Ephesians, ^^^ Colossians, and
101 phiiippians. The same reasons, which pre-
vented us from entering into any minute in-
vestigation of the quotations from the Gos-
pels, indiice us to be equally concise in our
notice of the quotations from St. Paul's Epis-
tles. The detail would be extremely tedious,
and the information derived from it in no re-
spect proportioned to the time which it would
necessarily occupy.
When we examine the opinions of Mar-
cion, whether upon points of faith or practice,
we find that they all flowed by natural
consequence from the leading article of his
Creed — that the world was created by a Deity
'»« c. 5^13. ^^ cc. 13, 14.. »' cc. 15, l6.
9» c. 17. ^^ c. 19. ^^^ c. 20.
507
distinct from the Supreme Deity, out of pre-
existent matter. As the flesh or body of
man was the work of the Demiurge, it was
held by the INIarcionites in abhorrence. Hence
their ^"^ assertion that Christ was neither born of
the Virgin Mary, nor passed through the cus-
tomary stages of infancy and boyhood, but
^°^ descended at once from heaven, a full-grown
man, in ^'^^ appearance only, not in reality —
hence ^"^the opprobrious terms in which they
spoke of the body, and ^^^ their denial of its
resurrection — hence ^°^ their aversion to mar-
riage, which they carried to such a length,
that they refused to administer the rite of
Baptism to a married man, or ^°^to admit him
to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, until he
had repudiated his wife. We find in Tertul-
lian no mention of that notion respecting an
intermediate kind of Deity, of a mixed nature,
neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil, which
^^ L. iv. c. 10. sub fine.
^^ L. iv. c. 7. sub in. c. 21. De Cax-ne Christi, cc. 1, 7.
1"^-^ L. i. cc. 11, 22. sub in. 24. L. ii. c. 28. L. iii. cc. 8,
9, 10. L. iv. cc. 8, 42. De Res Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christi,
cc. 4f, 6. De Anima, c. I7. De Praescriptione Haereticorum,
c. 33.
105 L. iii. c. 11. De Carne Christi, c. 4.
i"^** L. i. c. 24. L. iv. c. 37. L, v. c 10.
1*^7 L. i. cc. 1, 24, 29. L. iv. c. 11. L. v. c 7- Ad Uxorem,
L. i. c. 3.
108 L. iv. c. 34.
508
^°^ Mosheim ascribes to Marcion. ^^'^ Lardner
thinks that the distinction which JNIarcion
made between his two Deities, was, that the
one was good, the other just; but in the
second Chapter of the first Book TertuUian
expressly says, that Marcion conceived the
Creator of the world to be the author of
evil, and that he was led into that error by
misinterpreting certaiii passages of Scripture.
The other charges brought against him by
our author are, that ^^^ he denied the freedom
of the will ; and that he ^^^ rejected some, and
mutilated or corrupted other portions of Scrip-
ture. His followers ^^^ were charged with being
addicted to astrology. Like other Heretical
leaders, he ^^^ appears to have been attended
109 Cent. II. Part II. Chap. V. Sect. 7-
™ History of Heretics, Chap. X. Sect. 12.
1" De Anima, c. 21.
"2 De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 38. Adv. Marcionem,
L. i. c. 1. Marcion necessarily rejected the whole of the
Old. Testament, as proceeding fi-om the Demiurge. De
Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. TertuUian mentions also
his rejection of St. Matthew's Gospel, L. iv. c. 34 — of St.
John's Gospel, de Carne Christi, c. 3 — of the Acts of the Apo-
stles, L. V. c. 2. De Praescriptione Haereticorvim, c. 22 — of the
Apocalypse, L. v. c. 5 — of the two Epistles to Timothy and
of that to Titus, L. v. cap. vilt. but he appears to have
recognised the Epistle to Philemon. The reader will find in
Lardner a detailed account of the alterations which Mar-
cion made in St. Luke's Gospel, and in the ten Epistles
of St. Paul which he received. History of Heretics, Chap. X,
Sect. 35, &c.
»i3 L. i. c. 18. "•» L. V. c. 8. sub fine.
509
by females, who pretended to great sanctity —
a practice probably adopted in imitation of
the Apostles.
Mosheim speaks of Lucan, Severus, Blastus,
and Apelles, as followers of Marcion, who de-
viated in some respects from the tenets of
their master. "^ Lucan is once mentioned by
Tertullian as holding the opinion, that neither
the soul nor the body would rise again, but
a sort of third substance — an opinion which
our author supposes him to have borrowed
from Aristotle. The ^^'^name of Apelles occurs
frequently in TertuUian's writings. He is de-
scribed as a disciple of Marcion, who endea-
voured to improve upon his master's doc-
trine ; and the ^^^ account given of him is, that,
being unable to comply with Marcion's strict
notions on the subject of continence, he left
that Heretic and went to Alexandria, where
he met with a female named Philumena, who
performed various inagical illusions by the
assistance of an evil spirit. To this woman he
^^^ De Res. Carnis, c. 2. sub fine.
^^^ Hoc meminisse debuerat ApelleSj Marcionis de dis-
cipulo emendator. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 17- De Carne
Christi, c. 6. sub in.
^^7 De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. See also cc. 6.
10. 37. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Lardner questions the
story of the incontinence of Apelles. History of Heretics,
Chap. Xn. Sect. 3.
510
attached himself, and under her instruction
composed a work called (pavepwaei^, or Reve-
lations. Like his master, "^ he denied the
resurrection of the body, and at first ^^^ pro-
hibited marriage. He ^^° affirmed that the souls
of men were tempted to come down from the
super-celestial regions — the regions above the
heavens which invest this earth — by the allure-
ments offered to them by the fiery angel, the
God ^'^both of the Israelites and of the Gen-
y tiles ; who no sooner got them into his power
than he surrounded them with sinful flesh.
The ^"distinction of sexes existed in these
souls, previously to their descent upon earth ;
and was from them communicated to the
^^^ De Praescriptione Haereticovum, c. 33.
"9 Ibid.
120 De Anima, c. 23. De Carne Christi, c. 8. De Res.
Carnis, c. 5.
1^1 Tertullian's expression is, ab igneo Angelo, Deo Israelis
et nostro. By the word nostro, I suppose Tertullian to
mean that the fiery angel was not merely the God of the
Jews, as some of the Heretics supposed with respect to
their inferior Deity, but also of the Gentiles. But in the
Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 34. Tertullian speaks
as if the fiery angel was the God of Israel only, Apelles
Creatorem, Angelum nescio quern gloriosum superioris Dei,
faceret Deum Legis et Israelis, ilium igneum affirmans. In
c. 7' he traces this notion of a fiery angel to the philoso-
phical tenets of Hei*aclitus. I conceive it rather to have
been derived from the circumstances attending the appear-
ance of God to Moses in the burning bush.
'22 De Anima, c. 36.
511
bodies in which they were clothed. ^^^ Apelles
differed also from his master in admitting the
reality of Christ's flesh, though he denied that
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His
^^* notion appears to have been, that the flesh
of Christ was not given by the fiery angel
or god of evil, who clothed the souls which
he seduced into these lower regions Avith sin-
ful flesh ; but was a substance brought down
originally from the stars by a certain eminent
angel, who formed the world, though he after-
wards ^^^ mixed vip repentance with his work.
Christ's flesh, therefore, wa« real, but different
from human flesh. In the ^"^ third Book against
JNIarcion, our author alludes to certain Heretics,
who maintained that the flesh, which the Angels
assumed who are stated in Scripture to have
^^^ Aut admissa carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles disci-
pulus et postea desertor ipsius. De Carne Christi, c. 1.
^^* Nam et Philumena ilia magis persuasit Apelli caeterisque
desertoribus Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse
carnem, nuUius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis earn
mutuatum. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 11. See de Res.
Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christie c. 8.
^^^ Tertullian's words are, Angelum quendam inclytum
nominant;, qui mundum hunc instituerit, et institute eo
poenitentiam admiscuerit. De Carne Christie, c. 8. Semler
for admiscuerit reads admiserit. If admiscuerit is the true
reading, I should conjecture the meaning to be, that this
Angel either did not or could not create a perfect world;
but introduced into it many things, which he afterwards
wished to alter.
i2« c. 9. Pamelius refers to the Tract de Carne Christi,
c. 6.
512
appeared in human shapes, was not human
flesh. Pamelius supposes that the Heretics
here alluded to were the disciples of Apelles.
Of Severus and Blastus there is no mention
in TertuUian's writings.
The next Heretics in Mosheim's catalogue
are Bardesanes and Tatian. The former is not
even named by Tertullian : of the ^"^ latter we
have ah'eady spoken.
From the Oriental, Mosheim proceeds to
what he terms the Egyptian branch of the
Gnostics. In this branch he assigns the first
place to Basilides; who is mentioned once, and
only once, by our author, in the Tract de
Resurrectione Carnis. He is there stated to
have agreed with Marcion in denying the
reahty of Christ's flesh. Mosheim, however,
contends that this opinion is unjustly ascribed
to him,^^^ though probably held by some of
his followers.
We come next to Carpocrates, who is twice
mentioned by Tertullian, in the Treatise de
Anima. In one ^^^ place he is said to have
127 Chap. IV. p. 260.
128 c. 2. Lardner also thinks that there is reason for
doubting whether Basilides denied the reality of Christ's
flesh. History of Heretics, Chapter H. Sect. 6.
129 c. 23.
513
maintained that his own soul and the souls
of his followers were derived from a heavenly
power, who looked down, as it were from
an eminence, upon all the powers of this lower
world. He conceived, therefore, both himself
and them to be entirely on a level with Christ
and the Apostles. In the ^^° other place, he is
accused of holding the doctrine of the met-
empsychosis ; on the ground that the soul must
perform aU the acts to which it was originally
destined, before it can attain to a state of rest.
In support of this notion he quoted the words
of our Saviour, Verily thou shalt not depart
thence, until thou hast paid the uttermost far-
thing. TertuUian remarks incidentally, that
Carpocrates believed nothing to be evil in itself ;
good and evil depending entirely on opinion.
TertuUian wrote a Treatise expressly against
the Valentinians. He ^^^ speaks of them as a
very numerous sect; and ascribes their popu-
larity to the fables with which their theology
abounded, and to the air of mystery which
they threw around their doctrines. He ^^^ says
^^ c. 35. See Lardner. History of Heretics, Chap. HI.
Sect. 11. where he assigns reasons for doubting the truth
of many of the charges against the Carpocratians.
^^^ Adv. Valentinianos, c. 1.
^^^ c. 4. Compare de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, cc 29,
30.
Kk
514
that their founder, Valentinus, was a man of
ability and eloquence, and flourished in the
reign of Antoninus Pius. Being offended be-
cause the claim of another to a vacant See
was preferred to his own, he quitted the Church
in disgust ; and formed a system, not indeed
entirely new, but founded in some measure
upon opinions previously current. Of ^^^ this
system, Tertullian's Treatise is a concise ac-
count; taken, as he admits, from the writings
of Justin, Miltiades, Irenceus, and Proculus,
whom he calls contemporaries of the Heresi-
archs. It is in fact little more than a trans-
lation of the first book of the work of Irenceus,
against the Gnostics. The whole system is so
replete with absurdity, that we should be dis-
posed to pass it over without notice, were
not the examination of it necessary to the com-
pletion of our plan; which is, to place before
the reader all the information, supplied by our
author's writings, respecting the history of the
Church in his day.
Valentinus, ^^Hhen, supposed a God, self-
existent, infinite, invisible, eternal, who dwelt
in the very highest regions, living in a state
of imperturbable tranquillity, like the gods of
'^ cc. 5, 6.
^^ c. 7- See adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 5.
515
Epicurus. To this God he gave the names
of aiiov reXeio?, Trpoap^rj, dp-)^r], and With Some-
what of inconsistency, (iv66^. This Deity, how-
ever, was not alone, but had with him, or
rather within him, another Being to whom
the names of ewoia, x«P'^' crt7»7j were assigned.
From the latter, who appears to have been con-
sidered as a female, and to have been impreg-
nated by the Sovereign Deity, sprang ^^^vod^,
who was in every respect like and equal to his
Father, and alone capable of comprehending
his Father's greatness. He was regarded as
the beginning or origin of all things, and even
distinguished by the appellation of Father.
He was also called ^^^ fiovoyevri^, or only begotten ;
notwithstanding that at the same time with
him was born a female ^Eon, called aXriQeia, or
truth. The above four, /3u0os, aL-yri, voZ^, and
aXnOeia, constituted the first Tetras or Quater-
nion, from which the remaining ^ons were
derived. For from vov<i sprang X070S and fwj),
the word and life ; and from them again aOpoo-
7ro9 and €KK\r](xia, man and the Church. The
last four, added to the first-mentioned four,
1^ In the Tract de Prsescriptione HaereticoruiH;, c. 33.
TertuUian translates the word I'ou? by the Lathi sensus.
i3« Tertulhan says that he should rather have been called
irpcDTojevt]^, or first-begotten. Compare de Anima, c. 12.
K K 2
516
constituted the oySod^. ^^^ Again, from Xoyos
and ^wn were derived ten : — (iuOo^ (a second of
the name, unless we ought rather to read
(^v9io^) and ixi^is, dyriparo^ and eVcDcrts, avro(pvr]^
and i^oovrj, aKivrjTo^ and avyKpacK, fxovoy€vr]<s (a se-
cond of the name) and /uaKapla. From dvOptoiros
and eKKXrjaia Were derived twelve: — TrapdKXrjro^
and TTiaTK, irarpiKo^ and eXirh, ixrjrpiKos and dydirr],
a'ivo^ and avvecyi^, eKKXriaiacfTiKO^ and fiaKapioTtjs,
'^^ ^eX?;T09 and aocpia. In forming these pairs of
jEons, it was evidently the intention of Valen-
tinus to couple together a male and a female
^on; a masculine being regularly joined to
a feminine noun. "° TertuUian, therefore, re-
tains the Greek nouns ; least, in translating
them into Latin, the distinction should dis-
appear. We have now reached the number of
thirty iEons, which constituted what Valen-
tinus called the irXfjpoDima, the fullness of the
celestial body.
To vovs "^ alone, among the derived Mons,
^^7 c. 8. Compare Irenaeus, L. i. c. 1. In the Scorpiace,
c. 10. we find the name o/Sao-Kavros among the iEons of
Valentinus.
^^ Irenaeus has cletvov<;.
^^ In several instances we find 0/A»;toc instead of OeXtjTo^,
probably by the mistake of the transcriber.
1*0 c. 6.
»4i cc. 9, 10.
517
was imparted the full knowledge of the Su-
preme God. He would have communicated
it to the rest; but his mother, myrj, interposed
to prevent the communication. They, in conse-
quence, pined with the secret desire of being
admitted to the knowledge of the Father. This
desire at length became so violent in (xo(f)La,
the youngest of the family of the iEons, that
she would have been destroyed by its very
intensity, and thus one of the members of the
Pleroma would have been lost, had she not
been preserved by opo?, who was sent forth
from the Father for this very purpose, at
the request of t-ou?. The various emotions,
however, by which crocpia was agitated during
the continuance of her desire, gave rise to new
existences ; for to them is to be traced the
origin of matter, of ignorance, of fear, of
grief. The desire itself — called efOufxriai^, which
the translator of Irenaeus interprets concupis-
centia cum passione — was separated by opo<i
from its parent aofpia, and driven out of the
Pleroma. To opos, on account of the part
which he had acted in restoring aocpia to the
Pleroma, were given the names of jueTaywyev^,
opoOerr]^, (TTavpo<s, (or rather perhaps a-TavpcoT?]^,
because he had crucified the desire which
preyed upon ao(j)ia,) XvTpwTrj^ or redeemer, and
KapwiaTi^^ or restorer to liberty.
518
Having thus described the error of crotpia,
the last-born Mon, and her recovery from it,
Valentinus "'proceeded to say that vod^ sent
forth another couple of ^ons, Christ and the
Holy Spirit. The office of Christ was to in-
struct the ^ons in the nature of the union
which subsisted between the different pairs in
the Pleroma, and in the mode of arriving
at the comprehension of the Supreme Father.
The office of the Holy Spirit was to render
them, after their instruction by Christ, gratefvd
to the Father, and contented with the degree
of knowledge which they possessed. "^ Calm
and tranquillity being thus restored to the Ple-
roma by the exertions of Christ and the Holy
Spirit, all the jEons, in honour of the Father,
contributed, as it were into a common stock,
each his most excellent gift. Out of these
contributions was formed the brightest star and
most perfect fruit of the Pleroma, Jesus ; — who
was also called awTrjp, -x^piarTos, X0709, and iravTa,
because AU had contributed to his formation.
Angels also were created to be his attendants ;
but TertuUian says that he could not ascertain
whether they were supposed to be of the same
substance or essence with their Lord.
So mucli for the interior of the Pleroma.
"^ c. 11. i« ^ 22.
519
^"With respect to what was without it, we
have seen that the intense desire which agi-
tated cro0ia — and which Valentinus called some-
times eV0t/V>?a-t9, sometimes "^ Achamoth — was
driven from the Pleroma, into the outer regions
of darkness; where she remained like an abor-
tion, shapeless and imperfect. In this state
Christ, at the suggestion of opo^^ regarded her
with an eye of pity, and with the assistance
of the Holy Spirit gave her a form. She re-
tained in her new condition some savour of her
former incorruption ; and sensible of her fall
sought to be re-admitted to the regions of light,
but was prevented by opo<i. In consequence of
her disappointment, she was assailed by those
evils which before afflicted her parent, ao<^'ia —
fear, grief, and ignorance. To these was now
added the desire of conversion to Christ who
gave her life. From her various emotions and
affections, arose ^^'^ aU the substances in this mate-
rial world. From her desire of conversion, arose
1** c. 14.
'''^ TertuUianus, c. 14. hoc nomen ininterpretahile vocat, et
mox additj Achamoth tmde, adhuc quceritur. Feuardentius vero
recte deducit a nDDH Sapientia. Irenaeus. Ed. Grabe. p. 19-
note 3.
^*^ c. 15. The reader will observe that whatever took
place without the Pleroma was, as it were, a copy of what
took place 7vithi7i it. Thus the formation of matter, here
described, corresponds to the formation of matter within the
Pleroma, mentioned in cc. 9} 10. See c. 23.
520
every living soul, even that of the Demiurge,
the God of mankind. From her grief and tears,
the element of water — from her fear, the corpo-
real elements — from her smile, which was caused
by the recollection of having seen Christ, light.
"^ In the extremity of her distress she at length
had recourse to prayer to Christ; who sent to
her the Saviour Jesus, with his train of at-
tendant angels. ^^^ The ecstasy, into which she
was thrown by their appearance, caused her
to produce three different kinds of existences —
material, animal, and spiritual. Out "^of the
animal she formed the Demiurge, called also
by the Valentinians fxrjTpoTrarwp, and king. The
name of Father, which is included in /mriTpoTraTwp,
was applied to him in the case of animal sub-
stances, which they placed on the right; that
of Demiurge in the case of material substances,
which they placed on the left ; and that of King
indifferently, in both cases. The ^^^ Demiurge
created this visible world.
To ^^Hhe devil, Valentinus gave the name
of Koa-juoKpaTwp or Munditenens, and appeared
in some respects to place him above the Demi-
1*7 c. 16. 1-^ c. 17- De Anima, c. 21.
1'*^ c. 18. See de Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc 7, 34.
The name firjrpoTruTwp was applied to him, because he was
merely the agent of his mother in creating the visible world.
1^ c. 20. 1^1 c. 22.
521
urge; because the latter was only animal, the
former spiritual.
The ^^^ Demiurge created man, not out of
the dust of the earth, but out of some pecu-
liar matter which he animated with his breath ;
so that man was both material and animal.
^^^The Demiurge afterwards drew over him a
covering of flesh. Moreover, at the time when
the breath of life was breathed into him,
a portion of the spiritual seed, which Acha-
moth retained, was also communicated. To
this spiritual seed was given the appellation
of eKK\r](xia, in allusiou to the Mon so named,
within the Pleroma.
Corresponding ^^^ to the three kinds of sub-
stances now described, there are three kinds of
men — the carnal or material who are represented
by Cain, the animal who are represented by Abel,
and the spiritual who are represented by Seth —
the first are destined to certain perdition, the
last to salvation. The final state of the second
is uncertain; being determined by their greater
inclinatmi, either on the one hand to the car-
nal, or on the other to the spiritual. "^They
in whom is the spiritual seed, being assured
'^^ c. 24. 153 c. 25. Compare de Anima, cc 11, 23.
^^* c. 26. 155 cc. 29, 30.
522
of salvation, are exempt from all discipline, and
at liberty to live and act as they please; but
the animal man is obliged to work out his
salvation with care and diligence. — One "''of
the consequences which the Valentinians de-
rived from this triple division was, that no
credit can be due to the testimony of the senses ;
as they are to be referred to the animal part
of man's nature.
With "^respect to Christ, the Valentinian
doctrine was, that the Demiurge sent forth,
protiilit, from himself an animal Christ, who
was foretold by the prophets, and passed
through the body of the Virgin as through
a canal — that at his Baptism the Saviour,
who was before described as formed out of
the most excellent qualities of all the jE,ons
in the Pleroma, descended upon him in the
shape of a dove, but quitted him when he
was examined before Pilate — and thus that
only the carnal and animal Christ was cruci-
fied. It does not exactly appear whence the
Christ of the Demiurge obtained his flesh,
which "^Valentinus supposed to be different
^^*' De Anima, c. 18. Tertullian remarks that the Valen-
tinians borrowed their notion from Plato. They supposed the
five foolish virgins in the parable to mean the five senses.
1^7 c. 27-
^^^ De Carnc Christi, cc. \, 15. De Res. Carnis^ c. 2.
523
from human flesh. We may here observe
that, in agreement with this supposition the
Valentinians denied the resurrection of the
body.
At ^^^the final consummation of all things,
Achamoth — who occupied the middle space in
the universe, immediately below the Pleroma
and above this world — will be received into
the Pleroma, and become the bride of the
Saviour. The Demiurge will be transferred
into the vacant habitation of his mother. Those
men, in whom was only the material seed, will
be annihilated. Those, in whom was the ani-
mal seed, and who lived virtuous lives, will
be carried up to the Demiurge, in the middle
regions. Those, in whom was the spiritual
seed, laying aside the souls which they had
received from the Demiurge, will be taken up
into the Pleroma, and become the brides of
the angels who attend upon the Saviour.
Such were the extravagant notions of Valen-
tinus, as they are represented by Tertullian,
We have aimed at expressing his meaning
accurately, but are not certain that we have
always succeeded in the attempt. We doubt
indeed whether he himself thoroughly com-
1^" cc. 31, 32, 33.
524
prehended the system wliich he undertook to
describe. Mosheim ^™ says that some of the
moderns have endeavoured to reconcile the
Valentinian doctrines with reason — a more ar-
duous or unpromising undertaking cannot well
be conceived. The design of the Heresiarch
doubtless was to account for the origin of
evil ; but in executing this design he appears
to have surrendered himself entirely to the
guidance of his fancy. His followers, using
the same liberty, changed and added to their
master's notions at their own discretion; so
that, in Tertullian's day, ^^^Axionicus of An-
tioch alone adhered strictly to the doctrines
of Valentinus. ^^" Ptolemy, one of his most
distinguished disciples, differed from him with
respect to the names, the number, and the
nature of the Mons. Tertullian mentions
among his followers, ^^^ Colarbasus, if the read-
ing is correct ; ^^' Heracleon ; ^^^ Secundus ;
Marcus, to whom our author gives the ap-
166
160 Century II. Part II. Chap. V. Sect. l6. note.
1^1 Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. In c 11. Tertullian says that
the divisions among the followers of Valentinus arose chiefly
out of their different notions respecting Christ. See de
Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 42.
i*'^ cc. 4. 33. ^"^ c. 4. 1*^* c. 4.
i**^ c. 4. and c. 38. where the system of Secundus is stated.
16^ c. 4. In the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 5.
Marcus is said to have maintained that the human body
was the workmanship of angels.
525
pellation of Magus ; ^^^ Theotimus, who appears
to have employed himself in proposing alle-
gorical or figurative expositions of the law ; and
^*^** Alexander, who urged as a reason for deny-
ing the reality of Christ's flesh that, if he
actually assumed human flesh, he must have
assumed sinful flesh ; whereas St. Paul says,
that Christ abolished sin in the flesh. Ter-
tullian ^^^ mentions certain psalms or hymns of
Valentinus. He ^"^ says also that Valentinus did
not, like Marcion, mutilate the Scriptures, but
was content to pervert their meaning. In our
account of the ^^^ Scorpiace, we stated the
grounds on which the Valentinians denied that
Christians were under any obligation to en-
counter martyrdom. One of them, named
^'" Prodicus, appears to have taken the lead in
asserting this doctrine.
Of the more obscure Gnostic sects enu-
merated by Mosheim — the Adamites, Cainites,
Abelites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites — Ter-
i**? c. 4. Multum circa imagines Legis Theotimus operatus
est.
^68 De Carne Christi, c. l6. See Chap. V. note 26.
169 De Carne Christi, cc. 17- 20.
1^'^ De Praescriptione Hareticorum^ c. 38.
171 Chap. I. p. 58. Chap. II. p. 151.
1^^ Scorpiace, cap. ult. Prodicus is mentioned again in
the Tract against Praxeas, c 3. sub fine.
526
tuUian ^^^ mentions only the Cainites; who ac-
cording to him were Nicolaitans under another
name. It ^^* has been already remarked that the
female, against whom the Tract de Baptismo
was composed, was said to belong to this sect.
From the Oriental Heresies, Mosheim pro-
ceeds to those which he allows to be of Gre-
cian origin; and which, according to him,
principally owed their rise to the attempt to
explain the Christian doctrines of the Trinity
and Incarnation, upon the principles of the
Grecian philosophy. To this class of Here-
sies he refers the tenets of Praxeas, Artemon,
and Theodotus. Of Artemon and Theodotus,
we find no notice in TertuUian's writings.
Against Praxeas he wrote a Treatise, from
which we collect, not only the opinions of
that Heretic, but also his own, upon the two
fundamental articles of Christian faith just
mentioned. The reader will remember that the
consideration of them was deferred till we ar-
rived at this division of our work ; and their
paramount importance must be our excuse for
entering into a more detailed account of the
Treatise against Praxeas, than has been given
of the other Tracts against the Heretics.
'73 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33.
'74 Chap. I. note 28,
527
Praxeas, according to our ^^^ author, was
a man of a restless temper, who had very
recently come from Asia, and by false repre-
sentations prevailed upon the Bishop of Rome
to recal a letter, in which he had recognised
the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Max-
imilla, and had recommended the Asiatic
Churches to continue in communion with
them. This circumstance doubtless contributed,
as much as the heretical tenets of Praxeas,
to excite our author's indignation against him.
When, however, those tenets found their way
to Carthage, they were successfully combated
and to all appearance extirpated by TertuUian
himself; the person who originally taught them
having delivered to the Church a written re-
cantation. But after a time the Heresy again
displayed itself ; and called forth, from the pen
of Tertullian, the Treatise which we are now
to consider.
The ^^^ error of Praxeas appears to have
originated in anxiety to maintain the unity
of God ; which, ^^^ he thought, could only be
^^^ c. 1. Ipsa novellitas Praxeas hesterni, c. 2.
^76 Unicum dominum vindicate omnipotentem, mundi con-
ditorem, ut de unico Haeresim faciat. c. 1.
^^^ Dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam
si ipsum eundemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
dicat, c. 2. Quum eundem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum
contenduntj adversus olaovoniav Monarchise adulantes, c. 9.
528
done by saying that the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost were one and the same. He con-
tended, therefore, according to Tertullian, that
^^^ the Father himself descended into the Virgin,
was born of her, suffered, and was in a word
Jesus Christ. Praxeas, however, does not ap-
pear to have admitted the correctness of this
account of his doctrine ; but to have declared
his opinion to be — ^^Hhat the Father did not
suffer in the Son, but sympathised (compassus
est) with the Son.
Tertullian enters upon the refutation of
^''^ Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum
ex ea natum, ipsum passum; denique ipsum esse Jesum
Christum, c 1.
179 Ergo nee compassus est Pater Filio; sic enim, direc-
tam blasphemiam in Patrem veriti, diminui eam hoc mode
sperant, concedentes jam Patrem et Filium duos esse, si filius
quidem patitur; Pater vero compatitur, c. 29. From this
passage Lardner contends that Praxeas was not a Patripassian ;
and that Tertullian was mistaken in his view of that Heretic's
doctrines. According to Lardner, who follows Beausobre,
Praxeas distinguished between the Word and the Son of
God; deeming the former only an attribute or faculty of
the Divine Nature, the communication of which to the man
Jesus Christ, through his conception by the Holy Spirit,,
rendered him the Son of God. Credibility of Gospel His-
tory, c. 41. History of Heretics, c. 20. Sect. 7. But Wilson,
in his " Illustration, &c." pp. 312, 415. has satisfactorily shown
that the earliest error on the subject of Christ's nature was that
of those who denied, not his Divinity, but his humanity ; and
that the error of Praxeas consisted in denying his distinct
personality. Wilson compares Praxeas and his followers with
the Swedenborgians.
I
529
the doctrines of Praxeas by setting forth his
own creed. ^^^ " We believe," he says, " in
one God, but under the following dispensa-
tion or oeconomy — that there is also a Son
of God, his Word, who ^^^ proceeded from
him ; by whom all things were made, and
without whom nothing was made; who was
sent by him into the Virgin, and was born
of her; being both man and God, the Son
of man and the Son of God, and called
Jesus Christ; who suffered, died, and was
buried, according to the Scriptures; and
was ^^' raised again by the Father; and was
taken up into heaven, there to sit at the
right hand of the Father, and thence to come
to judge the quick and the dead ; who sent
from heaven, ^^^from his father, according to
his promise, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter,
the Sanctifier of the Faith of all, who believe
in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Such,
according to Tertullian, was the faith handed
180 c. 2. This passage is quoted in Chap. V. note 155.
181 Qui ex ipso processerit. In c. 6. TertuUian, speaking
of the generation of the Son, uses the word protulit. See also
c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo proce-
dit. And c. 19- In quo principio prolatus a Patre est.
182 Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians i. 1. the
raising of Christ is attributed to the Father. See Pearson,
Article V. p. 256.
183 In c. 4. the Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father,
through the Son.
Ll
530
down in the Church, from the first preaching
of the Gospel ; a faith, which, far from destroy-
ing the unity, as Praxeas supposed, is perfectly
consistent with it. "For though the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are three, they are
three, not in ^^* condition, but in degree; not
in substance, but in form ; not in power, but in
species; being of one substance, one condition
and one power, because there is one God, from
whom those degrees, forms, and species, in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
are derived."
" The ^^^ simple, indeed," Tertullian proceeds,
" not to call them unwise and unlearned, who
^^* Tres autem, non statu, sed gradu ; nee substantia, sed
forma ; nee potestate, sed specie ; unius autem substantiae, et
unius status, et unius potestatis ; quia unus Deus, ex quo et
gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritds Sancti, deputantur. c. 2. Compare c. 19' Rati-
onem reddidimus qua Dii non duo dicantur, nee Domini, sed
qua Pater et Filius, duo r et hoc non ex separatione substantiae,
sed ex dispositione, quum individuum et inseparatum Filium
a Patre pronuntiamus ; nee statu, sed gradu alium ; qui etsi
Deus dicatur quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos
Deos faciat, sed unum ; lioc ipso quod et Deus ex unitate
Patris vocari habeat. See also cc. 9^ 21.
^^ TertuUian's words are : Simplices enim quique, ne
dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium
pars est, &c. In his controversy with Dr. Priestley, Bishop
Horsley translated the word idiotcv by the English word idiots,
for which translation he was severely reprehended by Dr.
Priestley. The Bishop afterwards explained that by the
word
531
always constitute the majority of believers,
are startled at the doctrine of the Trinity ;
thinking that it divides the Unity. We,
they say, maintain the monarchy, or sole
government of God. But what is the mean-
ing of the word monarchy? Sole empire: —
word idiot he did not mean a person labouring under a
constitutional defect of the faculty of reason ; but a dull,
stupid, ignorant person — a dunce or booby. Probably be-
tween the publication of his Letters and of his Supple-
mental Disquisitions, Bentley's animadversions upon Collins
for translating ab idiotis Evangelistis, hy idiot Evangelists, had
occurred to his recollection. Remarks on Free-thinking,
c. 3S Wilson, p. 444. thus translates the passage : " For
all the men of simplicity (alluding probably to their affectation
of simplicity of doctrine, as well as to their ignorance), not
to call them unwise and unlearned, who always form the ma-
jority of Christians." We doubt whether the word Simplices
was meant to convey the allusion which Wilson supposes. In
the Tract against the Valentinians, c. 2. TertuUian says that
they called the orthodox Simplices, and themselves Sapien-
tes. See also c. 3. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9- vel convertere simplices
quosque gestitis. Scorpiace, c. 1. Nam quod sciimt multos
simplices ac rudes, where the word manifestly means, simple-
minded, uninstructed. But that Wilson has rightly trans-
lated the word idiotce will appear from a comparison of the
following passages. Male accepit idiotes quisque, c. 9. Nee
tantus ego sum ut vos alloquar; veruntamen et gladiatores
perfectissimos non tantum magistri et preepositi sui, sed etiam
idiotae et supervacue quique abhortantur de longinquo, ut
saepe de ipso populo dictata suggesta profuerint. Ad Mar-
tyres, c. 1. Sed est hoc solenne perversis et idiotis (et Rigault)
haereticis, jam et Psychicis universis. De Pudicitia, c. I6. sub
fine. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam com-
pello. De Testimonio Animae, c. 1. The word imperitus
is used in nearly the same sense ; Secundum majorem vim im-
peritorum — apud gloriosissimam scilicet multitudinem Psychi-
orum. De Jejuniis, c. 11.
LL2
532
and is it not perfectly consistent with single-
ness of rule that the ruler should have a
^*^ Son, or that he should administer the
government through the agency of whom he
will? When a Father associates his Son with
himself in the empire, is the unity of the
imperial power thereby destroyed? The Va-
lentinians, it is true, destroy the monarchy
of God, because they introduce other deities,
who are wholly at variance with him. The
^" Son is of the substance of the Father ;
he does nothing but by the will of the
Father; he derives all his power from the
Father, and will finally, ^^^ as we learn from
St. Paul, restore it to the Father. How
then can the doctrine of the Trinity, when
thus explained, be deemed inconsistent with
the sole government of God? The same
reasoning is applicable in the case of the
Holy Spirit." — The very circumstance, that
the Scriptures speak of one who delivers
power, and of another to whom it is delivered,
affords in TertuUian's estimation convincing
evidence of a distinction of persons in the
^^ Facilius de Filio quam de Patre haesitabatur. De Prse-
scriptione Haereticorum, c. 34. Semler insinuates that this
part of TertuUian's reasoning verges towards Arianism.
187 c. 4.
188 1 Cor. XV. 28. .
533
unity of the divine nature; yet ^^^ expressions
sometimes fall from him which seem at first
sight to imply, that the distinction only sub-
sists for the purpose of carrying on the Divine
administration under the Gospel.
Having removed this popular objection to
the Doctrine of the Trinity, Tertullian ^^° turns
to the immediate question between himself
and Praxeas ; and says, that his object will be
to enquire, whether there is a Son — who He
is — and how He exists. In following Tertul-
lian through his investigation of the first of
these points, we must bear in mind the double
sense of the word X070S — which comprehends
ratio and sermo, reason and speech. — "Before
all things, God was alone, being his own
world, and place, and universe; alone, be-
cause nothing existed without or beyond him.
^^^ Yet even then he was not alone ; for he
had with him, within himself, his Reason,
called by the Greeks X070S, by the Latins
189 Videmus^ igitur, non obesse raonarchiae Filium, etsi
hodie apud Filium est ; quia et in suo statu est apud Filium,
et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filia; ita earn nemo hoc
nomine destruet^ si Filium admittat, cui et traditam earn
a Patre, et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat, c. 4.
Compare cc. 13, l6.
190 c. 5.
19* Tertullian's words are, Cneterum ne tunc quidem soluSj-
habebat enim secum, quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem
suam
534
Sermo, though the word Ratio would be the
more accurate translation, and it would be more
proper to say. In the heginning Reason {Ratio)
was with God, than In the hegitmitig the Word
{Sermo) was with God; since Reason is mani-
festly prior to the Word which it dictates.
Not that this distinction is of great moment.
For as God reasoned with himself, and ar-
ranged the plan of creation, he may be accu-
rately said, by so doing, to have made his
Reason his Word. Thought, as we know
from our own experience, is a species of in-
ternal conversation. ^^^This power and dispo-
suam scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius ;
et ita ab ipso omnia ; quae Ratio sensus ipsius est. Compare
the conclusion of c. 15. Sensus in this passage, according to
Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 238. cor-
responds to the Greek word ewoia. In the Tract de Prae-
scriptione Haereticorum, c. S3, as was observed in note 135.
Tertullian uses it as synonymous with vov<;. The difficulty
is to reconcile this mode of explaining the generation of
Word with the notion of distinct personality. The reader
however, may consult Horsley's fourth Supplemental Dis-
quisition. There is towards the conclusion of c. 5. an ex-
pression on which Bull animadverts severely : — Possum itaque
non temere praestruxisse, et tunc Deum, ante universitatis
constitutionem, solum non fuisse, habentem in semetipso
proinde Rationem, et in ratione Sermonem, quem secundum
a se faceret agitando intra se. p. 236.
''•*^ c 6. Tertullian refers to Proverbs viii. 22. introduc-
ing the quotation by the words, Itaque Sophiam quoque
exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam ; words which would
at first sight seem to imply that the second Person in the Tri-
nity was created : but he adds, in sensu suo scilicet condens
et
535
sition of the Divine intelligence (Divini sensils)
is called also in Scripture ao<pia, or wisdom ;
for what can be better entitled to the name of
Wisdom than the Reason and Word of God?
When, therefore, God had determined to ex-
hibit in their different substances and forms,
those things which he had planned within
himself in conjunction with the Reason and
Word of his wisdom, he ^^^sent forth his
Word — who had also in himself reason and
wisdom inseparably united to him — to the end
that all things might be made by him by whom
they had been originally devised and planned —
nay had been actually made, as far as the
Divine intelligence was concerned (quantum in
Dei sensu)- — nothing more being wanting to
them, than that they should be known, and as
it were fixed in their respective substances and
forms. ^^^ Such is the perfect nativity of the
Word, as he proceeds from God: formed by
Him first, to devise, under the name of wis-
dom ; then hegotten, for the purpose of carrying
et generans (Deus.) Part of c. 7- is employed in proving the
identity of the Word and Wisdom of God. Compare adv.
Hermogenem, c. 20.
^^^ Semler infers that, previously to this prolation, the
Word had no distinct personality.
^^^ c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex
Deo procedit : condkus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine
Sophiae — ^^dehinc generalus ad effectum.
536
into effect what had been devised." — The reader
will in this passage recognise a distinction,
with which the early Fathers were familiar,
between the X0709 evSiaOero^ and the \0709
TrpotpopiKos. TertuUian's language would at first
sight appear to imply, that the generation of
the Word took place when he was sent forth
to create the world; and that his distinct
personality commenced from that period. It
is, however, certain that our author intended
to assert the distinct personality of the X070S
evoiaOeTOi.
One of the objections urged by Praxeas
was, that the Word of God meant nothing
more than the Word of his Mouth — not a
distinct agent, but the emission of his voice,
to which, in metaphorical language, agency
was ascribed. "^ " What," he asked, " do you
make the Word a substance, when it is in
truth a voice, a sound proceeding from the
mouth ; and, as the grammarians say, an im-
pulse given to the air, and intelligible through
the hearing?" To this objection TertuUian
^^ c. 7- Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Ser-
monem, Spiritu et Sophiae traditione constructam ? Plane.
And again. Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris,
et sicut Grammatici tradunt, aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu }
caeterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale ?
537
answers, that the expressions in Scripture re-
specting the Word are of such a nature that
they imply a Person, whom we call the Son,
distinct from the Father; and that they cannot
be accounted for on the supposition that they
are metaphorical. Can the Word, of whom it
is said that ivithout him nothing was made that
was 7nacle, be supposed to be a mere empty
sound? Can that, which is without substance,
create substances ? ^^*^ " Whatever then," con-
cludes Tertullian, " may be the substance of
the Word, I call that substance a person, and
give it the name of Son ; and while I acknow-
ledge a Son, I maintain that he is second to
the Father." Thus our author determines the
first question which he proposed to discuss—
whether there is a Son?
We have seen that Tertullian, in speaking
of the generation of the Son, uses the words
^^'^ 'protulit and procedit. He ^^^ thinks it, there-
fore, necessary to refute by anticipation the
^^ Quaecunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico
personam, et illi nomen Filii vindico ; et dum Filium agnosco^
secundum a Patre defendo. The expression, secundum a
Patre, according to Semler, implies a complete separation of
the Son from the Father — a separation of substance; but
whoever reads the following Chapter (8.) will be convinced
that such was not Tertullian's notion.
197 Note 181. of this Chapter.
198 c. 8.
538
charge of introducing the Valentinian ttjoojSoX);,
Prolation of ^ons. "Their Prolation," he
says, "implies an entire separation of the sub-
stance emitted— mine does not prevent its most
intimate union with that from which it pro-
ceeds." In order to explain his meaning, he
borrows illustrations from natural objects. ^^^ The
three persons in the Trinity stand to each
other in the relation of the root, the shrub,
and the fruit; of the fountain, the river, and
the cut from the river: of the sun, the ray,
and the terminating point of the ray. For
these illustrations he professes himself indebted
to the Revelations of the Paraclete. In later
times, divines have occasionally resorted to
similar illustrations, for the purpose of fami-
liarising the doctrine of the Trinity to the
mind; nor can any danger arise from the pro-
ceeding, so long as we recollect that they are
illustrations, not arguments — that we must not
draw conclusions from them, or think that
whatever may be truly predicated of the iUus-
199 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam
Paracletus docet^, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol
radium: quoted in note 30. of Chap. I. Again^ Tertius enim
est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice, fructus ex
frutice ; et tertius a fonte^ rivus ex flumine ; et tertius a Sole,
apex ex radio. I know not whether I have rightly translated
the words livus and apex. Let me take this opportunity of
observing that I undertake only to state, not always to
explain or comprehend, Tertullian's notions.
539
tration, may be predicated with equal truth of
that which it was designed to illustrate.
" Notwithstanding, '°° however, the inti-
mate union which subsists between the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, w^e must be careful,"
Tertullian continues, " to distinguish between
their Persons." In his representations of this
distinction, he sometimes uses expressions
which in after times, when controversy had
introduced greater precision of language, were
studiously avoided by the Orthodox. ^^^ Thus
he calls the Father the whole substance — the
Son a derivation from or portion of the whole.
In proving the distinction of persons he lays
particular stress on ""'John xiv. 16. He
'^^ contends also that Father and Son are corre-
lative terms, one of which implies the exist-
ence of the other: there cannot be a Father
without a Son, or a Son withovit a Father.
Consequently the doctrine of Praxeas, which
200 c. 9-
201 Pater enim tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius
et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, quia Pater major 7ne est. Semlei'
supposes derivatio to be a translation of diroppoia, a word which
he states to have been rightly rejected by Irenaeus, and others.
See c 14. pro modulo derivationis, and c. 26. Bull, Sect. 2.
c. 7. p. 95.
202 « J ^j^ pj.^y ^}^g Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter — even the Spirit of Truth."
2' '3 c. 10.
540
confounds the Father and the Son, must be
erroneous. To this argument Praxeas replied,
that nothing is impossible with God — that He,
who could make a barren woman and even
^°*a Virgin bear, could make himself at once
both Father and Son. In support of this
assertion he quoted the first verse of Genesis,
in which "°^he appears to have read. In jwin-
cipio Dens fecit sihi JH'mm. Tertullian rejoins,
that our business is to enquire what God has
done, not to conjecture what he can do; or
to infer that, because he can produce a cer-
tain event, he has produced it. He could
have given men wings; but he has not given
them. In God, will and power are the same ;
what, therefore, he wiUs not to do, that in
one sense he cannot do. Tertullian ^"^ pro-
ceeds to say that Praxeas, in order to estab-
^^■* It appears from this passage that Praxeas admitted the
miraculous Conception.
^•^ c. 5. Aiunt quidem et Genesin in Hebraico ita inci-
pere, In principio Deus fecit sibi jilium : Semler doubts the
truth of Tertullian's assertion. His note is, Mirum est sic
quosdam Jinxisse.
^'^^ c. 1 1 . Tertullian here uses an expression which Sem-
ler conceives to savour of Arianism. Probare autem tarn aperte
debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos probamus illuvi sibi Filium
fecisse Sermonem snum. But Tertullian had before said, in
speaking of the Reason and Word of God, Cum ratione enim
sua cogitans atque disponens Sermonem earn efficiebat, quam
Sermone tractabat, c. 5. See also adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 27.
Sermonem ejus, quem ex semetipso proferendo filium fecit.
541
lish his point, ought to produce passages of
Scripture, in which the absolute identity of
the Father and Son is as clearly expressed,
as is the distinction of Persons in the pas-
sages produced by the Orthodox. Our author
then alleges various passages, ""^ many of them
from the Old Testament ; and ^"^ dwells par-
ticularly on Genesis i. 26. — where God, when
about to create man, speaks in the plural
number, " Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness."
" But ^°^ how," asked Praxeas, " do you
clear yourself of the charge of polytheism —
of teaching a plurality of gods?" ^^^ Having
first shewn by copious quotations from Scrip-
ture that the names Deus and Dominus are
applied to Christ, and consequently that the
Sacred Writers may with equal justice be ac-
cused of inculcating polytheism — TertuUian
answers, ^" that " the Orthodox never speak of
^^ Isaiah xlii. 1. Ixi. 1. Psalm ex. 1.
'^^ c. 12. Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus
faciebat similem? Cum Filio quidem, qui erat induturus
hominem ; Spiritu vero, qui erat sanctifieaturus hominem ;
quasi eum ministris et arbitris, ex unitate Trinitatis, loque-
batur. The Jews supposed the Almighty in this verse to
speak to the Angels. "^^^ c. 15.
^^° For instance, TertuUian refers to Psalm xlv. 7, 8. ex. 1.
Isaiah xlv. 14. liii. 1. Genesis xix. 14. John i. 1-
^" Compare c. I9.
542
two Gods or two Lords, though they affirm
that each Person in the Trinity is God and
Lord. The design of those passages in the
Old Testament, in which two Gods or two
Lords are mentioned, was to prepare the minds
of men to acknowledge Christ, when he
should appear, as God and Lord. But now
that Christ has appeared, the necessity for
using this language has ceased ; and we speak
only of one God and one Lord. When, there-
fore, we have occasion to mention both the
Father and Son, we imitate '^" St. Paul, and
call the Father, God; the Son, Lord. When
to mention the Son alone, we again imitate
-^'St Paul, and caU him God." "If," adds
Tertullian, " you require additional proof of
our abhorrence of polytheism, you may find
it in our refusal to acknowledge two Gods
and two Lords, although by making the ac-
knowledgement we might escape the pains of
martyrdom."
Tertullian ^"proceeds to argue that a
distinction of Persons in the Godhead affords
the only means of reconciling some apparent
inconsistencies in the Sacred Writings. At
^^^one time God says to INIoses that no man
-*^ Romans i. 4. ^'^ Romans ix. 5.
^" c. I'i. -1^ Exodus xxxiii. 13, 18, 20.
543
can see his face and live; at another we read
that God appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and the
Prophets, These apparent contradictions can
only be reconciled by supposing that it was
^^^the Son who appeared. "But what," asked
Praxeas, "do you gain by this supposition?
Is not the Son, who is the Word and Spirit,
equally invisible with the Father? And if it
was the Son who conversed with Moses, it
was the face of the Son which no man could
see and live ; you in fact establish the identity
of the Father and Son. Father and Son are
only names applied to the same God; the
former, when he is invisible: the latter, when
visible." " We grant," answers Tertullian,
" that the Son, inasmuch as he is God and
Word and Spirit, is invisible; but he was
seen by the Prophets in visions, and conversed
with Moses face to face at the time of the
transfiguration; for in that event was accom-
plished the ^^^ promise made by God to speak
with Moses face to face. -^^The New Testa-
^i** Compare Adv. JudaeoS;, c 9. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii.
cc. 6, 9. L. iv. cc. 10, 13. L. V. c. 19. De Carne Christi, c. 6.
^^7 Numbers xii. 2.
2^^ c. 15^ We have seen. Chap. I. note 36. that Ter-
tullian applies to the Holy Spirit the names Christi Vicarius,
Domini Vicarius. De Virginibus velandis, c. 1. In like
manner he calls Christ, Vicarius Patris. Adv. Marcionem,
L. iii. c. 6. Adv. Praxeam, c 24.
544
ment confirms this distinction between the
Father, who was never seen ; and the Son, who
appeared, in the early times in visions, but
afterwards in the flesh. The ^^^ Son not only-
made all things, but has from the beginning
conducted the government of this world. To
Him all power was given. He it was who
executed judgement upon mankind, by caus-
ing the deluge, and by destroying Sodom and
Gomorrah. He it was who descended to con-
verse with man, appearing to Abraham, the
Patriarchs and the Prophets in visions; and
thus as it were -^° preparing himself for his
future residence on earth, when he was to
assume the form and substance of man, and
to become subject to human infirmities.
Praxeas on the contrary ignorantly imputes
all these acts to the Father; and supposes the
Omnipotent, Invisible God, who dwells in
light inaccessible, to have been seen by man
and to have suffered thirst and hunger. ^"^ He
makes this supposition, because the attributes
and titles of God are ascribed in Scripture
to Him who appeared to man ; forgetting that
those attributes and titles equally belong to
the Son, though not precisely in the same
manner as to the Father."
219 c. 16. ^0 Compare c. 12.
221 C. 17.
545
Our author ^^^next enters upon the con-
sideration of those passages of Scripture which
were urged by Praxeas in proof of the iden-
tity of the Father and Son. When -''it is
said, for instance, that there is 07ie God the
Father^ and besides him there is no other, Ter-
tullian affirms that the existence of the Son
is not denied, who is indeed one God with
the Father. " These," he observes, " and simi-
lar expressions were directed against the ido-
latry and polytheism of the Heathen ; or
designed to confute by anticipation the notions
of those Heretics, who feigned another God
by whom Christ was sent, distinct from the
Creator. The error of Praxeas arises from con-
fining his attention to those passages which
favour his own opinion, and overlooking those
which clearly bespeak a distinction of persons,
without however violating the unity of the
Godhead." Praxeas appears to have insisted
particularly on the following texts in St. John's
Gospel : "■* / and my Father are one. He who
has seen me has seen the Father also. I in
my Father and my Father in me. " To these
few texts," observes Tertullian, "he wishes to
make the whole of the Old and New Tes-
taments bend: whereas, had he been really de-
^ cc. 18, 19. 223 c. 20. Isaiah xlv. 5.
224 c. 10. ver. 30. 38. and c. 14. ver. 10.
M M
546
sirous of discovering the truth, he would have
sought for such an interpretation of them as
would have reconciled them to the rest of
Scripture." Our "'" author then proceeds to
shew, by a minute analysis of St. John's Gospel,
that the Father and Son are constantly spoken
of as distinct persons. With ^''^ respect to the
first of the texts alleged by Praxeas — / and
my Father are one, or as it stood in his Latin
version Ego et Pater unum sumus — he anim-
adverts severely upon the folly of that Heretic
in urging it, who ought to have seen in the
first place that two persons are mentioned, Ego
et Pater; in the next that the word sumus
implies a plurality of persons. "If," he con-
tinues, " the masculine noun unus had been used
instead of the neuter unum, the passage might
have afforded some countenance to the doc-
trine of Praxeas : — since unus might mean one
with reference to number; whereas mium can
only imply unity of substance." — With respect
to the third text, / i7i my Father and my
Father in me, TertuUian's remark is that Christ
had just before referred to the miracles which
he had wrought. He meant, therefore, to affirm
that he possessed the same power as the Father :
225 cc. 21, 23, 24.
22" c. 22. TertuUian's interpretation of tlie second text
will be found in c. 24.
547
that they were one as to the power of work-
ing miracles. — Our author urges incidentally,
as an argument against the doctrine of Praxeas,
that the Jews in his day did not look for the
coming of the Father; but of a distinct per-
son— the anointed of the Father.
TertuUian comes at ^^^last to those pas-
sages relating to the mission of the Paraclete,
which, as has been already remarked, he con-
ceived to afford decisive proof of the dis-
tinction of persons in the Trinity. In his
comment upon them, he has been supposed to
allude to the celebrated verse in the first Epistle
of St. John, which contains the three Hea-
venly witnesses. It is not my intention to
engage in the general controversy respecting
the genuineness of the verse; but it may be
expected that I shovild state my opinion upon
that part of the question in which TertuUian
is immediately concerned. We have seen that,
according to him, Praxeas confounded the Per-
sons in the Trinity; though, if we may judge
from his mode of conducting the controversy,
it turned principally upon the Persons of the
Father and the Son. Praxeas '^^ quoted in
support of his opinion. Ego et Pater unum
sumus. TertuUian replied, " that verse is di-
227 c. 25. See note 202. 228 c. 22.
M M 2
548
rectly against you; for though it declares an
unity of substance in the Father and Son,
it also declares a duality, if we may coin a
word, of Persons." Having established his
point with respect to the first and second
Persons in the Trinity, Tertullian proceeds to
the third. " We have seen," he says, " that
the Son promised that, when he had ascended
to the Father, he would ask the Father to
send another Comforter; and we "^have seen
in what sense he was called another Com-
forter. 2^° Of this Comforter the Son says, He
shall take of mi7ie, as the Son himself had
taken of the Father's. Thus the connexion
of the Father in the Son and of the Son in
the Paraclete makes three coherent Persons,
one in the other; which three are one in sub-
stance, unum; not one in number, unus ; in
the same manner in which it was said, / and
my Father are one'' Now in case Tertullian
had been acquainted with 1 John v. 7. a verse
which as clearly proved, according to his own
mode of reasoning, the unity of substance and
distinction of Persons in the Father, Son, and
229 C. 9-
^^ Caeterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de patris.
Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit
cohaerentes, alterum ex altero ; qui tres unum sunt, non
unus ; quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad
substantias unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem.
549
Holy Ghost, as Ego et Pater unum sumus did
in the Father and Son — I would ask whether
it is not contrary to all reason to suppose
that he would have neglected to quote it,
and chosen rather to refer his readers to the
latter text (John x. 30.) and to John xvi. 14. ?
An attempt has, I am aware, been made to
evade the force of this argument by saying
that " TertuUian could not expressly quote
1 John V. 7. because it contains as just a
description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that
Heretic could have given. The second Per-
son in the Trinity is there designated as
the Word : and Praxeas argued that '^^ the
Word could not mean a distinct Person, but
merely a voice — a sound proceeding from the
mouth." But if this reason was sufficient to
prevent TertuUian from quoting the verse, it
would also have prevented him from alluding
to it. It is, however, quite incredible, that
any such reason should have occurred to him.
^^^A considerable portion of his Tract is occu-
pied in arguing that the Word (Sermo, not
Filius) is a distinct Person from the Father;
and in proof of this position he "^^ quotes from
Psalm xliv. (or xlv.) Eructavit cor meum ser-
231 c. 7- 2^2 See cc. 5, 7-
233 c. 11. Aut exhibe probationem, quam expostulo, mese
similem ; id est, sic Scripturas eundem Filium et Patrem osten-
dere.
550
monem optimum. Would a writer, who alleged
such a passage in support of the distinct per-
sonality of the Word, be deterred from quoting
1 John V. 7. because the name of Verbum is
there given to the second Person in the Tri-
nity? In my opinion, the passage in Tertul-
lian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John
V. 7. furnishes most decisive proof that he
knew nothing of the verse. It is not unworthy
of remark that throughout this Tract, when
speaking of the Word, he uses ^^* Sermo, and
not Verbum.
To return to TertuUian's argument against
Praxeas: — after ^^^ briefly referring to different
passages in the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Luke, which prove the existence of the Son
as a distinct Person from the Father, he pro-
dere, quemadmodum apud nos distincte Pater et Filius de-
monstrantur ; distincte inquam, non divise. Sicut ego profero
dictum a Deo, Eruclavit cor meiim Servioiiem optimum ; sic tu
contra opponas alicubi dixisse Deum, Eructavit 7ne cor meum
Sermonem optimum; ut ipse sit et qui eructavit et quod
eructavit ; et ipse qui protulerit et qui prolatus sit, si ipse est
et Sermo et Deus. This argument, in favour of the distinct
personahty of the Word, is lost in ovir Version, Mt/ heart
is inditing of a good matter. See Porson to Travis, p. 260.
234 ^ gi'eat outcry was raised against Erasmus for trans-
lating Xo'^o'i, Sermo, in his Version of the New Testament.
See his Apology de In principio erut Sei-mo. Opera, Tom. IX.
p. 111. Ed. Ludg. Bat. 1706', and his Note on John i. 1.
~^' c. 26.
551
ceeds to the two remaining questions which
he proposed to discuss — ^Who the Son is, and
how He exists. In ^^^ order to get rid of our
author's conclusion respecting the distinction
of Persons, Praxeas contended that, in the
passages on which it was founded, the Son
'^^ meant the flesh, that is man, that is Jesus ;
the Father meant the Spirit, that is God, that
is Christ. " Thus," observes Tertullian, " he
contradicts himself: for if Jesus and Christ
are different Persons, the Son and Father are
different : since the son is Jesus, and the Father
Christ. Nor is this all : for he also divides the
person of Christ." Here "^^our author under-
takes to explain in what manner the Word
was made flesh. He was not transfigured into
flesh, but put on flesh. Transfiguration implies
the destruction of that which before existed.
Neither must we suppose that the Word was
so confounded with the flesh as to produce
a third substance, in the same manner in which
gold mixed with silver produces what is called
electrum. '^^ Christ was both God and m.an : —
236 g_ 2'T_
^^^ From this statement Larclner argues that Praxeas
was not a Patripassian ; since he believed that the Son alone
suffered. History of Heretics, c. 20. Sect. 7, 8.
^^ See the passage^ quoted in Chap. VI. note 138.
^^^ Sed hase vox carnis et animae, id est hominis, non
Sermonis nee Spiritus, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est
ut impassibilem Deum ostenderet^ qui sic filium dereliquit,
dum
552,
the Word and the flesh, that is, the divine and
human natures, were united in his person, but
were not confounded. Each displayed itself
in its peculiar operations: in **"the former he
worked miracles ; in the latter he hungered,
thirsted, wept, was sorrowful even unto death,
and died. -" " If," adds Tertullian, " we attend
only to the meaning of the word Christus, we
shall perceive the absurdity of supposing that
the Father and Christ are one Person. Christus
means one who is anointed — anointed conse-
quently by another; but by whom could the
Father be anointed?" '''-Tertullian concludes
the Treatise with observing that the doctrine
of the Trinity constituted the great difference
between the faith of a Jew and a Christian.
Praxeas, therefore, by confounding the Son and
the Holy Ghost with the Father, carried the
believer back to Judaism.
After the detailed account which has been
given of the Tract against PraijLeas, we need
scarcely observe that Tertullian maintained a
dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem, c 30. The meaning
seems to be, that, as man, Christ had a body and soul : as
God, he had also the Spirit, which left him on the cross;
and by the loss of which he became subject to death. Com-
pare de Came Christi, cc 5. 1 7-
^■*'' Compare c l6. Apology, c. 21. Ostendens se esse
xdjov Dei. &c.
2-11 c. 28. 242 c. 31.
553
real Trinity; or in the words of our first
Article, that "in the unity of the Godhead
there be three Persons of one substance, power,
and eternity." ^" Semler in one of his notes
affirms, that TertuUian was the earliest writer
who used the words Trinitas and Persona, in "^tji^*'
speaking of the persons in the Godhead. He
also asserts that TertuUian borrowed them from
the Valentinians ; but this assertion is unsup-
ported by proof. There is undoubtedly a pas-
sage in the ""Treatise de Anima, in which
he uses the word Trinitas to express the
Valentinian distinction of men into three dif-
ferent species, spiritual, animal, and material:
but it does not, therefore, follow that he bor-
rowed the word from the Valentinians ; for
he has in "*^ the very same Tract applied it
to the Platonic division of the soul into XoyiKov,
OuixiKov, and eTnOv/ariTiKov. We find also ''^^ in the
^■^ c. 8. The word Trinitas occurs also in cc. 2. 11.
^^0.21. Ut «dhuc Trinitas Valentiniana caedatur. See
also de Praescriptione Hasreticorum^ c. 7- Trinitas hominis
apud Valentinum.
^^ c. l6. Ecce enim tota haec Trinitas et in Domino:
rationale indignativum — et concupiscentivum. See Chapv
III. p. 199-
^*^ c. 28. There is a singular representation of the Trinity
in the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 21. sub fine. Nam et Ecclesia
proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est Tri-
nitas unius divinitatis. Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.
Illam Ecclesiam congregat quara Dominus in tribus posuit.
We have already on more than one oecasion referred to
the
554
Tract de Kesurrectione Carnis, the expression
"Trina Virtus Dei;" but it is employed to
denote the triple exercise of God's power, in
rendering the devil subject to man — in raising
the body of man from the grave— and in calling
him to judgement hereafter.
Our analysis of the Treatise against Praxeas
further proves that the opinions of Tertullian,
respecting the Son and the Holy Ghost, essenti-
ally coincided with the doctrines of our Church.
According to him "the Son, which is the
-''^Word of the Father, begotten from ever-
lasting of the Father, -^Hhe very, and eternal
the notion, adopted by Tertullian after he became a Mon-
tanist, that three persons constitute a Church.
2'*'' Adv. Praxeam, c. 5.
^■^^ Apology, c. 21. Necesse est igitur pauca de Christo,
ut Deo.— Hunc (toV Xojov) ex Deo prolatum dicimus, et
prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dic-
tum ex unitate substantia? : nam et Deus Spiritus. Et
quum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed sol
exit in radio, quia solis est radius: nee separatur substantia,
sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus,
ut lumen de lumine accensum — Iste igitur Dei radius, ut
retro semper prasdicabatur, delapsus in Virginem quandam,
et in utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo Deo mistus.
Caro Spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, affatur, docet, ope-
ratur, et Christus est. Tertullian then proceeds to describe
Christ's crucifixion, his resurrection on the third day, and
ascension. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 12. De Spec-
taculis, c. 25. We learn incidentally from the passage in
the Apology that the Jews expected a mere man in the
Messiah.
555
God, of one substance with the Father, took
man's nature in the womb of the Blessed
Virgin, of her substance: so that "^Hwo whole
and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and
manhood, were joined together in one person,
"^^^ never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ,
very God and very man ; who truly suflPered,
was dead and buried." "" According to him
** Christ did trvily rise again from death, and
took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all
things appertaining to the perfection of man's
nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven,
and there sitteth until he return to judge all
men at the last day." Lastly, according to
him, " The Holy Ghost, proceeding "^^ from the
^^^ Aliter non diceretiir homo Christus sine carne;
nee hominis filius sine aliquo parente homine; sicut nee
Deus sine Spiritu Dei, nee Dei filius sine Deo patre. Ita
utriusqvie substantiae census hominem et Deum exhibuit :
hinc natum, inde non natum ; hine carneum, inde spiritalem ;
hine infirmum, inde praefortem ; hinc morientem, inde viven-
tem. De Carne Christi, e. 5.
^^^ I have observed nothing, in Tertullian's writings, which
corresponds to the expression never to he divided.
2^^ Adv. Praxeam, c. 30. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Sed
bene quod idem veniet de ccelis, qui est passus : idem om-
nibus apparebit, qui est resuscitatus ; et videbunt, et agnos-
cent, qui eum confixerunt; utique ipsam earnem in quam
saevierimt ; sine qua nee ipse esse poterit, nee agnosci. See
particularly de Res. Carnis, c. 51.
252 Xertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius
a radice fi-uetus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine,
et tertius a sole apex ex radio; nihil tamen a matrice alie-
natur, a qu& proprietates suas ducit. Adv. Praxeam, c 8.
We
556
Father and the Son, is of one substance,
majesty, and glory with the Father, very and
eternal God."
But though we think that Tertullian's opi-
nions on these points coincided in the main
with the doctrines of our Church, we are
far from meaning to assert that expressions
may not occasionally be found which are
capable of a different interpretation ; and which
were carefully avoided by the Orthodox writers
of later times, when the controversies respect-
ing the Trinity had introduced greater pre-
cision of language. Pamelius has thought it
necessary to put the reader on his guard
against certain of these expressions; and Sem-
ler has noticed with a sort ^^^of ill-natured
industry every passage in the Tract against
Praxeas, in which there is any appearance
We have seen that in another place Tertullian speaks as
if the Holy Ghost was from the Father through the Son.
Quia Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium,
c 4.
253 \yg jjgij ij. j^j^ ill-natured industry, because the true
mode of ascertaining a writer's opinions is, not to fix upon
particular expressions, but to take the general tenor of his
language. If any thing is expressly affirmed in the Tract
against Praxeas, it is, that the Son is of the substance of
the Father : yet Semler, finding in c. 27- this passage, Quis
Deus in ea natus ? Sermo, et Spiritus qui cum Sermone
de Patris voluntate natus est, makes the following remark •
Sic, i. e. de Patris vohmlate, Ariani, non e'^ ovaia<:.
557
of contradiction, or which will bear a con-
struction favourable to the Arian tenets. Bull,
also, who conceives the language of Tertullian
to be explicit and correct on the subject of the
pre-existence and the consubstantiality, admits
that he occasionally uses expressions at variance
with the co-eternity of Christ. For instance,
in the ^^* Tract against Hermogenes, we find
t^e following passage : Quia et Pater Deus
est, et judex Deus est; non tamen ideo Pater
et judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam
nee Pater potuit esse ante Filium, nee judex
ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus quum et
delictum et Filius non fuit, quod Judicem et
qui Patrem Deum faceret. Here it is expressly
asserted that there was a time when the Son
was not. Perhaps, however, a reference to the
peculiar tenets of Hermogenes will enable us
to account for this assertion. That Heretic
affirmed, as we shall shortly have occasion to
shew more in detail, that matter was eternal,
and argued thus, "God was always God and
always Lord: but the word Lord implies the
^* c. 3. Compare c. 18. Agnoscat, ergo, Hermogenes
idcirco etiam Sophiam Dei natam et conditam praedicari,
ne quid innatum et inconditum praeter solum Deum cre-
deremus. Si enim intra Dominum, quod ex ipso et in ipso
fuit, sine initio non fuit — Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata
et condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponenda
ccepit agitari ; multo magis non capit sine initio quicquam
fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit.
558
existence of something over which he was
Lord ; unless, therefore, we suppose the eternity
of something distinct from God, it is not true
that he was always Lord." TertulUan boldly
answered that God was not always Lord; and
that in Scripture we do not find him called
Lord, until the work of creation was com-
pleted. In like manner he contended that
the titles of Judge and Father imply the ex-
istence of sin and of a Son. As, therefore,
there was a time when neither sin nor the
Son existed, the titles of Judge and Father
were not at that time applicable to God. Ter-
tullian could scarcely mean to affirm, in direct
opposition to his own statements in the '^^ Tract
against Praxeas, that there was ever a time
when the X0709, or Ratio, or Sermo internus,
did not exist. But with respect to Wisdom
and the Son, Sophia and Filius, the case is
different. Tertullian assigns to both a beginning
of existence : ''"^ Sophia was created or formed,
in order to devise the plan of the universe;
and the Son was begotten, in order to carry
^^ With respect to the Sermo externus, Tertullian speaks
of a time antecedent to his emission. Nam etsi Deus nondmn
Sermonem suum miserat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5.
256 c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex
Deo procedit: conditu.s ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine
Sophiae — dehinc generatus ad effectura.
559
that plan into effect. ^"^Bull appears to have
given an accurate representation of the matter,
when he says that, according to our author,
the reason and spirit of God, being the sub-
stance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal
with God: but that the titles of Word and
Son were not strictly applicable until the
former had been emitted to arrange, the latter
begotten to execute, the work of creation.
Without, therefore, attempting to explain,
much less to defend all TertuUian's expressions
and reasonings, we are disposed to acquiesce
^"^ Defensio Fidei Nicaenas. Sect. iii. c. 10. p. 242. Bull
refers to the following passages in support of his interpre-
tation. Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim,
Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre semper,
sicut dicit. Ego in Patre ; et apud Deum semper, sicut
scriptum est, Et Sermo eral apud Deum. Adv. Praxeam,
c. 8. Nos etiam Sermoni atque rationi, itemque virtuti, per
quae omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam suhstantiam Spi-
ritum inscribimus. Apology, c 21. Quaecunque ergo sub-
stantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico Personam, et illi nomen
Filii vindico. Adv. Praxeam, c. 7- To these may be added.
Quia ipse quoque Sermo, ratione consistens, priorem eam
lit substantiam suam ostendat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Virtute
et ratione comitatum, et Spiritu fultum. Apology, c. 21.
Hie Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo ; sicut enim, loanne dicente,
Sermo caro factus est, Spiritum quoque intelligimus in nomine
Sermonis ; ita et hie Sermonem quoque agnoscimus in nomine
Spiritus. Nam et Spiritus substantia est Sermonis, et Sermo
operatio Spiritus : et duo unum sunt. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26.
See however adv. Hermogenem, c. 45. Non apparentis solum-
modo, nee adpropinquantis, sed adhibentis tantos animi sui
nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiritum, vir-
tutem.
560
in the statement given by Bull of his opinions.
"^^Ex quibus omnibus liquet, quam temere ut
solet, pronuntiaverit Petavius, Quod ad ceter-
nitatem attinet Verbis palam esse, Tertiillicmum,
minime illam agnomsse. Mihi sane, atque, ut
arbitror, post tot apertissima testimonia a me
adducta, lectori etiam meo prorsus contrarium
constat ; nisi vero, quod non credo, luserit
Petavius in vocabulo verhi. Nam Filium Dei,
docet quidem Tertullianus Verbum sive Ser-
monem factum ac denominatum fuisse ab ali-
quo initio : nempe "^^ tum, quando ex Deo
Patre exivit cum voce. Fiat Lux, ad exor-
nandum universa. Atqui ipsam illam hypos-
tasin, qu^e sermo sive verbum et Filius Dei
dicitur, aeternam credidisse TertuUianum, puto
me abunde demon strasse.
In speaking also of the Holy Ghost, Ter-
tullian occasionally uses terms of a very am-
biguous and equivocal character. He ^^° says,
for instance, that in Gen. i. 26. God addressed
the Son, his Word, the second Person in the
Trinity, and the third Person, the Spirit in
the Word. Here the distinct personality of
258 Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 246.
259 Adv. Praxeam, c 7- sub in.
260 Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. Irao, quia jam adhaerebat illi
filius, secunda Persona, Sermo ipsius; et tertia, Spiritus in
Sermone.
561
the Spirit is expressly asserted; though it is
difficult to reconcile the words, Spiritus in ser-
mone, with the assertion. It is, however, cer-
tain, both from the general tenor of the Tract
against Praxeas, and ^^^from many passages in
his other writings, that the distinct personality
of the Holy Ghost formed an article of Ter-
tullian's creed. The occasional ambiguity of his
language respecting the Holy Ghost is perhaps
in part to be traced to the variety of senses
in which the word Spiritus is used. It is ap- ¥r.
plied generally '^- to God, for God is a Spirit ;
and for the same reason to the Son, who is
frequently called the ^^^ Spirit of God, the
'"'Spirit of the Creator. '""Bull also, following
Grotius, has shewn that the word Spiritus is
employed by the Fathers to express the divine
nature in Christ.
^''^ See for instance ad Martyres, c. 3. Bonum agonem
subituri estis, in quo agonothetes Deus vivus est ; xystarches
Spiritus Sanctus ; corona aeternitas ; brabium Angelicae sub-
stantia2 politia in coelis, gloria in secula seculorum. Itaque
epistates vester Christus lesus.
262 Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 9- ^ub. in.
2^^ De Oratione, c. 1. sub in. Dicimus enim et Filium
sue nomine eatenus invisibilem, qua Sermo et Spiritus Dei.
Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. See also c. 26. Adv. Marcionem,
L. V. c. 8.
^^^ Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 6. Nam quoniam in Esaia
jam tHnc Christus, Sermo scilicet et Spiritus Creatoris,
loaimem praedicarat, L. iv. c. 33. sub fine.
2«5 Defensio Fidei Nicaenae. Sect. 1. c. 2. p. 18.
Nn
562
In our ^'^'^ remarks upon the eighth Article
of our Church we stated that, in treating
of the Tract against Praxeas, an oppor-
tunity would present itself of ascertaining
how far the opinions of TerttiUian coin-
cided with the language employed in the
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. That the
general doctrine of those Creeds is contained
in Tertullian's writings cannot, we think, be
doubted by any one who has carefully perused
them. With respect to particular expressions,
^^'we find that he calls the Son — God of God
and Light of Light. In referring to that
verse in the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's
first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which it
is said that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, TertuUian ^^^ observes that
the Apostle inserted the words according to
the Scriptures, for the purpose of reconciling
men, by the authority of Scripture, to the
startling declaration that the Son of God had
been made subject to death. — With respect
2«« Chap. V. p. 324.
^^7 See the passage from the Apology quoted in note 248.
of this Chapter, and adv. Praxeam, c. 15. Nam etsi Deus
Sermo, sed apud Demn, quia ex Deo Deus.
2C8 Nam et Apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians
Christum mortuum, adjicit secundum Scripluras, ut duritiam
pronuntiationis Scripturarum auctoritate molliret^ et scan*
dalum auditor! everteret. Adv. Praxeam, c 29.
i
563 .
to tlie expressions in the Athanasian Creed,
we find ^'^^ TertuUian, while he asserts the
distinction of the : Persons in the Trinity,
careful to maintain the unity of the sub-
stance ; or in the language of the Creed,
neither to confound the persons, nor divide
the substance. We find also, in the ^^" Tract
against Hermogenes, an expression which, al-
though there used without any reference to
the Trinity, bears a strong resemblance to that
clause in the Athanasian Creed, which declares
that "in the Trinity none is afore or after
other ; none is greater or less than another."
The Creed speaks of the Christian verity as
compelling us to acknowledge that every Per-
son in the Trinity by himself is God and
Lord, and of the Catholic religion as enforc-
ing the unity of God. '^^ Tertullian speaks
of the Christian verity as proclaiming the
unity. On the subject of the Incarnation, the
^^ Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas^ jam professus
sum ; persona-, non substantiae nomine ; ad distinctionem, non
ad divisionem. Adv. Praxeam, c 12.
^^ .Tertullian is arguing upon the consequences which
he conceived to flow from the doctrines of Hermogenes re-
specting the eternity of matter. " That doctrine/' he says,
"places matter on a perfect equality with God." Neutrum
flicimus altero esse minorem, sive majorem; neutrum altero
humiliorem, sive superiorem, c. 7-
^^' Sed Veritas Christiana districte pronuntiavit, Deus si
non unus est, non est. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 3.
NN 3
564^
reader who compares tlie "^^ passages in the
note with the corresponding clauses in the
Creed, will be almost disposed to conclude
that the framer of the Creed had Tertullian's
expressions immediately in his view.
There is, however, ^^^a passage in the Tract
de Carne Christi, which appears at first sight
to be at variance with the following clause
of the Creed, One, not hy conversion of the
^^ Sed enim invenimus ilium directo, et Deum et hominera
expositum — certe usquequaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis,
quum Deum et hominem^ sine dubio secundum utramque
substantiam, in sua proprietate distantem ; quia neque Sermo
aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo — Videmus
duplicem statum ; non confusum, sed conjunctum in una
Persona, Deum et hominem lesum. Adv. Praxeam, c. 27-
See also the passage from c. 30. quoted in note 239, where
it is said that Christ, as man, had a soul and flesh. For
the inferiority of the Son in his human nature, see c. l6y
referred to in note 240.
273 c 3. " Sed ideo," inquis, " nego Deum in hominera
vere conversum, ita ut nasceretur et carne corporaretur
(Rigault has operaretur) ; quia qui sine fine est, etiam in-
convertibilis sit necesse est. Converti enim in aliud finis
est pristini. Non competit ergo conversio cui non competit
finis." Plane natura convertibilium ea lege est, ne perma-
neant in eo quod convertitur in iis; et (ut) ita non per-
manendo pereant; dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt.
Sed nihil Deo par est; natura ejus ab omnium rerum con-
ditione distat. Si ergo quae a Deo distant, aut a quibus
Deus distat, quum convertuntur, amittunt quod fuerunt ;
ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a caeteris rebus, nisi ut con-
trarium obtineat ; id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit,
et qualis est perseverare .^ »
565
Godhead into flesh. The Heretics, against
whom Tertullian was contending, argued that
" God could not possibly be converted into
man, so as to be born and to be embodied in
the flesh ; because that which is eternal must
necessarily be inconvertible. Conversion into
a different state is the termination of the
former state. If the Godhead was converted
into manhood, it was entirely lost." To this
argument Tertullian replied, that "although it
might be correct with respect to all other
natures, it was not so with reference to the
divine nature. We read in Scripture, that at
different times angels were converted into the
human shape, and yet did not cease to be
angels. Much more then might God assume
the nature of man, and yet continue to be
God." Here TertuUian appears to admit that
in the mystery of the Incarnation there was a
conversion of the Godhead into flesh, though he
disallows the inference drawn by the Heretics
from it. If, however, we compare this passage
with another in the Tract against Praxeas, we
shall find our author's ^^^ opinion, when accu-
^^ Quod ergo Angelis inferioribus licuit, uti conversi
in corpulentiam humanam Angeli nihilominus permanerent;
hoc tu potentiori Deo auferas? quasi non valuerit Christus,
vere hominem mdutus, Deus perseverare ? Compare qdv.
Praxeam, c. 27- quoted also in Chap. vi. note 138. Igitur
Sermo in carne ; dum et de hoc quaerendum quomodo Sermo
caro
566
rately stated, to have been, that God took
upon himself manhood.
The present appears to be the proper op-
portunity for observing that, among other appel-
lations given by TertuUian to Christ, we find
A f those of Persona Dei, and Spiritus Personae
Dei ; the *^^ former derived from Psalm iv. 6.
which stands thus in the Septuagint Version,
e(Tr]iULeuo9r] €<p rj/ixa^ to (pws tov irpoaotyirov crov,
Kvpie — the "^^ latter from an erroneous reading
of Lamentations iv. 20. Trvevfxa irpoawTrov T^,uwv,
XpKTTo^ KvpLo<i, where avrov appears to hav^
been substituted for ijfjiwv
One of the questions on which theological
ingenuity has exercised itself is, whether the
flesh of Christ was corruptible or incorruptible.
We have seen that Valentinus asserted a differ-
caro sit factus ? utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne, an
iiidutus carnem ? imo, indutus.
^^ Cui respondet Spiritus in Psalmo ex providentia futuri :
Significatum est, inquit, super nos lumen jjersonce tuee, Domine.
Persona autem Dei, Christus Dominus. Adv. Marcionem,
L. V. c. 11.
^yc Nam et Scriptura quid dicit ? Spiritus personce ejus,
Christus Dominus. Ergo Christus personae paternae Spiritus
est, &c. Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. sub fine. But in the third
Book against Marcion, c 6. we find Personam Spiritus 7ioslri,
Christum Dominum. Rigault, however, in this passage, reads
" Spiritus personae ejus, Christus Dominus." See Jei-ome's
Comment on the verse.
J
567
ence between Christ's flesh and human flesh.
In replying to this assertion, Tertullian '^^ ob-
serves, that Christ would not have been per-
fect man, had not his flesh been human, and
consequently corruptible. Tertullian ^'^ ascribes
ubiquity to Christ as God, but not as the
Conductor of the Gospel ceconomy. We
find also ^^^in his writings a notion, derived
from Isaiah liii. 3. which was very common
among the early Fathers — that the personal
appearance of Christ was mean and ignoble.
The next Heretic in Mosheim's catalogue
is Hermogenes. He was "^°a painter by pro-
fession, and contemporary with our author,
from whose language it might be inferred
277 De Carne Christi, c. 15.
278 Adv. Praxeam, c. 23. Habes Filium in terris, habes
Patrem in coelis. Non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina.
Cceterum scimuS;, Deum etiam intra abyssos esse^ et ubique con-
sistere, sed vi et potestate, Filium quoque, ut individuura cum
ipso, ubique. Tamen in ipsa oIkovohm, Pater voluit Filium in
terris haberij se vero in ccelis. See Bull, Defensio Fidei,
Sect. 4. c. 3. p. 271.
279 De Idololatria, c. 18. De Carne Christi, cc. 9. 15. Adv.
Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7- sub in. c. I7. sub in. Adv. Judaeos,
c. 14.
2^ Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. Hermogenis autem doctrina
tarn novella est ; denique ad hodiernum homo in seculo. Com-
pare de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. Caeterum et Nigi-
dius nescio quis et Hermogenes, et multi alii qui adhuc ambu-
lant, pei-vertentes vias Dei. See also adv. Valentinianos, c. 16.
De Monogamia, c. I6.
568
that he actually apostatised from Christianity to
Paganism ; but I believe Tertullian's meaning to
be, that he adopted the notions of' the Pagan
philosophers, the Stoics especially, respecting
matter, which he conceived to be self-existent,
and consequently eternal. From this matter,
according to him, God made all things. '^^ His
mode of arguing was, " Either God made all
things from himself, or from something, or
from nothing. He could not make them
from himself, because they would then be
parts of himself; but ^^Hhis, the Divine Na-
ture, which is indivisible and always the
same, does not allow. He could not make
them from nothing; because, being infinitely
good, he would not in that case have allowed
evil to exist : — but evil does exist ; it must
consequently have existed independently of
God, that is, in matter." '^^ Hermogenes urged
another argument of a very subtle character, to
which we have already had occasion to allude.
" There never was a time when the title of
Dominus or Lord was not applicable to God;
but that title is relative — it implies the exist-
ence of something over which God was Lord:
that something was matter." To this argu-
ment TertuUian answers without hesitation,
that there was a time when the title was not
2«' c. 2. '*'2 Compare c. 39. ^83 ^. 3^ g^g p 557
569
applicable, that is, before the creation — as
there was a time when God was neither
Father nor Judge; which are also relative
terms, implying the existence of a Son, and
of sinners to be judged. "If we turn," he
adds, " to Scripture, we shall find that, while
the work of creation was carrying on, the
language is always God said, God saw, not
the Lord said, the Lord saw; but when it
was completed, the title of Lord is intro-
duced, the Lord God took man whom he had
mader
Tertullian '^* objects, in the first place, to
the opinion of Hermogenes, respecting the
eternity of matter, that its effect is to in-
troduce two Gods, " You ascribe," he says,
" eternity to matter, and thereby invest it
with the attributes of the Deity. You join
matter, with God in the work of creation ;
for though you may pretend that eternity
is the only attribute ascribed to matter,
and that the supremacy is still reserved to
God, — inasmuch as He is active and matter
passive, and He it is who gives a form to
^^* cc. 4, 5 J 6, 7, 11, 42. Compare de Praescriptione Haere-
tlcorum, c. 33. It is evident that Tertullian here draws conse-
quences from the opinions of Hermogenes, which that Heretic
himself disavowed. Compare c. 5. with adv. Marcionem, L. i.
c. 3.
570
matter — yet this is a mere evasion ; since
the very fomidation of your doctrine is, that
matter existed independently of God, and
consequently out of the range of his power.
Nay -^^more, you make matter superior to
God. He who grants assistance is surely su-
perior, in that respect at least, to him to whom
it is granted. But God, according to your
doctrine, could not have made the universe
without the assistance of matter. Had God
possessed any dominion over matter, he would,
before he employed it in the work of crea-
tion, have purged it of the evil which he
knew to exist in it. You are at least in
this dilemma: you must either deny the Omni-
potence of God, or admit that God was the
author of evil by voluntarily using matter in
the creation of the world. Yet you adopted
this notion, respecting the eternity of matter,
under the idea that you thereby removed from
God the imputation of being the Author of
evil. Like the other Heretics, you were blind
to the defects of your own reasoning, and
did not perceive that it really furnished no
solution of the difficulty."
Tertullian -^^ proceeds to enquire whether
the reasons, for which Hermogencs imputed
'^85 cc. 8, 9, 10. ^^'^ c. IL
571
evil to matter, might not afford as good
ground for imputing it to God himself.
Among other arguments he urges the follow-
ing : " If "^^ matter is eternal, it is unchange-
able in its nature ; and that nature, according
to Hermogenes, is evil. How then could God
create "^^that which is good out of evil mat-
ter? Hermogenes ought rather to have said,
that matter was of a mixed character, both
good and evil." "At least," Tertullian ^^^ con-
tinues, " it is more honourable to God to
make Him the free and voluntary Author
of evil, than to make him as it were the
slave of matter; and compelled to use it,
although he knew it to be evil, in the work
of creation." We "''"find incidental mention
of an opinion entertained by some — that the
existence of evil was necessary, in order to
illustrate good by contrast — but Tertullian
states that it was not entertained by Hermo-
genes. Tertullian, ■''^further argued, that by
making matter self-existent and eternal, Her-
mogenes placed it above the Word or Wis-
dom; who, as begotten of God, had both an
Author and beginning of his being. We have
already '^" seen in what sense Tertullian as-
-^"^ cc. 12, 13. Hermogenes appears sometimes to have
contended, that matter was neither good nor evil, c. 37-
-'^^ The reference is to Genesis i. 21.
289 c. 14. 200 c. 15. 291 ^c 17, 18, 292 p, 553,
572
cribed a commencement of existence to the
Word or Wisdom.
Hermogenes endeavoured to support his
opinions by appealing to Scripture. He '^^ be-
gan with the very first words of the Book of
Genesis ; asserting that, by the expression, In
the beginning, or as it is in the Latin, In prin-
cipio, was meant some principle or substance
out of which the heaven and earth were cre-
ated: as it might be said, that the clay is the
principle of the vessel which is made from it.
Tertullian replies, that the words were only
designed to mark the commencement of this
visible frame of things. But not content with
this sound explanation, he has recourse to
others of a very different character: he sup-
poses, *^*for instance, that the word prineipitim
may refer to the Wisdom of God, of whom it
is said in the Book of Proverbs, ^^^"Domi-
nus condidit me initium viarum suarum in
opera sua." If, however, this argument is
weak, the praise of subtlety at least must be
allowed to that which I am about to subjoin.
" In ^^'^ every work, for example, in making
^ c. 19. 294 cc. 20, 21, 22.
^^ c. 8. ver. 22. The words of the English Version are.
The Lord jwssessed me in the beginning of his way.
296 Tertullian urges an argument of a similar nature in
c. 34. " It appears," he says, " from the Scriptures^ that in
the
573
a table, there must be a combination of three
things — of him who makes — of that which is
made — and of that out of which it is made.
But in the account of the creation only two
of these are mentioned — God the Creator — and
the heavens and earth the thing created — we
are not told out of what they were created;
therefore, they were created out of nothing."
Is there not here some confusion between what
Johnson has called the positive and negative
meanings of nothing?
The next passage on which Hermogenes
relied was also taken from the first Chapter
of Genesis : ^^^ the earth was without form and
void. The earth here spoken of was, accord-
ing to him, the matter out of which the pre-
sent earth and all other things were made.
But we will not weary the reader's patience by
detailing Tertullian's observations upon this and
upon other portions of Scripture alleged by his
opponent. Both are justly liable to the charge
of drawing inferences which were never in-
tended by the Sacred Writer.
the final consummation of all things the universe will be
reduced to nothing ; we may, therefore, presume that it was
created out of nothing." Hermogenes appears to have inter-
preted the dissolution of the universe spiritually.
^^^ c. 23. Tertullian's Latin is. Terra autem erat invisibilis
et incomposita.
574
Having proved to his satisfaction that the
universe was not created out of pre-existent
matter, Tertullian ^''proceeds to notice the in-
consistencies of which Hermogenes was guilty,
with respect to his supposed matter; saying
at one time, that it was neither corporeal nor
incorporeal — "as if," '^^ observes Tertullian,
"every thing in the universe must not fall
under one or other of the two descriptions" —
saying at ^"'^ another that it was partly cor-
poreal, and partly incorporeal — corporeal,
because bodies are formed out of it; incor-
poreal, because it moves, and motion is in-
corporeal. "But in what sense," asks Ter-
tullian, "can motion be made a part of
matter? Man moves; but we do not say he
is partly corporeal and partly incorporeal,
29^ Nisi fallor enim, omnis res aut corporalis aut incorpo-
ralis sit necesse est, ut concedam interim esse aliquid incor-
porale de substantiis duntaxat, quum ipsa substantia corpus sit
rei cujusque. This passage was quoted in note 23. of Chap. III.
Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicoenae, Sect. 3. c 10. p. 236. observes,
Sed Tertulliano solenne est Deo corporales affectiones intrepide
adscribere. Unde viri quidam docti existim^runt, revera sen-
sisse TertuUianum, corporeae esse naturae Deum; a quibus
tamen ego quidem dissentio.
"00 c. 36. The motion ascribed by Hermogenes to matter
was of an irregular, turbulent kind, like the bubbling of boil-
ing water in a pot. Sic enim et oUae undique ebuUientis simi-
litudinem opponis, c. 41. Materiam vero materiarum, non
sibi subditam, non statu diversam, non motu inquietam, non
habitu informem, c. 18. See also cc. 28, 42.
575
because he has both body and motion. His
actions, passions, duties, appetites, are incor-
poreal; but we do not call them parts or por-
tions of his substance. Motion is not a
substance, but a particular state of a substance.
^"MVith equal inconsistency and absurdity
Hermogenes sometimes says, that matter is
neither good nor evil. Moreover he ^"'assigns
it a place below God ; forgetting that, by
assigning it a place, he assigns it limits, and
thus admits that it is not infinite — an admis-
sion at variance with all his previous reason-
ing."
TertuUian next alludes to a notion of
Hermogenes, that God did not use the whole,
but only a portion of this pre-existent mat-
ter in the creation of the universe ; and
notices various absurd consequences which,
in his opinion, proceed from the doctrine
of Hermogenes : ^^^ such as that good and
evil are substances. He ridicules also the
^°* notion that God, in the work of creation,
301 C. 37.
302 j,(._ 3g^ 3p^ 4Q^ Hermogenes seems to have contended
that matter was infinite only in duration, that is^ eternal ; not
infinite in extent.
303 c. 41.
304 p 4.4, Hermogenes illustrated his meaning by saying,
that God brought order out of confused and indigested matter
by
576
performed no other act than that of merely
appearing and drawing near to matter; "a&
if," he observes, " there ever was a time when
God did not appear or draw near to matter.
On this supposition not only matter, but the
universe also, is eternal." Noli, continues Ter-
tuUian, ita Deo adulari, ut velis ilium solo
visu et solo accessu tot ac tantas protulisse
substantias et non propriis viribus instituisse —
a sentiment for which he is severely repre-
hended by ^°^Bull; who says that he seems
to have cared little what he said, if he did
but contradict his adversary.
Such were the speculations of Hermogenes
on the eternity of matter, and such the argu-
ments by which our author answered him. In
one part of his reasoning he must be allowed
by merely appearing or drawing near to it ; as beauty affects
the mind of the spectator by its mere appearance, and the
magnet attracts iron by mere approximation. At tu non inquis,
pertransiens illam (materiam) facit (Deus) mundum, sed
solummodo appropinquans ei, sicut facit quis decor solum-
modo apparens, et magnes lapis solummodo appropinquans.
Quid simile Deus fabricans mundum, et decor vulnerans
animum, aut magnes adtrahens ferrum ?
^^ Defensio Fidei Nicasnae, Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 236. Tertullian
afterwards says on the same subject, Non apparentis (Dei)
solummodo, nee adpropinquantis ; sed adhibentis tantos animi
sui nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiritum,
virtutem, c. 45. Compare Warburton, Sermon 2. Vol. IX.
p. 39- But what shall we say, &c. He appears rather to
lean to Tertullian's opinion.
577
to have been successful — in shewing that the
theory of his opponent removed none of the
difficulties in which the question respecting
the origin of evil is involved. He has also
given no slight proof of discretion — a quality
for which he is not generally remarkable — in
not attempting himself to advance any counter-
theory upon that inexplicable subject.
In conformity with the opinions already
detailed, Hermogenes maintained that the hu-
man soul was made out of matter. This
notion Tertullian confuted in an express Trea-
tise, entitled ^°^ de Censu Anima, concerning
the origiti of the soul, which is not now ex-
tant. In our account of Marcion we stated
that Tertullian charged that Heretic with de-
nying the freedom of the Will. We founded
this statement on the following passage, ^'^^in
the Tract de Anima, in which the name of
Hermogenes is coupled with that of Marcion.
Inesse autem nobis to avT^'^ovaiov naturaliter
jam et Marcioni ostendimus et Hermogeni.
On this passage ^°^ Lardner observes, *' Tertul-
3^^ De solo censu animae congressus Hermogeni, quatenus
et istum ex materiae potius suggestu, quam ex Dei flatu con-
stitisse praesumpsit. De Anima, c. 1 . See also cc. 3, 1 1 . and
de Monogamia, c. l6.
307 c. 21. 308 History of Heretics, c. 18. Sect. 9-
Oo
578
lian asserted human liberty; and I think he
does not deny it to have been held by Mar-
cion and Hermogenes." He appears to have
forgotten that he had ^°^ before referred to this
very passage as furnishing proof, that the Mar-
cionites did not allow the freedom of human
actions — but were believers in a kind of ne-
cessity. The zeal of TertuUian against Her-
mogenes was doubtless quickened by the bold-
ness with which that Heretic ^^° asserted the
lawfulness of second marriages. In ^^^ one place
Hermogenes is connected with Nigidius, of
whom nothing more is known.
Besides the Heretics enumerated by Mo-
sheim in his history of the second century,
TertuUian mentions some who belonged to
the first. He speaks of ^^^ Simon Magus; and
^^^ repeats the story, which had been handed
down by Justin Martyr and Ireneeus, that a
statue had been erected to Simon at Rome,
bearing an inscription in which his divinity
was recognized. In the ^"Tracts de Idolola-
tria and de ^" Prsescriptione Hasreticorum,
309 History of Heretics, c. 10. Sect. 15.
^^^ Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1 . de Monogamia, c. 1 6.
3^^ De Praescriptione Heereticorum, c. 30.
31' De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc 10, 33.
'13 Apology, c. 13. 314 £. g
31' c. 33.
579
allusions are found to his practice of
magic." His ^^^ disciples pretended that by
their magical arts they could call up the souls
of the deceased Prophets. In the ^^^ Treatise
de Anima, it is said that Simon, indignant
at the reproof which he received from
St. Peter, determined in revenge to oppose
the progress of the Gospel ; and associated with
himself in the undertaking a Tyrian prosti-
tute, named Helena. He called himself the
Supreme Father ; Helena his first conception,
through whom he formed the design of cre-
ating the Angels and Archangels. She, how-
ever, becoming acquainted with the design,
went out from the Father into the lower
parts of the universe ; and there, anticipating
his intention, created the angelic powers, who
were ignorant of the Father, and were the
^^^ artificers of this world. They detained her
with them through envy ; lest, if she went
away, they should be deemed the offspring
of another — that is, as I interpret the words —
not self-existent. Not content with detaining
her, they subjected her to every species of in-
dignity, in order that the consciousness of her
humiliation might extinguish even the wish
316 De Anima, c 57- ^^^ c. 34.
^'^ Instead of artificis, we must read artifices, as is evident
from the corresponding passage in Irenaeus, L. i. c 20.
580
to quit them. Thus she was compelled to take
the human form ; to be confined, as it were,
in the bonds of the flesh, and to pass through
different female bodies ; among the rest through
that of the Spartan Helen, until at length
she appeared as the Helena of Simon. She
was the lost sheep mentioned in the parable,
whom Simon descended to recover and restore
to heaven. Having effected his purpose, he
determined in revenge to deliver mankind
from the dominion of the angelic powers;
and in order to elude their vigilance, he pre-
tended to assume the human form, appearing
as the Son in Judea, as the Father in Samaria.
On this strange account it will be sufficient
to remark that it is taken almost verbatim from
Irenasus.
TertuUian ^^^ mentions Menander, the Sa-
maritan, as the disciple of Simon Magus, and
the master of Satiirninus. One ^""^of his as-
sertions was, that he was sent by the Supreme
and Secret Power, to make all who received
his Baptism, immortal and incorruptible : in
other words, his Baptism was itself the re-
319 De Anima, c. 23.
320 De Anima, c. 50. from which passage we also learn
that Menander dissuaded his followers from encountering
martyrdom.
581
surrection, and delivered all who partook of
it from liability to death. Another ^^^ of his
opinions was, that the human body was cre-
ated by Angels. TertuUian mentions ^^~ the
Nicolaitans ; but says nothing respecting them,
which may not be immediately inferred from
the ^"^Book of Revelations.
There is a passage in the ^"^ Tract de Re-
surrectione Carnis, in which, if the reading is
correct, TertuUian speaks of Heretics who
asserted the mortality of the soul.
In the Tract ^'^ de Jejuniis our author men-
tions another Heretic of his own day, (apud
Jovem, hodiernvmi de Pythagora hsereticum)
who borrowed his tenets from the Pythagorean
philosophy.
To this account of the particular Heresies
mentioned by TertuUian, we will subjoin a
few observations collected from his works,
which apply generaUy to them aU. We have
^^ De Res. Carnis, c. 5.
^^ De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. Adv. Marcio-
nem, L. i. c. 29- De Pudicitia, c. I9.
323 c. 2. vv. 15, 20.
32'* Quanquam in hac materia admittamus interdum morta-
litatem animge assignari ab Haereticis, c. 18.
325 c. 15.
582
^^* seen that he traces their origin to the
Grecian philosophy, and ^^' conceives that their
existence was ordained or permitted by God,
in order to prove the faith of Christians.
In the ^^^ Tract de Prgescriptione H^ereticorum
he draws a very unfavourable picture of the
Heretics in general, and of their modes of
proceeding. He says that their practice, like
their faith, was without gravity, authority, or
discipline — that all was confusion amongst
them — that they received indiscriminately every
person who came to them, however different
his opinions from their own ; the mere fact
that he joined in opposing the truth being a
svifficient recommendation to their favour
that they were puffed up with the conceit
of their own knowledge, all being in their
own estimation competent to instruct others,
and even their women exercising the minis-
terial functions — that they conferred orders
without previous enquiry into the qualifica-
tions of the candidates. Passing from their
practice to their doctrine, he says that their
object was to destroy, not to build up; to
326 p. 472. TertuUian supposed that the founders of the
different heresies were led astray by the suggestion of the
devil and his evil spirits. De Pr£escriptione Haereticorum,
c. 40. Apology, c. 47.
327 Chap. V. p. 343. Dc Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc.
2, 3, 5, 39. 328 cc. 41, 42.
583
unsettle, not to instruct; to pervert the Or=
thodox, not to convert the Gentiles: — that
there was no agreement among them, each
following his own fancies and despising his
superiors — that many of them were even
without assemblies for public worship. ^^^ An-
other charge which he brings against them on
the subject of doctrine is, that, from consci-
ousness of the weakness of their cause, they
purposely argued in an inverted and per-
plexed manner. ^^°With respect to their
morals, he accuses them of holding inter-
course with fortune-tellers and astrologers,
and of acting as if they were released from
all moral obligation. He charges ^^Hhose
Heretics in particular, who denied the resur-
rection of the body, with leading sensual and
vicious lives. That many of the accusations
brought by him against the Heretics were
true, cannot, we think, be reasonably doubted ;
^^ De Res. Carnis, c 2. Adv. Praxeam, c. 20. De Pudi-
citia, c. 8. c. 16. sub fine. In the Tract against HermogeneSj
cc. 19, 27- Tertullian accuses the Heretics of torturing the
words of Scripture, and obscuring the plainest passages by
their subtleties and refinements.
^^ De Prasscriptione Haereticorum, c. 43.
^' De Res. Carnis, c. 11. In the Tract de Poenitentia,
c. 5. Tertullian mentions certain persons (he does not call
them Heretics) who held that God was to be worshipped with
the heart and mind, not by outward acts ; and under this per-
suasion thought that they might sin with impunity.
584
but there seems to be as little doubt that
some rested on no solid foundation, and that
others were grossly exaggerated. "We should
not," to borrow ^^'Jortin's words, "trust too
much to the representations which Christians
after the Apostolic age have given of the
Heretics of their times. Proper abatements
must be made for credulity, zeal, resentment,
mistake, and exaggeration." ^^^ It appears that
the Heretics were in the habit of appealing,
in confirmation of the truth of their tenets, to
the miraculous powers exerted by the founders
of their respective sects.
We shall conclude the present Chapter by
a remark which the subject naturally sug-
gests. The Roman Catholics are in the habit
of urging the divisions among Protestants,
as an argument against Protestantism ; and
their own pretended freedom from dissen-
sions, as a proof that they compose the true
Church. If this is a valid argument against
Protestantism, the long catalogue of Heresies
which have been just enumerated must fur-
nish an equally valid argument against Christi-
anity itself. But the divisions which arose,
^2 Discourses concerning the truth of the Christian Re-
ligion, p. 72. 3rd Ed.
^ De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 44.
585
both among the early proselytes to the Gos-
pel and the early Reformers, were the natural
consequences of the change eifected in the
condition of mankind by the new light which
had burst upon their minds. Their former
trains of thinking were interrupted — their
former principles to a certain extent vm-
settled — they were to enter upon a new and
enlarged field of speculation and of action.
When, therefore, we consider how many sources
of disagreement existed in their passions and
prejudices — in the variety of their tempers
and the opposition of their interests — it can-
not be matter of surprise that all did not
consent to walk in the same path, or that
truth was occasionally sacrificed to the ambi-
tion of founding a sect.
It was originally the author's intention to
add some observations upon the quotations
and interpretations of Scripture, in Tertul-
lian's works ; but the present volume has
already exceeded the limits within which he
purposed to confine it, and he must conse-
quently defer those observations to a future
opportunity.
Pr
ADDENDA,
&c.
Page
64. note 133. Dr. Neandeii observes, that the Tract de
Spe Fidelium is mentioned by Jerome in Ezechielem,
c. 36.
130. note 74. add, compare de Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c II.
Ac si necessitas amicitiarum officiorumque gentilium
vos vocat, &c. ; from which it appears, that the Christ-
ians did not think themselves called upon to inter-
rupt their former friendships, much less to break
off all intercourse with the heathen.
131. line last but one, ^br charity read chastity.
236. 1. 6. add, in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 17. we find an
allusion to the practice of allotting a double portion
to the Presidents in the Feasts of Charity, founded
on a misapplication of 1 Tim. v. 17- Ad elogium
gulae tuse pertinet, quod duplex apud te Prsesidentibus
honor binis jmrtibus deputatur ; quum Apostolus dupli-
cem honorem dederit, ut et fratribus et praepositis.
254. note 74. add, Et tamen ejusmodi neque congregant neque
participant nobiscum, facti per delicta denuo vestri :
quando ne illis quidem misceamur, quos vestra vis
atque saevitia ad negandum subegit. Ad Nationes,
L. i. c. 5.
270. note 76. With respect to the reading of Rom. viii. 3.
Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages, de Res.
Carnis, c. 46. and de Pudicitia, c. 17. in which Ter-
tullian^ has damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in
came.
277- note 47. add, compare de Monogamia, c 10. where Ter-
tullian's reasoning proceeds on the supposition that
we shall recognise our relations and friends in a
future state.
ADDENDA, 6iC. 587
Vage
ri23. (319- first Edition.) Lord King, in his Critical History
of the Apostles' Creed, infers from a passage in the
Tract de Baptismo, c 6. that a recognition of the
Holy Catholic Church, formed a part of the pro-
fession of faith made by the candidates for baptism.
Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio
salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesice men-
tio : quoniam ubi ti'es, id est Pater et Filius et Spi-
ritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est.
The same noble writer considers the Communion of
Saints as merely an Appendix to the preceding clause,
the Holy Catholic Church, and understands by the
expression, the mutual society and fellowship which
subsisted between particular Churches and between
their members. To this fellowship, Tertullian's writ-
ings contain frequent allusions ; and the external
marks of this fellowship are expressed in the fol-
lowing passage from the Tract de Praescriptione
Hcereticorum, c. 20. Communicatio pacis, et appel-
latio fraternitatis, et contesseratio hospitalitatis ; quae
jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti
una traditio ; where in the expression contesseratio
hospitalitatis, TertuUian refers to the commendatory
letters, on the production of which members of one
Christian community, when travelling abroad, were
hospitably received, and allowed to communicate by
the members of other communities.
338. note 193- (p. 334. note I9I. first Edition) add, Ethnici,
quos penes nulla est veritatis plenitudo, quia nee
doctor veritatis Deus, &c. De Spectaculis, c. 21.
366'. note 26l. The reference to de Res. Carnis, c. 26. (not
c. 62.) is misplaced; it should have followed the
word copia in the last line but one.
412. note 20. (p. 408. first Edition) add. In further proof, that
in Tertullian's time, the Lord's Day was deemed a day
of rejoicing, see the Tract de Corona, c. 11. Jam
stationes aut ulli magis faciet quam Christo.-' aut
et dominico die, quando nee Christo .''
411. I have said, that Tertullian makes no allusion to the
Paschal Controversy. The passage in the work en-
titled Praedestinatus, (c. 26.) escaped me, in which
588 ADDENDA, &C.
Page
the author quotes Tertullian as affirming, in his reply
to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and to Apollonius, that
the Montanists kept Easter according to the Roman
custom. Dr. Neander refers, in confirmation of this
statement, to the Tract adversus Judaeos, c. 8. sub fine,
where Tertullian says, that Christ was sacrificed on
the first day of unleavened bread, on the evening
of which the Jews killed the Paschal Lamb. Ter-
tullian must, therefore, have supposed that the last
meal which Christ ate with his disciples was not
the Paschal Feast — a supposition at variance with
the Asiatic mode of celebrating Easter.
452. note 128. (p. 448. first Edition) add. Apology, c. 30.
Ad Scapulam, c. 2.
544. note 220. (p. 540. first Edition) add, Adv. Marcionem,
L. ii. c. 27-
u
^
+»
i^ iC
•b
E
d
35
•
•rJ
a>
C
«£)
o
CO
c
C--
«
(!>
to
CO
I
00
<s
si
O
d
(0
0
oi. m
..Hi •.-<
o; c
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY
Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."
Made hj LIBRARY BUREAU
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11