John KAYE, Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries (1845). Chapter 1. pp. 1-66




THE following account of 1 Tertullian is given by 2 Jerome:

"Tertullian 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 3 proconsular centurion: he was a man of a sharp and vehement temper, flourished under Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and wrote numerous works, which, as they are |2 generally known, I think it unnecessary to particularise. I saw at Concordia 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 Tertullian. After remaining a presbyter of the Church until he had attained the middle age of life, Tertullian was by the envy and contumelious treatment of the Roman clergy driven to embrace the opinions 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 Persecutione, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, and 4 six books de Ecstasi, to which he added a seventh |3 against 5 Apollonius. He is reported to have 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 married, 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 favourite doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy? The easiest mode was to deny that he ever became a presbyter; and in support of this opinion 6 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 7 Allix remarks, that the course of Tertullian's argument in some measure compelled him to speak in the first person; and he opposes to them one from the Treatise 8 de |4 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 recording 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 decisive of the controversy; and we must be content to receive the fact of Tertullian'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 proposed by them, in order to deprive their Protestant opponents of the argument which the example of Tertullian supplies in favour of a married priesthood.

Another question has been raised respecting 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 is rendered certain by 9 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 statement, that the envy and abuse of the Roman clergy impelled him to espouse the party of Montanus. 10 Optatus and the 11 author of the work de Haeresibus, which Sirmond edited under the title of Praedestinatus, expressly call |5 him a Carthaginian presbyter. Semler, however, in a Dissertation inserted in his edition of Tertullian's works, (c. 2,) contends that he was a presbyter of the Roman church. We know, he argues, that Tertullian visited Rome; for 12 he speaks of the profusion of pearls and precious stones which he saw there. 13 Eusebius tells us that he was accurately acquainted with the Roman laws, and on other accounts a distinguished person at Rome. He 14 displays moreover a knowledge of the proceedings of the Roman church with respect to Marcion 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 Tertullian was born of Christian parents, or was converted to Christianity. 15 There are passages in his writings which seem to imply that he had been a Gentile: yet he may |6 perhaps mean to describe, not his own condition, but that of Gentiles in general before their conversion. Allix and the majority of commentators understand them literally, as well as 16 some other passages in which he speaks of his own infirmities and sinfulness.

His writings show that he flourished at the period specified by Jerome, that is, during the reigns of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, or between the years 193 and 216; but they supply no precise information respecting 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 marriage 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 conjecture. Mr. Dodgson places his conversion to Christianity in the year 196; and thinks that he was certainly a Montanist in 201.

As the most remarkable incident in Tertullian's life was his adoption of the errors of Montanus, it will be necessary to give some account of that Heresiarch. We find in 17 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 who accompanied Montanus. From this statement we |7 learn that he began to prophesy at Ardabau, 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, particularly 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 supporters 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 conveyed 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 proconsulship of Gratus has not been ascertained; but in speaking of the persecution in which the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne suffered, 18 Eusebius says, that Montanus and his companions then began to be spoken of as prophets in Phrygia. The seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus |8 or the year 177, is assigned by Eusebius himself as the date of the persecution in Gaul. In speaking also of the works of Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished about the year 170, 19 Eusebius says, that he wrote against the Cataphrygian heresy, of which Montanus then began to lay the foundations. 20 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 favour 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 21 followers of Montanus were numerous and powerful. One of them, named Themiso, possessed 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. 22 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 |9 predisposition 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 Montanus 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.

From a long extract, given by 23 Eusebius out of the writings of Apollonius against the Montanists, we collect, that their leader was charged with recommending married persons to separate; 24 with laying down laws respecting fasts; with calling Pepuza and Tymium, villages 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 Oblations. Of Maximilla and Priscilla, Apollonius relates, that they left their husbands when they joined themselves to Montanus; and he accuses the Montanists in general of converting 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 whether it was of God; and mentions Themiso as a man of great wealth, who wrote a catholic epistle in defence of Montanism. Of himself he says, that he |10 composed his work forty years after Montanus began to prophesy.

The account given by 25 Epiphanius of the Montanists is, that they received both the Old and New Testaments; believed in the Resurrection of the Dead; and maintained the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. Their error consisted in supposing that Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were divinely inspired; and maintaining that the recognition of the Charismata, or Spiritual Gifts, announced by Montanus, was of absolute necessity. The larger portion of the account of Epiphanius is taken up in refuting the notions of Montanus respecting inspiration; and proving that the prophets both of the Old and New Testaments, at the time when they delivered their predictions, were in a state of complete self-possession, and perfectly understood what they said. 26 He gives some specimens of the prophecies of Montanus aud his female associates, which are of the most extravagant character. In one of them Montanus says, "I am the Lord God who dwell in man." In another, "I am no angel or ambassador: I myself, God the Father, am come." Yet Epiphanius seems not to have understood these expressions as designed to convey the idea, that Montanus represented himself to be God the Father. Otherwise, he would scarcely have said that the Montanists agreed with the Cathblic Church respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. According to the anonymous author quoted by Eusebius, Maximilla predicted that wars and tumults— |11 according to Epiphanius, that the end of the world— would closely follow her decease. The former observes, in confutation 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 27 he refers a number of minor sects, called Quintilliani, Pepuziani, Priscilliani, Artoturitaa, and Tascodrugitae. The first three were so called in consequence of a vision seen by a female, of the name of 28 Quintilla or Priscilla, at Pepuza. The Artoturitae derived their name from using bread and cheese in the celebration of the Eucharist; and the Tascodrugitae from their custom of putting the forefinger on the nose in the act of prayer; tasko_j in the Phrygian language signifying a stake, and drou~ggoj a nose or beak.

The foregoing statements, respecting the doctrines |12 and opinions of Montanus, are in great measure confirmed by the notices scattered over Tertullian's works. We find him, on the authority of the New Prophecy, enforcing the necessity of frequent fasts— if not actually condemning marriage, yet on all occasions giving a decided preference to a life of celibacy, and positively pronouncing second marriages unlawful—maintaining that favourite notion of enthusiasts in all ages of the Church, that the heavenly 29 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 30 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 granting absolution to persons guilty of flagrant offences—particularly to adulterers and fornicators—and maintained that Christians were not at liberty to avoid persecution by flight, or to purchase their safety with money. 

31 Mosheim asserts, on the authority of the work already quoted under the title of Praedestinatus, that among his other doctrines Montanus taught the approaching downfall of the Roman Empire; which |13  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 Maximilla predicted the speedy approach of those wars and tumults which were to precede the end of the world; and there are passages in 32 Tertullian's works which lead to the suspicion that he entertained similar sentiments. He appears, however, to have felt the necessity of concealing them, and is betrayed by the struggle between his conviction and his prudence into occasional inconsistency of language. 33 He sometimes speaks as if Christians ought, at others as if they ought not to pray for the speedy consummation of all things.

One question still remains to be considered: What was the precise nature of the pretensions 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 pretended to be the Holy Ghost, who was incarnate in him, as the word was in Jesus. |14 Mosheim appears at different times to have held different opinions on the subject. In his 34 work de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, he thus speaks of Montanus: "Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, natura tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi in tantam incidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum Sanctum seu Paracletum illum qui animaverat Apostolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti praedicandas, et morum vitaeque disciplinam, priori ab Apostolis tradita sanctiorem et. meliorem, tradendam." But in his 35 Ecclesiastical 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 disciples to lead them into all truth. Neither have they," he adds, "who inform us that Montanus pretended to have received from above the same Spirit or Paraclete, which formerly animated the Apostles, interpreted with accuracy the meaning of this Heretic. It is, therefore, necessary to observe here, that Montanus made a distinction between the Paraclete promised 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 |15 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 necessary to observe, that the former statement is directly at variance with the latter, which Mosheim professes to have collected from an attentive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my own perusal of the same writings has conducted 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.

Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let us first turn to the commencement of the Treatise de Vir-ginibus velandis, which contains the fullest and most connected account of Tertullian'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 degrees be carried to 36 perfection by him, who was substituted in the place of the Lord, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Man, in |16 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.

We will now proceed to the Tract de Monogamia; 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," imply only a permission granted in condescension to the infirmities of human nature.37 "Whether 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 leading 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 |17 '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 examples of his Apostles. This is the holiness to which we were originally destined. The Paraclete introduces no new doctrine: he now definitely 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 forbidden 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 acknowledge 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 inference to be deduced from the comparison of this and the preceding passage is, not that 38 Montanus |18 pretended to be the Paraclete; or made a distinction between the Paraclete promised 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 Apostles, 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 disciples had not been able to bear; but which had been in a progressive state of development 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 Tertullian's writings, he 39 identified the Holy Spirit with the Paraclete. It is true that Tertullian generally speaks of the New Prophecy as proceeding from the Paraclete; but this is not invariably the case. In the 40 Treatise against Praxeas, he calls 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 |19 derived. For in the Tract 41 de Praescriptione Haereticorum, he says that "the Paraclete was the teacher of the Apostles when they went forth to preach unto the Gentiles;" and in 42 the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, that "the Holy Spirit, having previously allowed some doctrines to remain involved in a certain degree of obscurity in order to prove the faith of Christians, bad now removed all ambiguities by a clear and explicit development of the whole mystery of the Gospel; through the New Prophecy which had been poured out abundantly from the Paraclete." My conclusion is, that the pretensions of Montanus were correctly represented by Augustine, when 43 he said, of him and his two female associates, Adventum Spiritus Sancti a Domino promissum in se potius quam in Apostolis fuisse asserunt; and 44 by Philaster, according to whom the Montanists held that the fulness of the Holy Spirit was not given to the Apostles, but to Montanus. This is also the view taken by 45 Lardner; who says, that "the followers of Montanus supposed God to have made some additional revelations by him for the perfection of believers." But when Lardner, speaking of the comparative importance attached by the Montanists to the Revelations, made to their |20 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 representation of the opinions of our author; who ought perhaps so to have reasoned, but in fact reasoned otherwise. Tertullian, who believed that Montanus was commissioned to complete the Christian revelation, could not deem him inferior to the Apostles, by whom it was only obscurely and imperfectly developed; nor can Lardner's statement be reconciled with the distinguished appellation of pneumatikoi\, or spiritual, which Tertullian confers on the Montanists; while he brands with the epithet of yuxikoi\, or 46 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 47 already cited containing a saying of the prophetess Prisca; and in 48 the Treatises de Fuga in Persecutione |21 and de Pudicitia are citations from the Discourses 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 explanation 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 peculiar opinions. Some of his followers are said to have fallen into great errors both of doctrine and practice; though we may reasonably suspect that they were in many instances charged with crimes which existed only in the invention of their accusers. Montanus was evidently a man of weak intellects, who was induced, partly by a superstitious temper, partly 49 by 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, |22 in the character of the religious impostor; nor is it improbable 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 50 Valentinians held a similar language, and supposed these mysterious truths to relate to their extravagant and unintelligible fancies respecting the Pleroma and the successive generations of Aeons. Even among the orthodox, a notion not altogether dissimilar very generally prevailed. The principal object of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus is to point out the distinction between the Christian who is perfected in knowledge (gnwstiko_j), 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 supposes them to have been revealed by Christ to Peter, James, and John, at 51 the time of the Transfiguration, and to Paul at a subsequent period; and to have been by them orally |23 transmitted to their successors in the superintendence of the Church. When, however, we come to inquire into the nature of this 52 sublime knowledge, we find that it consisted of subtle explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity and of other Christian doctrines; of allegorical and mystical interpretations 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, 53 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 contemplations; 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 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 |24 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 appears; and we say that he introduced the distinction 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 doctrinal and other corruptions. When driven from every other point, they fly, as to a last refuge, to the disciplines arcani and to oral tradition; and though the writings of Clemens afford no countenance whatever to the particular 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, and which had come down to his own time through the medium of oral tradition.

But to return to Tertullian—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 54 the constitution and temper of his mind; to which the |25 austere doctrines and practice of the new Prophet were perfectly congenial, and of which the natural warmth and acerbity were, as 55 Jerome informs us, increased by the censures, 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 judgment, or even upon the testimony of Tertullian, who could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pretensions of Montanus? or what advantage can the 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 impatience of the labour, requisite for the examination 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 phenomenon of an union of the most opposite qualities in the same mind; of vigour, acuteness, and discrimination on some subjects, with imbecility, dulness, and bigotry on others. The sentence is unfair because it condemns the Fathers for faults, |26 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 accomplished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual reveries of Madame Guy on with the extravagancies of Montanus and his prophetesses, it may be remarked that the predilection of Fenelon for the notions of the mystics betrayed a mental weakness, differing in degree, rather than in kind, from that which led Tertullian to the adoption of Montanism. We do not, however, on account of this weakness in Fenelon, throw aside his works as utterly undeserving of notice, or deem it a sufficient ground for questioning the superiority of his genius and talent: we regard with surprise and regret this additional instance of human infirmity, but continue to read Telemachus with instruction and delight. Let us show the same candour and sound judgment 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 |27 information which, but for his secession from the Church, his works would scarcely have supplied. In a word, whether we consider the testimony borne to the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, or the information relating to the ceremonies, discipline, and doctrines of the primitive Church, Tertullian's writings form a most important link in that chain of tradition which connects the Apostolic age with our own. 

 56  Attempts have been made to arrange Tertullian's works in chronological order; with how little success we may judge from the diversity of opinions which has prevailed among learned men respecting the date of a single tract, that entitled de Pallio. It appears that Tertullian had exchanged the Roman Toga for the Pallium, which was worn by the Greeks and by those |28  who affected to be called philosophers. This change of dress excited the ridicule and censure of his fellow-citizens of Carthage; and he composed the Treatise de Pallio in answer to their attacks. 57 Pamelius, with whom Scaliger agrees, supposes that it is the earliest of Tertullian's works now extant; written immediately after his conversion to Christianity, on which occasion 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 Tertullian into that order.  58 Allix differs both from Pamelius and Salmasius, and affirms, that the Pallium was worn only by those Christians who adopted an ascetic course of life; he concludes, therefore, that the tract was written shortly after Tertullian openly professed himself a Montanist. Each of the three critics supports his opinions by quotations from the tract itself; 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 59 says, that three persons were then united in the administration of the empire, and that the world enjoyed profound peace. Unfortunately, the commentators cannot agree among themselves whether |29 the three emperors were 60 Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus, or 61 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 enjoyed during the latter years of the life of Severus. 62 Semler leans to the former opinion, but admits that the question is involved in great obscurity. In fact, the style of the Treatise is so declamatory and rhetorical, that no inference can be safely drawn from particular expressions; 63 to me, however, it appears to 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 character.

The only work which supplies positive evidence of its date, is the first Book against Marcion. In 64 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 65 this book |30 that the author was, when he wrote it, a believer in the prophecies of Montanus.

In a passage from the 66 Tract de Monogamia, already referred to, Tertullian says, that 160 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 respecting the exact date of the Epistle, some fixing it as late as 59; and in the next, it is highly probable that Tertullian did not speak with precision, but used round numbers. In the first Address ad Nationes our author says, 67 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 Tertullian mean to express the precise number.

Unable to discover in the works themselves any marks by which their dates maybe precisely ascertained, later critics have been content to divide them into two classes; those written before Tertullian adopted the errors of Montanus, and those written afterwards. But even on this point a diversity of opinions subsists, and the commentators are not agreed to which of the two classes each work belongs. Unless indeed the tract contains some allusion to the Paraclete or to the New Prophecy, we are not warranted in positively asserting that it was written by a Montanist; nor |31 does the absence of all such allusion justify 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 pursued by a Christian would not differ widely from those of Montanus; 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 probable 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 case—the readmission of penitents into the Church, and the degree of criminality to bo attached to a second marriage. As the inclination 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 separation between the works which were and those which were not composed before his secession from |32 the Church. Having premised these observations respecting the difficulty of arriving at any certainty on the subject, I will proceed to state the result of my own examination of Tertullian's writings.

The Tracts de Poenitentia, de Oratione, and de Baptismo, are allowed by the majority of commentators to have been written before Tertullian had become a follower of Montanus.

Erasmus doubted the genuineness of the Tract de Poenitentia; partly on account of its superiority in point of style to the acknowledged works of Tertullian, and partly because it contains opinions at variance with those which he has expressed in the Tract de Pudicitia. 68 In the former, he expressly says, that all crimes without exception committed after baptism may once, but only once, be pardoned by the Church upon repentance: in the 69 latter, he denies that adulterers, as well as idolaters and murderers, can ever be reconciled to the Church. But 70 in the commencement of the Tract de Pudicitia ho himself alludes to this change in his sentiments, which is also mentioned by 71 Jerome; and the necessary inference from a comparison of the passage is, that the Tract de Poenitentia is genuine, and that it was composed while Tertullian was yet a member of the Church.

72 A passage in the fifth Chapter of Hilary's |33 Commentary on St. Matthew implies that Tertullian composed the Treatise de Oratione before he quitted the communion of the Church. It is certain that 73 he mentions the Shepherd of Hernias without bestowing upon it any of those opprobrious epithets which he employs in 74 the Treatise de Pudicitia, written after he became a Montanist.

Allix thinks that he discovers traces of a leaning to Montanism in the Tract de Baptismo. He founds his suspicions on an allusion to the name of 75 Pisciculi, which Tertullian applies to the Christians, and on the mention of 76 Charismata. But with respect to the latter term, there appears to be no reason for restricting it to the revelations of Montanus; and with respect to the appellation of Pisciculi, though Allix may be right in supposing it to have been borrowed by Tertullian from the Sibylline Verses, the work, according to him, either of Montanus or a Montanist; yet the majority of learned men are of opinion that the forgery of the Sibylline Verses was prior to the rise of the heresy of Montanus. There is in my opinion a far more suspicious passage in 77 this book, where Tertullian |34 says, that three persons compose a Church; a notion which frequently occurs in the works confessedly written after he became a believer in the New Prophecy.

Allix, 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 contracting a second marriage; in the latter, fearful that she might be unwilling to impose upon herself so severe a restraint, he cautions her at least not to marry a heathen. This condescension 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 78 an allusion to a practice which then prevailed, of restoring 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 79 Tract de Pudicitia, we must, I think, conclude that Tertullian was not yet a convert to Montanism when he wrote the Tract ad Martyres. The death of the philosopher Peregrinus, which happened between the years 164 and 170, is mentioned in c. 4; and the |35 concluding sentence has been supposed, with great appearance of probability, to relate to the numerous executions, particularly of persons of the Senatorial Order, which took place after the defeat and death of 80 Albinus; though it may perhaps relate to the death of Plautianus.

A comparison of the different modes in which Tertullian speaks of flight in time of persecution, in the Tracts de 81 Patientia and 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 Judaeos 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 respecting 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 Charismata in the 82 Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, 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 |36 first book against Marcion, from which he argues that it was prior to the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum; 83 the context leads me to an opposite conclusion. Besides, had the tract been written by a Montanist, 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. 84 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 85 Carne Christi.

It was also prior to the 86 Tract against Hermogenes, in the first chapter of which there is an allusion to it. Allix thinks that Tertullian was a Montanist, when he wrote against Hermogenes,87 because he charges that heretic with marrying repeatedly; but I doubt whether the words are sufficiently precise to warrant the inference.

Great diversity of opinion prevails among the commentators respecting the date of the Apology. Allix appears to me to have shown satisfactorily that it was |37 written, 88 not at Rome, but at Carthage: and that it was addressed, not 89 to 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 90 the passage in 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 91 detected at the very time when the book was written, as well as the  92 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 93 the promulgation of the law, |38 by which the Christians were forbidden to make proselytes, that is, about the year 204? The date assigned 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 Apology; or whether Tertullian at first wrought his materials into this form, which he afterwards thought proper to change. The arguments are for the most part the same as those urged in the Apology, and are frequently expressed in the same words. Allix fancied that he found an allusion 94 to the assumption of the title of Parthicus by Caracalla, and concluded, therefore, that these books were written after the death of Severus; but I suspect that the allusion existed only in his own fancy.

The Tract de Testimonio Animae was subsequent to the Apology, to which it contains a reference. Ut |39 loco suo edocuimus ad fidem earum (Divinarum Scripturarum) demonstrandam, 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, 95 in his address to Scapula, of the favour shown by Severus to the Christians, in consequence of the cure wrought upon him by one of their body named Proculus, leads to the conclusion that the work was composed after that Emperor's death. There is 96 in this Tract an allusion to the destruction of Byzantium which took place in the year 196; as well as to a preternatural extinction of the Sun's light which occurred at Utica, and which Allix supposes to have been an eclipse of the Sun that happened in the year 210. He agrees with Scaliger 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 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 97 Albinus. The Tract contains no traces of Montanism, yet was probably written after the author became a Montanist.

The Treatises, in which we find positive allusions to the prophecies of Montanus, are those 98 de Corona, |40 99 de Animâ, 100 de Virginibus velandis, 101 de Resurrectione Carnis, 102 against Praxeas, 103 the first, 104 third, 105 fourth, and 106 fifth books against Marcion, and the Tracts de Fuga in Persecutions, 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,107 which contains a reference to it. 

108 Gibbon affirms it "to be evident that Tertullian composed his Treatise de Corona long before he was engaged in the errors of Montanus." I am afraid that the historian was induced to adopt this opinion, because it assisted him in transferring the sentiments, expressed by Tertullian, from the followers of Montanus to the primitive Christians in general; and thereby to confirm his representation of their rashness and extravagances. But the allusion 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 |41  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 109 Tract on Public Spectacles, which Tertullian composed in Greek; if it agreed with the Latin Tract now extant, he was probably a Montanist when he wrote it. 110 Tertullian appears in the Tract de Corona to announce his intention of writing the Scorpiace.

The second book against Marcion affords an example of the difficulty of accurately determining 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 111 in it an express reference to the fourth book against Marcion; and 112 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 contemptuously of martyrdom, and to have dissuaded Christians in times of persecution from exposing |42 themselves to danger by an open profession of their faith; 113 contending that He was the true martyr, ma&rtuj, 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. 114 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 Tertullian 115 calls Proculus noster, and mentions with respect in his Treatise against the Valentinians, was the same to whose dispute or dialogue with Caius both 116 Eusebius and Jerome refer, we may fairly conclude that Tertullian was a Montanist when he composed the Treatise.

Allix infers that the Tract de Spectaculis was written after Tertullian became a Montanist, because in enumerating the privileges of the Christian, he mentions 117 that of asking revelations from heaven. The introduction 118 of the New Jerusalem in the last chapter, when compared with the final chapter of the third book against Marcion, supplies in my opinion far more decisive proof of his Montanism. 119 Allix has |43 shown satisfactorily that it was written, not at Rome, but at Carthage. It was prior to the Tract 119 de Idololatria and to the 120 first book de Cultu Foeminarum which contain references to it. These two Tracts, therefore, were probably written after Tertullian became a Montanist, though they contain no decisive marks of Montanism.121 In the Tract de Idololatria, Allix fancies that he discovers an allusion to the festivities which took place at Carthage, when the birthday of Geta was celebrated in the year 203.122

The notion that three persons compose a Church has been 123 already mentioned as indicative of Montanism. It occurs in 124 the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis: yet I am led to infer, from a comparison of this Tract with that de Monogamia, that Tertullian, when he wrote it, had not embraced the tenets of Montanus in all their rigour.

Perhaps we shall not deviate very widely from the truth, if we adopt the following classification of Tertullian's works, without attempting to arrange them in the order in which they are written.

Works probably written while he was yet a member of the Church:

De Poenitentia.
De Oratione.
De Baptismo. |44 
The two books ad Uxorem. 
Ad Martyres. 
De Patientia. 
Adversus Judaeos. 
De Praescriptione Haereticorum.125 

Works certainly written after he became a Montanist:

First book against Marcion.
Second book against Marcion.126
De Anima.127
Third book against Marcion.
Fourth book against Marcion.128
De Carne Christi.129
De Resurrectione Carnis.130
Fifth book against Marcion.
Adversus Praxeam.
De Corona Militis.
De Virginibus Velandis.
De Exhortatione Castitatis.
De Fuga in Persecutione.
De Monogamia.132
De Jejuniis. |45 
De Pudicitia.

Works probably written, after he became a Montanist:

Adversus Valentinianos.
Ad Scapulam.
De Spectaculis.133
De Idololatria.
The two books de Cultu Foeminarum.134

Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced:

The Apology.
The two books ad Nationes.
The Tract de Testimonio Animae.135
De Pallio.
Adversus Hermogenem.

In addition to the works already enumerated, Tertullian composed others not now extant:

A Treatise, entitled de Paradiso.136
Another 137 de Spe Fidelium.
Six books 138 de Ecstasi, and a seventh against Apollonius, mentioned by Jerome in his account of our author. |46 
A Tract139 against the Apelliaci, or followers of Apelles.
A Tract140 against Hermogenes, entitled de Censu Animae.
In the Treatise141 de Animâ,, Tertullian mentions his intention of discussing the questions of Fate and Free-Will, upon the principles of the Gospel.

Jerome mentions other works of Tertullian:

One 142 de vestibus Aaron.

One143 ad Amicum Philosophum; Jerome's words are, Et nunc eadem admoneo, ut, si tibi placet scire quot molestiis virgo libera, quot uxor astricta sit, legas Tertullianum 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 following titles: De Animae Summissione; De Superstitione Saeculi; De Carne et Anima. The tracts themselves are not extant in the MS.; which appears at one time to |47 have contained the Tracts de Paradiso and de Spe Fidelium.

144 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. 145 Eusebius mentions particularly his knowledge of 146 Roman law, which displays itself in his frequent use of legal terms; and his quotations embrace not only the poetry and history, but also the 147 natural philosophy and 148 medical science of antiquity. The Greek language must have been familiar to him, as he composed in it three 149 Treatises, not now extant. So great indeed was his reputation for genius and learning, that notwithstanding his secession from the Church, succeeding Ecclesiastical writers always speak of him with high respect. Cyprian, as we have seen, called him his master, and never passed a day without reading some portion of his works. We cannot, however, among the merits of Tertullian, 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 |48 copiousness 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 harshest 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 Wakefield; between whom and Tertullian, widely as they differed upon doctrinal questions, there appear to have been some points of resemblance. Both possessed great stores of acquired knowledge, which they produced in and out of season; both were deficient in taste, discrimination, and judgment. 150 In one of his letters to Mr. Fox, Mr. Wakefield complains that the "words of Tertullian, Arnobius, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, are usually marked in dictionaries as inelegant and of suspicious authority: when they are, in reality, the most genuine remains of pure Roman composition," or, as he had previously expressed himself, "of the language of the old comedians and tragedians, of Ennius and Lucilius." I am far from intending to assert that this statement is wholly destitute of foundation. When I have myself been obliged to 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 |49 in the words of the learned Ruhnken. 151 "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; Latinitatis certe pessimum auctorem esse aio et confirmo. At usus est sermono eo quo tunc omnes Afri Latine loquentes utebantur.

Dwri/sden d' e1cesti, dokw~, toi~j Awrie/essin.

Ne hoc quidem concesserim. Nam si talis Afrorum sermo fuit, cur, non dicam Apuleius et Arnobius scriptores priscae elegantiae studiosi, sed Cyprianus, &c. aliter locuti reperiuntur? Quid ergo? Fecit hic, quod ante eum arbitror fecisse neminem. Etenim quum in aliorum vel summa infantia tamen appareat voluntas et conatus bene loquendi, hic, nescio qua ingenii 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 composed 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 |50 proximity to the times in which he lived, and whose opportunities of information, rendered them competent to form a correct opinion on the subject. We are told that Cyprian, who was Bishop of Carthage within forty years after the period at which Tertullian lived there, held his works in the highest 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 152 Eusebius, a diligent inquirer 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 153 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 154 Augustine, who had resided at Carthage and made inquiries there respecting the sect which bore his name; and by later writers, who may be deemed too far removed from his time to be received as independent witnesses. Here surely is a chain of testimony sufficient to satisfy even |51 a sceptical mind. It did not, however, satisfy that of Semler; who in a dissertation, inserted in his 155 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 Irenaeus. 156 His theory is, that all those works, though bearing the names of different authors, proceeded from one and the same shop established at Rome; and were the produce of the joint labours of a set of men, who entered into a combination to falsify history and corrupt the Scriptures, principally with the view of throwing discredit upon certain persons, Marcion, Valentinus, &c. whom they thought 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, inquire 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 ingenious mind may frame, in order to disprove the genuineness of works written sixteen centuries 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 |52 knowledge of which can alone enable us to dispel all obscurity and to reconcile all seeming contradictions. In these cases we must not expect demonstration, but be content to weigh probabilities 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 157 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 information. 158 He even insinuates, that the works themselves, like the writings of the Sophists, were mere exercises of wit: and that 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 manners and customs which he describes, the transactions 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 |53 supposed to have occasioned them—the calumnies, against which he defends the Christians—the persecutions, which he exhorts them to bear with constancy —the heretical opinions, which he undertakes to confute; and he may have occasionally 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? What could induce a member of Semler's New Roman Society, who comes forward at one time as the Apologist for Christianity and the vehement champion of Orthodoxy, to assume at another the character of a Separatist from the Church? This fact appears to be wholly irreconcilable to Semler's theory. It should also be observed, that the few notices of Tertullian'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, 159 had Jerome been able to discover more particulars of our author's life, he would certainly have inserted them. This is by no means clear; for the extreme conciseness with which he has drawn up his notices of Ecclesiastical writers proves, that he made no laborious researches into the history of their lives, but contented himself |54 with, such information as happened to fall in his way. 160 Semler further conjectures, that even the particulars in Jerome's brief account were not derived from independent sources, but collected from Tertullian's works. This may be partly true; he might have inferred from different passages that Tertullian was born in Africa, resided at Carthage, and nourished during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. But, not to mention the story respecting Cyprian'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 Tertullian had ever been admitted to the order of priesthood.

Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's account, which begins thus: Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem et Apollonium 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 Apollonius, of whom Jerome had before spoken, 161 Semler thinks that the more |55 accurate statement would have been, that Tertullian was the first presbyter who used the Latin language, and that this was in fact Jerome's meaning; an assertion in which few of his readers will, I conceive, be disposed to acquiesce. But how, asks Semler, can Tertullian 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 slightest 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 Animae, the author alludes to certain Christian writers, who had employed profane literature, and appealed to the works of the Gentile poets and philosophers in defence of Christianity. 162 This, he contends, is a mere fiction of the author's brain. In vain, he says, shall we seek in the history |56 of the Church for a confirmation of this statement; in vain try to discover any traces of those learned works by which the early apologists for Christianity asserted its cause. Had such writings 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 inquire how far they are supported by proof. The Ecclesiastical writers whom Tertullian mentions by name, are 163 Justin Martyr, Tatian, Miltiades, and Irenaeus. All these wrote Treatises in defence of Christianity against Paganism. The works of Justin and Tatian are still extant, and prove their authors to have been, as Lardner expresses himself respecting the latter, 164 "men of reading, and well acquainted with the Greek learning." We are also in possession of the Apology of Athenagoras, 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 165 an Epistle, entitled ad Magnum Oratorem, and written expressly to defend his own practice of mixing together profane and sacred literature in his writings. In this Epistle he appeals to the authority of preceding |57 Ecclesiastical writers who had pursued the same plan; mentioning by name Quadratus and Aristides, who presented their Apologies to the Emperor Adrian, and describing the work of the latter as almost entirely 166 composed of opinions taken from the philosophers. He adds, that Apollinarius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian, Bardesanes, and Irenaeus, 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 Demetrianus 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 accordingly 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 Testimonio Animae, are meant as an apology for deviating from the established course; and appealing, not to the speculations of the Philosophers, but to the testimony borne by the soul of man in favour of the doctrines of Christianity.

" But 167 even, continues Semler, if such works as |58 those to which Tertullian is supposed to allude, had really existed, since they were written in Greek and at places remote from Borne 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 Carthage? Let us hear the opinion of Gibbon. Speaking of the public roads, as they existed in the time of: the Antonines, he says 168 that "they united the subjects of the most distant provinces by an easy and familiar intercourse." With respect to the Christians in particular, he 169 states that by the institution of provincial Synods, which took place towards the end of the second century, a regular 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 Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus leads me to consider another of Semler's objections. 170 "Who, he asks, can |59 read the works of Irenaeus 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 inquirer into all kinds of learning (or doctrine). Does not this grossly inapplicable eulogium clearly bespeak the sophist and declaimer?" To this objection we reply, that we are scarcely competent to form an opinion respecting the talent of Irenaeus 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 translation. 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 perspicuously 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 single work, now extant, against the Gnostics? Eusebius 171 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 172 Tertullian, it seems, was not content with |60 praising; he also borrowed from Irenaeus, and that too without acknowledgment. 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 his theory, that there existed a club of authors who 'sent forth their own productions into the world under borrowed names; and appeared at one time as the Greek Irenaeus, at another as the Latin Tertullian.' But if this were so, whence arises the great inequality which Semler himself has discovered between them? How comes it that, while the works of Tertullian exhibit 173 such an extent and variety of knowledge; those of Irenaeus, according to Semler, betray a miserable poverty of intellect and learning?

The close resemblance between Tertullian and Irenaeus in the case alluded to, may, in our opinion, be satisfactorily accounted for. The design of the first book of Irenaeus, and of Tertullian's Treatise is precisely the same—to explain the doctrine of the Valentinians respecting the generation of Aeons: and thus, the common subject of the two writers would naturally lead them to pursue the same order, and almost to use |61 the same language. Most strange, indeed, is Semler's assertion, that Tertullian has not even named 174 Irenaeus; whom he has named 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 declares that it is his earnest wish to imitate them, not only in this work of faith (the refutation 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 imitator: and his occasional deviations from the statement of Irenaeus 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.175 "How happens it, that Tertullian |62 alludes to and speaks respectfully of Miltiades, 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 Tertullian's name carefully have avoided such an appearance of inconsistency? The fact appears to be perfectly reconcilable to the history and character of Tertullian, as far as they can be collected from his writings; since, 176 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 irreconcilable to Semler's theory.

"But 177 what are we to think of the extraordinary reason assigned by Tertullian for introducing the names of Miltiades and the rest? He supposes that he may be charged with inventing the strange opinions which he imputes to the Valentinians; and thinks it necessary to guard himself against the charge, by appealing to the authority of Justin Martyr, &c. Have we not here a strong indication of the mere sophist and declaimer, aware that he is about to |63 advance statements for which there is no foundation in fact, and anxious to anticipate the feeling of incredulity which their improbability would naturally excite?" That this construction should be put upon the passage 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 Tertullian offering a similar apology for the extravagance of 178 an opinion which he undertakes to refute, and affirming with great solemnity that he had himself heard it advanced.

Semler 179 grounds another argument in support of his theory, on the fact, that a considerable portion of the third book against Marcion, is repeated almost word for word in the Treatise against the Jews. But the difficulties arising out of this fact are not greater on the supposition that Tertullian 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 |64 repeating the same arguments in the same words, when an occasion presents itself on which they are equally applicable. 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 Testament. Both, therefore, were to be refuted by showing that the prophecies respecting the Messiah were actually accomplished in him; and this is the object of the two passages 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 himself 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 Judaeos is expressly quoted by 180 Jerome, as the work of Tertullian.

It would be foreign from the immediate object of this volume, to discuss the 181 reasons assigned by Semler for asserting, that the works now extant under the names of Justin and Irenaeus contain manifest plagiarisms from Clemens Alexandrinus, and that they are consequently spurious. He admits that they are quoted as genuine by 182 Eusebius; and this circumstance alone will probably, in the opinion of sober |65 critics, outweigh a thousand conjectures unsupported by positive evidence.

I have devoted so much time to the examination of Semler's Dissertation, not on account of 183 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, Irenaeus, 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 Valentinians, had done nothing more than copy the statements of preceding writers, and consequently could not be deemed an independent witness to the tenets of those Heretics —had he said, with respect to our author's writings 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 matters of fact—had Semler even gone further, and contended that there was reasonable |66 ground for suspecting that 184 Irenaeus and Tertullian had, either through ignorance or design, occasionally 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 considering and in opposition to the unanimous voice of Ecclesiastical antiquity, to denounce the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian as the offspring of fraud and imposture—as the productions of men who had combined together for the purpose of palming forgeries on the world—he overleaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism, and opens a door to universal incredulity.

[Footnotes have been moved to the end]

1. 1 He is called in the MSS. of his works Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus: and in the concluding sentence of the Tract de Virginibus Velandis he calls himself Septimius Tertullianus. But whether that sentence is genuine may be reasonably doubted: the same remark applies to the concluding words of the Tracts de Baptismo and de Exhortatione Castitatis. The final mention of Tertullian in the latter is omitted in the Codex Agobardi. Jerome calls him Septimius Tertullianus. Ep. ad Fabiolam de Vestitu Sacerd. sub fine.

2. 2 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum.

3. 3 A proconsular centurion appears to have been a species of officer, who was constantly in attendance upon tho proconsul to receive his commands. See the note of Valesius in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. ii. c. 2. This part of Jerome's account has been supposed to be founded on a passage in the Apology, c. 9. Infantes penes Africam Saturno immolabantur palam usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii, qui ipsos Sacerdotes in iisdem arboribus templi sui obumbraticibus scelerum votivis crucibus exposuit, testo militia patriae nostrae, quae id ipsum munus illi proconsuli functa est. Rigault says, that one MS. reads Patris nostri.

4. 4 The six books de Ecstasi and the seventh against Apollonius 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 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 Miltiades, of whom Tertullian speaks with respect, wrote a Treatise to show that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, peri\ tou~ mh_ dei~n profh&thn e0n e0ksta&sei lalei~n. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 17. Tertullian wrote his Books de Ecstasi in defence of Montanus; and a passage in the fourth book against Marcion, 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 defendimus in causa Novae Prophetiae, gratiae 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. 1. i. c. 21. sub fine. 1. v. c. 8. sub fine. adv. Praxeam, c. 15. In like, manner Tertullian supposes that in the deep sleep or ecstasy (e1kstasin 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 magnum illud Sacramentum in Christum et Ecclesiam, (the reference is to Ephesians v. 31.) "Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro ex carne meâ. Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adglutinabit se uxori suae, et erunt duo in carnem unam," accidentiam Spiritűs passus est; cecidit enim ecstasis super illum, Sancti Spiritűs vis, operatrix Prophetiae. De Animâ, c. 11. Tertullian is very fond of this notion respecting the deep sleep or trance into which Adam was thrown; we find it again De Virgin. Vel. c. 5. De Animâ, c. 21, 45. De Jejuniis, c. 3.

5. 5 Apollonius is mentioned as an opponent of Montanus by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. l. v. c. 18.

6. 6 Vani erimus si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est, regnum quoque nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. De Exhort. Castit. c. 7. Again, Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tune oinnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. Quum ad peraequationem disciplinae Sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus. De Monogamiâ, c. 12.

7. 7 Dissertatio de Tertulliani Vitâ et Scriptis, c. 2.

8. 8 c.9.

9. 9 De Pallio, c. 1. Apology, c. 9. Scorpiace, c. 6. De Res. Carnis, c. 42. 

10. 1 Adv. Parmenianum, 1. i. 

11. 2 c. 26.

12. 3 De Cultu Foeminarum, 1. i. c. 7. Gemmarum quoque nobilitatem vidimus Romae, &c.

13. 4 Eccl. Hist. 1. ii. c. 2. It should, however, be observed that Valesius, following Rufinus, understood the words tw~n ma&lista e0pi\ 'Rw&mhj lamprw~n to mean, that Tertullian had obtained distinction among Latin writers.

14. 5 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30.

15. 6 Poenitentiam hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, caeci, sine Domini lumine, naturâ tenus norunt. De Poenitentia, c. 1. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in quâ et inventi sumus. De Fugâ in Persec. c. 6. Et nationes, quod sumus nos. Adv. Marc. 1. iii. c. 21. Haec et nos risimus ali-quando; De vestris fuimus. Apology, c. 18. To these passages Mr. Dodgson adds de Spect. c. 19.

16. 7 De Cultu Foem. l. ii. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 59. De Poenitentiâ, c. 4, 12. Do Patientiâ, c. 1. In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 4, to says of himself, Et quid ego modicae memoriae homo?

17. 8 Eccl. Hist. l. v. c. 16.

18. 9 Eccl. Hist. l. v. c. 3. The martyrs addressed letters to the brethren of Asia and Phrygia, as well as to Eleutherus, 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 Cataphrygians. Strom. l. iv. p. 605; l. vii. p. 900. Ed. Potter.

19. 1 Eccl. Hist. l. iv. c. 27. 

20. 2 Haer. 28 or 48.

21. 3 We know from Tertullian that one of the bishops of Rome (learned men are not agreed respecting the particular bishop) was disposed for a time to recognize the prophetic character of Montanus. Adv. Praxeam, c. 1.

22. 4 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.

23. 5 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 18.

24. 6 The expression is o9 nhstei/aj nomoqeth&saj. Montanus did not merely himself observe additional fasts, but enjoined the observance of them by others.

25. 7 Haer. 28 or 48. 

26. 8 Sect. 4, 10, 11, 12, 13.

27. 9 Haer. 29 or 49.

28. 1 Tertullian 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, Tertullian 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.

29. 2 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 successive days, early in the morning, a city was seen suspended from heaven. Adv. Marcionem, l. iii. c. 24.

30. 3 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol radium. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8.

31. 4 De rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Saeculum secundum, c. 67.

32. 5 See particularly the concluding chapter of the Tract de Spectaculis, where Tertullian's exultation at the prospect of the approaching triumph of the Christians, and of the punishment of their adversaries, nearly gets the better of his discretion. Quale autem spectaculum in proximo est adventus Domini jam indubitati, jam superbi, jam triumphantis? See also de Oratione, c. 5.

33. 6 Compare Apology, c. 32. 39. ad Scapulam, c. 2, with de Oratione, 3. 5. de Res. Carnis, c. 22, sub in.

34. 7 Saeculum secundum, c. 66.

35. 8 Century ii. c. 5. p. 237, note.

36. 9 Ab illo vicario Domini, Spiritu Sancto. Tertullian's notion was that, when 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 Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes agat; and again, c. 28. Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius.

37. 1 c. 3. Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nubendi, &c. It should be observed, that Tertullian's professed object, in the second and third chapters of the Tract de Monogamia, is to show, 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.

38. 2 So far was Tertullian from supposing that Montanus 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 prophetess Prisca; de quibus luculenter et Paracletus per Prophetidem Priscam, "Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt."

39. 3 He uses the word Paracletus to designate the third Person in the Holy Trinity. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero. Adv. Praxeam, c. 25. And in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13, we find Spiritus Sanctus—qua Paracletus, id est, advocatus.

40. 4 Hic interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchiae sed et oi0konomi/aj interpretatorem, si quis sermones Novae Prophetiae ejus admiserit, c. 30.

41. 5 Quod ei nationibus destinati doctores Apostoli, ipsi quoquo doctorem con-secuti erant Paracletum, c. 8.

42. 6 Sed quoniam nec dissimulare Spiritum Sanctum oportebat, quo minus et hujusmodi eloquiis superinundaret, quae nullis haereticorum versutiis semina subspargerent, imo et veteres eorum cespites vellerent, idcirco jam omnes retro ambiguitates et quas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua totius sacra-menti predicatione discussit per Novam Prophetiam de Paracleto inundantem. Sub fine.

43. 7 Liber de Haeresibus, c. 26. 

44. 8 Haeres. Cataphryges. 

45. 9 History of Heretics. Of the Montanists, c. 19.

46. 5 Homines solius animae et carnis. De Jejuniis, c. 17. De Monogamia, c. 1.

47. 6 Page 17, note 2.

48. 7 Spiritum vero ei consulas, quid magis Sermone illo Spiritus probat? namque omnes pene ad Martyrium exhortatur non ad fugam, ut et illius commemoremur "Publicaris, inquit: bonum tibi est. Qui enim non publicatur (paradeigmati/zetai) in hominibus, publicatur in Domino. Ne confundaris: justitia te producit in medium. Quid confunderis, laudem ferens? Potestas fit quum conspiceris ab homnibus." Sic et alibi, "Nolite in lectulis, nec in aborsibus et febribus mollibus optare exire, sed in Martyriis, ut glorificetur qui est passus pro vobis." De Fuga in Persec. c. 9. Si et Spiritum quis agnoverit, audiet et fugitivos 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 Pudicitcia, c. 21.

49. 8 The anonymous author in Eusebius imputes the conduct of Montanus to this motive.

50. 9 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 25.

51. 1 Eusebius says after the resurrection, Eccl. Hist. l. ii. c. 1. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. l. i. p. 322, l. 18; p. 323, l. 23; p. 324, l. 26; l. vi. p. 771, l. 14; p. 774, l. 27; p. 802, l. 36; p. 806, l. 25. Ed. Potter.

52. 2 Clemens says that he is not at liberty to disclose fully and openly wherein this gnw~sij consists, as it is of too pure and spiritual a nature to be comprehended by Christians in general, l. i. p. 327, l. 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, l. 18.

53. 3 Strom. l. iii. p. 548, l. 26.

54. 4 Mosheim. de reb. Christ, ante Constant, s. 2. c. 66.

55. 5 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum.

56. 6 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 Benedictines in their learned work, L'Art de Verifier les Dates.


Commencement of the reign of Severus ..... 193
Defeat of Niger ............. 195
Taking of Byzantium ........... 196
Defeat of Albinus .... ........ 197
Caracalla associated in the empire ....... 198
War against the Parthians ......... 198
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 Caesar ........... 196
————————— Augustus .......... 198
Geta born ............... 189
—— called Caesar ............ 198
——— — Augustus ...........: 208

57.  7 Mr. Dodgson adopts the opinion of Pamelius: I know not whether we should be justified in inferring from the paucity of Scriptural quotations that the tract was written soon after Tertullian's conversion.

58. 8 Dissertatio de Tertulliani vita et scriptis, c. 6.

59. 9 Quantum urbium aut produxit, aut auxit, aut reddidit praesentis Imperii triplex Virtus! Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, quot census transcript! &c. c. 2.

60. 1 A. S. 196. 

61. 2 A. S. 208.

62. 3 Dissertatio in Tertullianum, c. 1.

63. 4 This inference I draw from the following passages: Enimvero quum hanc primum sapientiam vestit, quae vanissimis superstitionibus renuit, tunc certis-sime pallium super omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superque omnes 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 divinas Sectae ac Disciplinae com-mercium confero." Gaude pallium et exulta; melior jam te Philosophia dignata est, ex quo Chriutianum vestire coepisti, c. 6.

64. 5 Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris.

65. 6 Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quem quidem apud nos Spiritalis Ratio, Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum in Fide matrimonium praescribens, c. 29.

66. 7 c. 3. See note 1, p. p. 16.

67. 8 The first number occurs in c. 7, the second in c. 9.

68. 9 See c. 7, 8, 9. 

69. 1 See c. 5.

70. 2 c. i. Erit igitur et hic adversus Psychicos titulus, adversus meae quoque sententiae retro penes illos societatem, &c.

71. 3 Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal Son: Unde vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro, quem de Pudicitia adversum Poenitentiam scripsit et sententiam veterem nova opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire. 

72. 4 De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus

vir Sancto memoriae liberavit. Quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit; sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem.

73. 5 c. 12. 

74. 6 c. 10.

75. 7 Sed nos Pisciculi secundum i0xqu_n nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur, c. 1. Cicero says (De Divinatione, 1. ii. c. 54. or in.) that the original Sibylline Verses were Acrostics; and in the eighth book of the spurious verses are some Acrostics, commencing with the initial letters of the words 0Ihsou~j Xristo_j, Qeou~ Yi9o_j, Swth_r, of which letters the word i0xqu_j is composed: but according to Lardner, there is no good ground to think that Tertullian has alluded to these Acrostics. Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 29.

76. 8 Petite de Domino peculia, gratias, distributiones charismatum subjicieute, c. 20. sub fine.

77. 9 Quum autem sub tribua et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesisae mentio; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est. c. 6.

78. 1 c. 1. Quam pacem quidam, in Ecclesia non habentes, a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Et ideo eam etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire debetis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis.

79. 2 c. 22.

80. 3 A. S. 197.

81. 4 c. 13. Si fuga urgeat, adversus incommoda fugae caro militat. The fair inference from these words appears to be, that flight in time of persecution is allowable.

82. 5 c. 29.

83. 6 Sed alius libellus hunc 'gradum sustinebit adversus Haereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de Praescriptione Novitatis. Nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium Praescriptionis unique advocatum diffidentiae deputetur, regulam Adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis quaestio dimicatura est. c. 1.

84. 7 c. 45. Sed nunc quidem generaliter actum est a nobis adversus haereses omnes, certis et justis et necessariis praescriptionibus repellendas a conlatione Scripturarum. De reliquo, si Dei gratia annuerit, etiam specialiter quibusdam respondebimus.

85. 8 c. 2. Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses alibi jam usi sumus.

86. 9 c. 1. Solemus Haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate praescribere.

87. 1 c. 1. Praeterea pingit illicite, nubit assidue. Legem Dei in libidinem defendit.

88. 2 Speaking of Rome, Tertullian says, c. 9, Ecce in illa religiosissima urbe Aeneadum: 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, couvenio: modes of expression which he would scarcely have used, had the Tract been written at Rome.

89. 3 In designating the persons to whom the Apology is addressed, he styles them in general Praesides; thus, Veritatis extorquendae Praesides, c. 2. Ex ipsis etiam vobis justissimis et severissimis in nos Praesidibus, c. 9. Hoc agite, boni Praesides, c. 50. In c. 2 he uses the expression, Hoc imperium 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 proconsul.

90. 4 Nonne vanissimas Papias Leges, quae ante liberos suscipi cogunt quam Juliae matrimonium contrahi, post tantae auctoritatis senectutem heri Severus constantissimus Principum exclusit? c. 4.

91. 5 Unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini? and again, Sed et qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores quotidie revelantur, post vindemiam parricidarum racematio superstes, &c. c. 35. This passage appears to relate to the triumph of Severus after his return from the Parthian War, and to the conspiracy of Plautianus which took place about the year 204.

92. 6 c. 37. Plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique Parthi.

93. 7 The part taken by the Syrians of Palestine in favour of Niger greatly

irritated Severus, and probably gave occasion to this law. Aelii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. C. From the words of the historian it might bo 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.

94. 8 Ita vero sit, quum ex vobis nationibus quotidie Caesares, et Parthici, et Medici, et Germanici, 1. i. o. 17. Allix drew his inference from a passage in the life of Caracalla which goes under the name of Aelius Spartianus. Datis ad Senatum, quasi post victoriam, literis Parthicus appellatus est; nam Germanici nomen patre vivo fuerat consecutus, p. 930, D. The circumstance here alluded to occurred not long before tho death of Caracalla in 217. 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.

95. 9 c. 4. The cure was performed by the use of oil. Severus laboured under an arthritic complaint. Aelii Spartiani Severus, p. 903. D.

96. 1 c. 3. Extincto pene lumine.

97. 2 A.D. 198. Aelii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. A.

98. 3 c. 1. Qui prophetias ejusdem Spiritus Sancti respuerunt.

99. 4 cc. 9. 11. 55. 58. There is in this Tract, c. 55. an allusion to the martyrdom of Perpetua, which is supposed to have happened about the year 203.

100. 5 cc. 1. 17. 

101. 6 c. 11. 

102. 7 cc. 1, 2. 8. 13. 30 

103. 8 c. 29.

104. 9 c. 24. 

105. 1 c. 22.

106. 2 c. 16. Ut docent Veteres et Novae Prophetiae.

107. 3 c. 1.

108. 4 Chapter 15. Note 49.

109. 5 Sed et huic materiae propter suaviludios nostros Graeco quoquo stilo satisfecimus, c. 6 sub fine.

110. 6 c. 1. Sed de quaestionibus confessionum alibi docebimus.

111. 7 c. 7. Audiat igitur et Apelles quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello, quo ad Evangelium ipsius provocavimus. The reference is to c. 19.

112. 8 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.

113. 9 Compare Irenaeus, l. iii. c. 20. l. iv. c. 64. and Clemens Alexandrinus, l. iv. c. 4. p. 571. l. 10.

114. 1 Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant, donatam Pythico Agone post stadii senectutem, c. 6.

115. 2 c.5.

116. 3 Hist. Eccl. l. vi. c. 20. Catalogus Scriptorum Eccl. sub Caio.

117. 4 c. 29. Quod revelationes petis. Qualis Civitas nova Hierusalem?

118. 5 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, quae sunt Romae Capitolina, c. 11. Observe also the use of the word Praesides in the last chapter.

119. 7 c. 13. 

120. 8 c. 8. 

121. 9 c. 15.

122. 1 Mr. Dodgson considers both those Tracts to have been written before Tertullian quitted the Church.

123. 2 P. 33. n. 9.

124. 3 c. 7. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici. 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.

125. 4 Referred to in the first book against Marcion, c. 1. adv. Praxeam, c. 2 de Carne Christi, c. 2. adv. Hermogenem, c. 1.

126. 5 Referred to in the Scorpiace, c. 5. In the Treatise de Animâ, c. 21. where the allusion is to c. 5. De Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 14.

127. 6 Referred to in the Tract de Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 17. 45. Compare cc. 18 and 21.

128. 7 Referred to in the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 7.

129. 8 Referred to in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 2. See also the concluding words of the Tract de Carne Christi.

130. 9 Referred to in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 10.

131. 1 In c. 4. Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted all the heretics.

132. 2 Referred to in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 1.

133. 3 Referred to in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 13. and in the first book de Cultu Foeminarum, c. 8. In the Tract de Corona, c. 6. is a reference to the Greek Tract de Spectaculis.

134. 4 The second book de Cultu Foeminarum was written during a time of persecution. Caeterum tempora Christianorum semper, et nunc vel maxime, non auro, sed ferro transiguntur. c. 13.

135. 5 Subsequent to the Apology, see c. 5. Prior to the Tract de Carne Christi, in the twelfth chapter of which it is quoted.

136. 6 Mentioned in the Tract de Animâ, c. 55, and in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 12.

137. 7 Mentioned in the third book against Marcion, c. 24. and by Jerome in his account of Papias, and in Ezechielem, c. 36.

138. 8 There is an allusion to the books de Ecstasi in the fourth book against Marcion, c. 22.

139. 9 Mentioned in the Treatise de Carne Christi, c. 8.

140. 1 Mentioned in the Treatise de Animâ, cc. 1. 3. 22. 24.

141. 2 c. 20.

142. 3 Epistola ad Fabiolam de veste Sacerdotali, sub fine.

143. 4 Epistola 22, ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis. I am in doubt whether Jerome here alludes to Tracts expressly entitled de Virginitate, or means only that Tertullian had in various works written on the advantages of the unmarried state.

144. 5 Cent. II. c. 5. sect. 23. 

145. 6 Hist. Eccl. l. ii. c. 2.

146. 7 See the Tract de Animâ, c. 6. sub fine.

147. 8 He appears to have been well acquainted with Pliny.

148. 9 See the Tract de Animâ, cc. 2, 6.

149. 1 Those de Spectaculis (see de Corona, c. 6,) de Virginibus 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, cc. 3. 5. ad Scapulam, 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.

150. 2 Letter 54.

151. 3 Praefatio ad Schelleri Lexicon.

152. 4 l. ii. c. ii. The only work of Tertullian quoted by Eusebius is the Apology, which he states to have been 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 composed by Tertullian himself in Greek, which were of less general interest than the Apology.

153. 5 If we adopt the interpretation suggested by Valesius, after Rufinus, of the words tw~n ma&lista e0pi 9Rw&mhj lamprw~n, inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, the inference will be strengthened.

154. 6 Liber de Haeresibus, 86. Tertullianistae.

155.  7 Halae Magdeburgicae, 1770.

156. 8 Ex una atque eadem officina quidam libri videntur prodiisse quos studiosissime solebant variis et diversis Scriptoribus dividere. Antiquissima, fuit haec Societas et impensa sive ab uno sive a duobus diligentia, quae cum Romana illa, tam Graeca quam Latina, Societate nova videtur sic cohaerere ut communi consilio operam dederint. Sect. 10. See also the concluding Section.

157. 9 Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse, quae horum Librorum Auctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat. Sect. I.

158. 1 Solet enim hic Scriptor Declamatorum imitari exemplum qui ipsi confingunt argumenti, quod sibi desumpserunt, tempus, et omnes illas rerum Appendices quibus tempora solent commode et studiose distingui. Sect. I.

159. 2 Haec Hieronymus; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque discere potuisset ad historiam Tertulliani facientia, haud dubio hic omnino perscripsisset. Sect. 2.

160. 3 Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjecturis reperisse ex variis horum scriptorum locis. Sect. 2.

161. 4 Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et narrasset accuratius, Tertullianus Latinorum presbyter primus est; nempe id vult Hieronymus eorum hominum, qui Romae Latina lingua uti solebant, Tertullianus fuit primus presbyter. At hic idem Tertullianus Graecarum multarum Scriptionum se auctorem dixit; quomodo igitur Latinorum dicitur primus esse Romarrus presbyter? Sect. 10.

162. 5 Confictum est hoc argumentum universum declamatorum more; nisi putamus hujus generis scriptores, tam antiquos, 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 Praeparatione Evangelica id omnino egit, quod hie Tertullianus dicit suo jam tempore quosdam instituisse. Eusebius vero nihil quicquam ejus rei didicit, nec Hieronymus aliquid reperire potuit. Audemus, igitur, statuere scriptorem talia ultra confinxisse, ex suo ingenio rem illam arbitratum. Sect. 10.

163. 6 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. He also mentions Clemens Romanus, and Hermas, but they do not appear to have written in defence of Christianity.

164. 7 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 13. 

165. 8 Ep. 84.

166. 9 Contextum Philosophorum sententiis.

167. 1 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.

168. 2 Chapter i. p. 51. ed. 4to.

169. 3 Chapter xv. p. 491.

170. 4 Quis autem sine taedio et stomacho legat istam declamationem, "Irenaeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator?" Nos certe statuimus, hoc encomium monstro non carere. 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 ot varietate, ut in ipsum hoc maxime conveniat hunc scriptorem id diligenter egisse, ut omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator videretur. Sect. x.

171. 5 Hist. Eccl. l. v. c. 26.

172. 6 Jam novae rei alias superest observatio, quae non parum facit ad illustrandam hujus suspicionis rationem. Ista enim Irenaei, quae sunt nostris in manibus, scripta, si comparantur cum his Tertulliani nostri, mirifice conveniunt. Scimus autem Tertullianum istum esse illorum primum qui Irenaei nomen recitaut inter scriptores; nempe omnium doctrinarum curiosissimum exploratorem dicebat Irenaeum noster Tertullianus. Si vero illo Irenaeus Lugduni scripsit istos libros adversus haereses, quomodo Tertullianus isto jam tempore hoc (l. hos) libros oculis et manibus usurpavit suis? Quo autem jure sic fecit Tertullianus, ut ex Graeco illo textu Irenaei sublegeret sua et Latine repeteret, quae ille creditur scripsisse Graece? Atque sic quidem, ut ne nominaverit quidem Irenaeum, quem tamen Latine exscribebat? Viderint Lectores quid statuendum putent de ista causa: nobis certe non videtur monstro carere. Sect. xii.

173. 7 See the quotation from Section x. in note 4, p. 58.

174. 8 Neo undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias quas tot jam viri sanctitate et praestantia insignes, nec solum nostri Antecessores sed ipsorum Haeresiarcharum contemporales, instructissimis volnminibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt: ut Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum Sophista, ut Irenaeus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas: quos in omni opere fidei, quemadmodum in isto, optaverim assequi. Aut si in totum haereses non sunt, ut qui eas pellunt finxisse credantur, mentietur apostolus praedicator illarum. Porro si sunt, non aliae erunt quam quae retractantur. Nemo tam otiosus fertur stylo, ut materias habens fingat. Adv. Valentin. c.5.

175. 9 Section iv. note 27. Miltiades vero? Ecquid tandem illud est, Ecclesiarum Sophista? quid tandem est? Putamusne Tertullianum legisse aliquid hujus Miltiadis; Miltiadis aliquas scriptiones Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 1. v. c. 17.) ex Rhodone nominat contra Montanum, Priscillam et Maximillam: contra gentes et Judaeos; sed contra Gnosticos aut Haereticos nihil. Cur ergo hic excitatur, quasi scripserit adversus Valentinianos? 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. kai\ a0delfw~n de/ tinwn e0sti\ gra&mmata presbu&tera tw~n Bi/ktoroj xro&nwn, a1 e0kei~noi pro_j ta_ e1qnh u9pe_r th~j a0lhqei/aj kai\ pro_j ta_j to&te ai9re/seij e1grayan le/gw-de\ 'Iousti/nnou, kai\ Miltia&dou, kai\ Tatianou~, kai\ Klh&mentoj, kai\ e9terwn pleio&nwn e0n oi[j a3pasi qeologei~tai d Xristo&j. Eccl. Hist. l. v. c. 28.

176. 1 De Jejuniis, c. 1.

177. 2 Section iv. note 27. Semler introduces the passage quoted in note 8, p. 61, by the following words: "Ipse hic scriptor videtur (sicut dici solet) se prodere sicut sorex: nam hoc ipso libro adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. sic scribit." He then gives the passage at length, and subjoins, "Totus hic locus videtur aliquid monstri prodere. Si omnino Romae alibique vivebant homines haeretici, eos igitur non solus Tertullianus noverat: Christiani alii similiter hanc Haereticorum causam sciebant. Itaque non intelligimus qua ratione amoliatur hic scriptor eam suspicionem, qua dici ipse possit sibi finxisse materias."

178. 3 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, Tertullian adds, Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi, ne quis me tam perditum existimet, ut ultro exagitem, libidine styli, quae aliis scrupulum incutiant. c. 12.

179. 4 Section ix.

180. 5 In his Comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel.

181. 6 Section xiv. xv. xvi.

182. 7 Hist. Eccl. l. v. c. 8; l. iv. c. 18.

183. 8 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.

184. 9 We should always bear in mind, that far the greater portion of the work of Irenaeus is extant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under heavy suspicions of interpolation.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press
SPIonic font, free from here.

This page has been accessed by ****** people since 2nd December 2002.

Home Index of Kaye About these pages