Note to the reader from the transcriber: The chronology given in chapter 5 is not that generally accepted, then or now, by scholars. The author has not recognised that Tertullian will use different language and adopt different positions in response to different problems. For instance he recognises that Tertullian attacks a position of many Gods in Adv. Val., and opposes monarchianism in Adv. Prax. But he gives this as an example of how Tertullian's views changed, rather than understanding that in each case he attacked the special error in question. The chapter contains many interesting references, quite a bit of speculative deduction not labelled as such, and broadly erroneous conclusions. The reader is advised to seek information on chronology elsewhere. Roger Pearse. 28/06/01.
i. The Order
and Date of the Writings.
ii. The Theological Contents of the Writings in this Order.
iii. The Lines of Development in Tertullian’s Thought.
SHOWING THE ORDER AND THE DATE OF THE WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN
Adversus Marcionem, II., III., De Anima
De Corona Militis
De Cultu Feminarum, I., II., De Oratione, De Idololatria
De Fuga in Persecutione
Ad Nationes, I., II.
Adversus Marcionem, IV.
De Testimonio Animae
De Carne Christi
De Praescriptione Haereticorum
De Resurrectione Carnis
De Virginibus Velandis
Adversus Marcionem, V.
Ad Uxorem, I., II.
De Exhortatio Castitatis
Adversus Marcionem, I.
BEFORE it is possible to trace the development of Tertullian’s theology it is necessary to come to some conclusion as to the order in which his writings were penned. This introduces a difficult and intricate question. In earlier times it was usually deemed sufficient, e.g. by Kaye and Neander, to decide which of Tertullian’s writings were certainly composed after his conversion to Montanism, and which were certainly and |p80 obviously pre-Montanistic, while those which were doubtful were placed in a separate class. That was, perhaps, as much as could be done by those who depended upon the information given by later writers, by definite historical references in the writings themselves, and by indications of Montanism which are plainly found in some of the books.
But the application by Uhlhorn, Bonswetsch, Hamack, and Noeldechen of the principles which had proved so fruitful in the study of the writings of the Old and New Testaments has led to results which, if not absolutely conclusive, are at least highly probable. By approaching the subject in a scientific manner, and by making use of every kind of evidence available, it has been found possible to place the whole series of Tertullian’s writings in a definite order. Strange though it may seem at first thought, the problem of placing the whole series of writing in a definite order is really less difficult, and more satisfactory in its results, than is the problem of deciding merely which writings are pre-Montanistic and which were written after Tertullian became a Montanist.
Some of the means used to decide the order of the writings are: (1) References in the writings themselves to historical events; (2) Quotations of Scripture, of earlier writers, and of Tertullian’s own earlier writings in his later ones; (3) Indications of modesty as characteristic of earlier literary activity, and of self-conscious authority as characteristic of later times; (4) The people to whom the writings are addressed—catechumens, mature Christians, the heathen populace, political governors, heretics, and philosophers; (5) Likenesses and differences of style as indicative of nearness to, or remoteness from, one another of various writings; (6) Varying attitude towards the same question; (7) And last, but by no means of least importance, the development of theological conceptions and their treatment will serve to confirm our conclusions.
When these and other lesser indications are employed their cumulative effect is convincing, but at the same time it is necessary to state that the priority in time of one writing to another has often to be decided by a nice balancing of probabilities which appeal with varying force to different minds. The principle upon which we shall proceed is to fix definitely the date of a few writings, whose date and occasion of writing is fairly certain, and to move backwards and forwards from these,|p81fitting in the less certain one by one until the whole series is complete.
‘APOLOGETICUS.’—The date of this appeal to the authorities may with confidence be fixed as the latter part of the year A.D. 197. It must have been written before the Parthian war, since Tertullian refers to the Parthians as a less formidable foe than the Christians might be if the latter chose to use cunning and force.1 On the other hand, it must have been written after the execution of the twenty-nine by Severus, since it contains a reference to that event. 2 The Parthian campaign commenced in the autumn of the year A.D. 197, 3 and the execution of the twenty-nine took place in the year A.D. 196. So the Apologeticus must be dated between these two events. In chapter 35 there is a reflection of the Saturnalia of A.D. 196. 4 The latter part of A.D. 197 is, therefore, probably the time when this Apology was written.
This fixing of the date is supported by a variety of considerations. The persecutions are not confined to the mob, as they were earlier, but are sanctioned by the authorities, the ‘rulers of the Roman Empire,’ to whom the tract is addressed. 5 The Christians are being joined by those of every rank and condition, whereas earlier writings reveal a different state of affairs.6 Christians pray for the safety of the empire. 7 The persecutions have by this time issued in actual martyrdoms.8 All these considerations indicate that the Apologeticus finds a suitable setting in the later part of the year A.D. 197.
‘AD NATIONES,’ I. AND II.—The correspondences and differences between these books and Apologeticus strengthen the reasons for placing the latter in A.D. 197. That the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticus are closely related is obvious from the fact that some have assumed the former to be a rough draft of the latter. But the variations are sufficient to show that the author had a different purpose in view in the two works. The Ad Nationes is addressed to the common people, the Apologeticus to the governors of the Roman Empire, and the general tone of the two writings is in accord with this. The Ad|p82 Nationes employs rough calculations, which are sufficient for the uninstructed multitude9 but these are omitted from the Apologeticus, as being unsuitable to the intelligence of the persons addressed. The reasons which lead us to premise the priority of the Ad Nationes are: (1) The promise made in the Ad Nationes, that the doctrines of the Christian faith will be set forth later, is fulfilled in Apologeticus. 10 (2) A mistake made in Ad Nationes is corrected in Apologeticus. According to the former, the absurd notion that the worship of the Christians is paid to an ass’s head is traced to a suggestion of Tacitus in the fourth book of his Histories. 11 In Apologeticus this is corrected to the fifth book of Tacitus. 12 (3) The reference to Onocoetes, ‘a nine days’ wonder,’ is abbreviated in Apologeticus in such a manner as to indicate that the ‘nine days’ wonder’ has already ceased to have any significance.13 (4) The Apologeticus is less bitter in tone than the Ad Nationes, probably owing to the fact that the persecution was beginning to wane.
A further indication that the Ad Nationes belongs to the year A.D. 197 is found in the veiled allusion to Hercules Commodus. 14 This allusion, which was quite apposite in A.D. 197, when Severus returned from Gaul and glorified Commodus, and the latter was deified, would be out of place at any other time.
‘AD MARTYRAS. ‘—The reference to the death of the twenty-nine with which this tract closes15 leads us to suppose that it was written in A.D. 197. That supposition is supported by other considerations. Tertullian says, ‘Not that I am specially entitled to exhort you,’16 a form of address whose modest tone betokens the diffident writer of early days. He speaks of ‘our lady mother the Church,’ 17 addresses the readers as benedicti, 18refers to the world as a prison, 19 quotes Ephesians iv. 30, 20 mentions that ‘some have sold themselves to run a certain distance in a burning tunic’ 21—all of which form links with other early writings of Tertullian. He also reveals the|p83elementary nature of his theology by speaking of the living God as the superintendent of the struggle which Christians are making, the Holy Ghost as their trainer, and Jesus Christ as their Master, who leads them by His Spirit. 22 The fact that, apparently, no martyrdoms have yet taken place, since the writer refers to heathen examples of endurance only, indicates that this writing preceded Ad Nationes and Apologeticus, which both indicate that Christians have suffered death for the faith.23
‘DE IDOLOLATRIA.’—While Ad Martyras certainly indicates that Christians were imprisoned, but affords no evidence that they had suffered martyrdom, De Idololatria gives no indication that Christians were even imprisoned, so that it was probably written before Ad Martyras. It does, however, reflect the hostility of the populace to the Christians, and reproves the latter for mingling with the crowds in attendance at the games, where ‘the name is blasphemed.’ 24 The festive days are not known to the heathen.25 This indicates an earlier date than the Apologeticus. Tertullian speaks of himself as a man of limited memory, 26 and cries, ‘Why quote Scripture? Is not the voice of the Spirit enough?’ 27 This shows an advance from the point of view in De Spectaculis, where Tertullian goes out of his way to find Scripture proof.28 The attitude which the author adopts towards the question of the relation of Christians to idolatry is extreme and unpractical. He would preclude, for example, a Christian from acting as a schoolmaster, on the ground that he would have to teach his pupils about the gods of the heathen, 29 and he would have the Christians refrain from the service of dignities and powers as inimical to Christ.30 The Carthaginian Aqueduct was contemplated at this time, but was evidently not yet commenced, or Tertullian would have had no need to indicate in what directions those who objected to undertake work associated with idolatry could find employment.31 In De Idololatria Tertullian refers to the angels who were deserters of God.32|p84In Apologeticus33they are spoken of again, and the similarity of the passages indicates the proximity in time of the writings. A further reference, which agrees with the year A.D. 197 as the date of De Idololatria, is found in chapter 15, where the author speaks of a sudden rejoicing. This could not have been any of the recognized festivals, on account of its suddenness, but the book reflects also the close proximity of the feasts which took place between September, 196, and March, 197 A.D., so that we should look for some festival which occurred suddenly between September and December A.D. 196. Such a festival is found in the rejoicing over the slaughter by Lyons. The mention of baptism in chapter 6 is an echo of the treatise on baptism which Tertullian had already written. A similar echo is found in De Spectaculis,34 De Oratione35and Adversus Judaeos.36
‘DE SPECTACULIS.’—Mention is made in this book of idolatry, and it is made in connexion with baptism. 37 No evidence is to be found of martyrdom as an accomplished fact, nor even of imprisonment. The phrases ‘Governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name,’ 38 ‘ Christians a sort of people ever ready to die,’ 39 ‘Glory in the palms of martyrdom,’ which seem at first sight to be reflections of present martyrdoms, are capable of other explanations. They have no immediate temporal or local reference. Those who suffer in the amphitheatre are not Christians but heathen, who, for the most part, suffer as criminals. Hostility to the Christians belongs, not to the authorities, but to the populace. The Christians are not personally known to the mob.40 The ‘other-worldliness’ which is reflected in Tertullian’s quotation of St. Paul, ‘For what is our wish but the apostle’s, to leave the world and to be taken up into the fellowship of our Lord,’ 41 finds an echo in De Idololatria,42but is far different from the later sentiment of De Anima: ‘Now we must needs go out of the world if it be not allowed to us to have conversation with them.’ 43 Further, ‘The world shall rejoice, but ye shall be sorrowful,’ is quoted in both De Spectaculis44and De Idololatria,45while Ad Martyras46|p85and De Spectaculis47voice the sentiment that the world is full of idols.
These comparisons show that De Spectaculis is closely related to De Idololatria and Ad Martyras. Certain indications, such as the reference to the circus, 48 the reminiscence of earlier heathen days,49 and the reference to Varro,50 which agrees with Ad Nationes, point in the direction of Rome as the locality in which this treatise was written.
The use of the first Psalm51 to prove that attendance at the games was not permissible to Christians shows an earlier attitude towards the Scriptures than that manifested in De Idololatria,52while the obvious dependence upon the Paidagogos of Clement of Alexandria53 provides a link connecting this book with the two books De Cultu Feminarum.
‘DE CULTU FEMINARUM,’ I AND II.—The treatment of female dress is dominated by the writing of Clement of Alexandria in the Paidagogos. Here, too, is to be found Tertullian’s justification of the Book of Enoch, which is quoted later in De Idololatria54and Apologeticus.55But the De Cultu Feminarurn must have been written after De Spectaculis, since it speaks of the latter as having been written.56 Moreover, there is the sound of approaching persecution.57 So it should probably be placed between De Spectaculis and Apologeticus, i.e. early in A.D. 197.
Further considerations which support this dating of De Cultu Feminarum are: (1) Tertullian speaks of himself as ‘most meanest’ and ‘most miserable’58; (2) He describes the Christians as those ‘upon whom the ends of the ages have met’ 59 (3) He uses the expression ‘conchs’ 60; (4) ‘ Cultus et ornatum’ is a phrase which appears here as if first introduced, 61 since it is accompanied by an explanation; and it is then found in others of his early works.
‘DE ORATIONE.’—There are many indications in this book that it belongs to the earliest series of Tertullian’s writings. We find that here the Christians are addressed as benedicti62;|p86cultus et ornatum is already used63; the consummation of things is desired.64 Tertullian pleads the example and precept of the Apostle Paul for his daring to speak of the topic of woman’s dress, 65 as though he felt doubtful of his own authority and ability. There is little to indicate the stage of persecution at the time that it was written, but what is found seems to favour a stage similar to that in the series of books already treated, where the populace is hostile and the prisons are not empty of’ Christians, while, on the other hand, there is no official persecution and there are no actual martyrdoms. 66
A correspondence with Ad Martyras is found in the phrase militia dei. 67
‘DE BAPTISMO.’—This book bears evident traces of the novice in Christian thought. We shall deal with that aspect later. 68 But the modesty of the author appears in his reference to his moderate ability and to his intention of dealing with the subject according to the best of his power.69 It is reflected, too, in his respect for the bishop, emulation of whose office he declares to be the mother of all schisms. 70 The Church is called ‘your mother,’ a designation which recalls the mater ecciesia. 71Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the witnesses of baptism, as they are in De Oratione the recipients of prayer. 72 The daily washings of Israelites are mentioned here, as they are in De Oratione.73The readers are addressed as benedicti, as in De Oratione and Ad Martyras. 74
The most probable date of this book is A.D. 195. The following considerations would seem to indicate Rome as the place where De Baptismo was written: (1) The use of the titles ‘emperor’ and ‘prefect’ 75; (2) The mention of the Tiber76; (3) The ‘viper of the Cainite heresy’77 accords better with Rome than with Carthage, as the heresy referred to does not appear in any of the earliest Carthaginian writings, and when it does appear (in De Praes. Haereticorum) 78it is only as a remotely previous sect; (4) The reference to Mithras|p87 worship may be a reminiscence of Tertullian’s own heathen days at Rome. 79
‘ADVERSUS JUDAEOS.’—This book must find a place between De Baptismo on the one hand, and Ad Nationes and Apologeticus on the other. Links with the first-named are furnished by the phrases ‘Christus sanctificans aquas’80and ‘piscina Bethsaida,’ 81and by the references to the ‘tree’82 and the ‘rock.’ 83 Evidence of its priority to Ad Nationes and Apologeticus is found in the absence of any reference to Onocoetes.84 Another ground upon which the priority of Adversus Judaeos to De Idololatria may be based is that in the former the unrighteousness of taking up arms is not advanced, whereas in the latter it is. 85 Another ground is found in the fact that Adversus Judaeos could not have been written after the Parthian war.86 Still another significant fact is that when Tertullian was copying Justin Martyr he could not write, ‘Damascus belongs to Arabia.’ 87 That was the case when Justin wrote, but certainly it was not so later than A.D. 198, and possibly as early as A.D. 194, it was transferred to Syro-Phoenicia. So Tertullian wrote, ‘Damascus belongs to Syro-Phoenicia.’ Finally, the similarity of its treatment of the Sabbath question88 to that of De Idololatria and Apologeticus confirms the early dating of Adversus Judaeos. He here agrees with the Western Church, but later adopts the Montanist view.
‘DE TESTIM0NIO ANIMAE.’—Still taking Apologeticus as our starting-point, we are able to conclude that three writings which are linked to it are, nevertheless, later in composition. They are De Testimonio Animae, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, and Adversus Hermogenem.
The first of these is an expansion of a statement made in|p88Apologeticus, 89as is also the second. 90 The complaint of Tertullian of the limitation of his memory in the face of the vastness of secular literature91 reminds one of a similar complaint in De Idololatria in face of the vastness of the Scriptures. 92 There are also a number of correspondences between De Testimonio Animae and Apologeticus93and between the former and De Praescriptione Haereticorum. 94
‘DE PRAESCRIPTIONE HAERETICORUM.’—This, too, is an exposition of a statement in Apologeticus. Further, it adopts the same attitude towards philosophy as that found in the latter writing, while it leaves no room for doubt that the Christians had by this time suffered martyrdom.95 But a wider comparison with earlier and with later writings shows that it followed the former and foreshadowed the latter, so that this is in all probability the position it occupied in the series of Tertullian’s writings. Looking backwards, we see in De Idololatria mention of the Marcionites, 96 who are treated with some fullness in De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 97while at the close of the latter Tertullian promises to deal at another time separately with some of the heresies. 98 That promise is fulfilled in the treatises Adversus Valentinianos and Adversus Marcionem. In a similar manner, we find in De Spectaculis99and De Idololatria100hints that Tertullian’s mind is beginning to grapple with the question of the use of Scripture, and in De Baptismo101it is asserted that heretics have no fellowship in Christian discipline. These two subjects are fully dealt with in De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 102which lays down the rule that heretics may not use the Christian Scriptures. The fact that Tertulhian had evidently read Book I of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria and the Adversus Omnes Haereseis of Irenaeus before composing De Praescriptione Haereticorum|p89is not without some bearing on the date of this book. The Adversus Omnes Haereseis of Irenaeus appeared before A.D. 190, and Book I. of the Stromateis in A.D. 193, so that the fact that they are used in De Praescriptione Haereticorum is no hindrance to our dating this book in A.D. 199.
‘ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM.’—The freedom of the Christians from persecution reflected in this book, together with the evident close relation to De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 103forbid our going beyond the year A.D. 202 in seeking to determine its date. In that year the Edict of Severus went forth forbidding any henceforth to become Christians. Tertullian accuses Hermogenes of turning away from Christianity to philosophy, and thereby he reproduces a thought which we met in Apologeticus and De Praescriptione Haereticorum. 104He accuses the heretics of wresting the plain meaning of Scripture to suit their own purpose, and so reproduces a thought which is expressed in De Praescriptione Haereticorum. 105These grounds are sufficient to justify our placing Adversus Hermogenem here.
‘DE POENITENTIA.’—This book supplies us with another fixed date, which will enable us to place a few more books in the order of their appearance. It will be best to note the definite historic events which are reflected in De Poenitentia, and then to consider its relation to other books. An eruption of Vesuvius occurred in A.D. 203 and the death of Plautian took place in January, A.D. 204. Both these events are mentioned by Dion Cassius,106 and both are reflected in De Poenitentia.107This conclusion is supported by the reference of Tertullian to the sufferings which candidates for public offices underwent. 108 The change of officers was made at the end of the year, so that it is natural that Tertullian should illustrate his point by referring to them if he were writing in the early part of the year.
Other considerations which deserve notice are: (1) The terms indicative of modesty on the writer’s part are still found here109; (2) a bitterness towards the Church is beginning to|p90appear110; (3) He allows a second repentance, but no more111; (4) There is some development of his view of baptism as compared with De Baptismo112; (5) The term ratio and its derivatives are found here, and become abundant in later writings. 113
‘DE PATIENTIA.’—Following the same order of treatment as in the case of the last writing, we find a reflection of an historic event in De Patientia. In chapter 77 Dion Cassius refers to the arrest of Bulla Felix, a notorious outlaw, as taking place subsequently to the death of Plautian, and there is a reflection of the activities of that highwayman in De Patientia.114 This, and the echo of the death of Plautian,115 point to a time later, but not much so, than De Poenitentia. This is supported by the links connecting it with the latter writing.116 In both God is said to be the receiver of good works; in both Tertullian speaks of his love of writing; in both the parables of Luke xv. 117 are treated, and in both there is found a discussion of the relation of religion and morality.
‘AD UXOREM,’ I. AND 11.—The correspondences of these books with De Patientia are not many nor great, but, taken in conjunction with other considerations, they are sufficient to establish the contiguity in time of the writings. The books breathe the same atmosphere of persecution. They make no mention of Deductor, or Paraclete, or Psychicos. They do not absolutely forbid second marriages. A strong contrast is presented to the later standpoint of De Exhortatione Castitatis. In Ad Uxorem, I., the purpose of marriage is said to be the propagation of the race, in Ad Uxorem, II., the marriage of a Christian man and woman is extolled as a beautiful thing, but in De Exhortatione Castitatis it is maintained that it is foolish to populate the world, since the end is approaching, and second marriages are absolutely forbidden, and even first marriages are but an indulgence of the Lord.
‘ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS.’—On the whole, this is the best|p91 place for Adversus Valentinianos, which was probably written at Rome. De Poenitentia, De Patientia, and Ad Uxorem, on the other hand, probably emanated from Carthage. There are correspondences with earlier books, but it is chiefly by contrast with later books that the place of Adversus Valentinianos in the series is established. It must have preceded De Anima118and Adversus Marcionem, I. 119 The latter show a deeper appreciation of the Valentinian system and a less satirical character.
Further, though the ‘Proculus noster’120 indicates that Tertullian is a member of a sect, the Adversus Valentinianos shows less antipathy towards the Catholic Church than do the later books. It probably marks Tertullian’s joining the sect of the Montanists. A decided contrast to the later Adversus Praxean is found in the fact that in Adversus Valentinianos Tertullian asserts that the difficulty the heathen world has found in discovering the true God lies in the notion of unity, while in Adversus Praxean he maintains that number belongs to God. 121 The attitude which he adopts in Adversus Valentinianos and in De Resurrectione Carnis shows a similar contrast. In the former he despises the ‘coat of skins,’ in the latter he accepts it. 122
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ I.—Here again we come to a definite dating-point, from which we can proceed to place a few more writings in the order of their appearance. They are De Pallio, De Anima, and Adversus Marcionem, Books II. and III. Adversus Marcionem, I., certainly belongs to A.D. 207or 208.|p92 In chapter 15 Tertullian says that he is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Severus, i.e. in A.D. 207 or 208. It is also evident that by this time he is a Montanist, since he refers to the Paraclete. 123
The following considerations are worthy of note to guide us at this point: (1) The author’s use of Scripture is undergoing a change; it is becoming more systematic124; (2) The classification Nature, Discipline, Scripture, is coming into use125; (3) The distinction of visible and invisible appears126; (4) The term rational is employed. 127
‘DE PALLIO.’—Several correspondences between De Pallio and Adversus Marcionem, I. show their nearness in time. 128 The reference to the three Augusti129 in De Pallio would be ambiguous if there were nothing else to guide us as to the date of this writing. Some have held that they were Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus, and others have maintained that the three referred to were Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. The points of contact with Adversus Marcionem, I., however, decide the matter in favour of the latter. Looking forward, we find correspondences with De Anima,130so that this little tract was probably written between Adversus Marcionem, I., and De Anima, i.e. probably about A.D. 208-9.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ II.—There are correspondences between this and De Anima.131(1) Tertullian asserts that for the Christian advocate few words are necessary; it is falsehood that calls for loquacity. (Contrast his earlier declared love of writing.) (2) He makes use of antitheses as illustrated in the world. (3) The distinction of imago et veritas is prominent. (4) The distinctively Montanistic Sabbath comes to view in both. 132 (5) The development of the ‘divine affiatus’133 and of ‘ratio’134 is also marked.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ III.—This book follows closely|p93 upon the heels of Book II. Indeed, there is no indication of an interval between them. The only ground upon which this has been challenged is that there is obviously a close relation between Adversus Judaeos and Adversus Marcionem, III., a fact which has led some to maintain the priority of the latter. But the reasons for accepting the priority of Adversus Judaeos are overwhelming. 135 A dversus Marcionem is best dated about A.D. 210.
‘DE ANIMA.’—There are three correspondences between this treatise and the little tract De Pallio which are of significance when the different nature of the subjects dealt with are taken into consideration.136 But it is evident that De Anima is later than De Pallio. The latter speaks of the piping times of peace in which it is written, and of the abundant harvest.’137 De Anima is more lugubrious in tone. It speaks of famine and over-population.138 This famine is mentioned also in Ad Scapulam,139which we shall find reason to suppose was written in A.D. 211, so that De Anima was—at least in part—written in that year.
‘AD SCAPULAM.’—With this brief letter, addressed to the Pro-Consul of Africa, we come to another dating-point. Brief though the letter, is, it is full of interesting data for our purpose. It was obviously written in a time of persecution140 and at Carthage. This is neither the first nor the second persecution reflected in Tertullian’s writings, but the third. Further, it was written when Scapula was Pro-Consul, and after the death of Severus. 141 As Scapula was Pro-Consul of Africa in A.D. 208, we should hardly expect this letter to fall later than A.D. 212, and a number of references to peculiar natural occurrences seem to converge upon A.D. 212 as the date. The most important is a reference to an eclipse of the sun.142 This occurred at Utica, and three eclipses of the sun come within the scope of our inquiry. The first fell in A.D. 207, but that is evidently too early, since Scapula did not become Pro-Consul until A.D. 208.
The second fell in March, A.D. 211, and the third in August, A.D. 211. The latter fits better the description of Tertullian,|p94 ‘situated as the lord of day was in his house and height.’ The devastating cloud-burst of the ‘bygone year’ may well have accounted for the dearth mentioned in De Anima, 143which may be dated as late as A.D. 211.
One further point may be noted. In chapter 2 Tertullian mentions the Emperor more than once, so we may have to carry this writing over to the time when Caracalla reigned alone, although, on the other hand, the reference to ‘your masters’ in chapter 5 may equally well lead us to the time when Caracalla and Geta shared the imperial power.
‘DE CORONA MILITIS.’—The attitude of Tertullian towards several questions in this writing shows that it should be placed somewhere near Ad Scapulam and De Fuga in Persecutione. Flight in persecution is no longer allowed. 144 The Deductor-Spirit and the Phyrgian tone, 145 the anti-Roman feeling, 146 the consideration of the relation of Scripture and tradition, 147 the trinity of Nature, Discipline, Scripture148, the prominence of ratio,149 all indicate that De Corona Militis belongs somewhere hereabouts in the series of Tertullian’s writings. Whether the writing preceded, was contemporary with, or followed the persecution to which it relates is a question whose determination will help us to fix the date more approximately. On the whole, it accords better with the commencement of the persecution, and this leads us back to A.D. 211.
‘DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE.’—This writing takes us beyond Ad Scapulam, and, being written somewhere about the time of the Saturnalia, it is best dated in December, A.D. 212. The fact that it mentions the finance measure150 which Dion Cassius151 informs us belongs to A.D. 212, confirms this dating. The behaviour of the Christians as reflected in this treatise also shows that it is subsequent to Ad Scapulam. There Tertullian had affirmed that persecution would result in the death of troops of Christians152; here is the lamentable confession that the result has been rather to put them to flight. It is worthy of note that persecution is not, as in the Apologeticus, attributed to the devil, but to God’s discipline, and has as its end the development of Christian character.|p95
‘SCORPIACE.’—The correspondences between this book and De Fuga in Persecutione are many.153 There are some traces of Montanism, e.g. the emphasizing of the dignity of prophecy154 and the reference to baptism of blood. 155 Tertullian is by no means the ardent admirer of simplicity156 which he once was, and his outlook is very dark. How much of it is to be attributed to objective reality and how much is subjective we have no means of determining.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ IV.—The nearness in time of Adversus Marcionem, IV., and Scorpiace is evident from their quotation of Scripture passages relating to suffering, e.g. Isa. lvii., but the absence of reference to persecution in Adversus Marcionem, IV., shows that it came later, after the subsiding of the vexation.
‘DE CARNE CHRISTI’ AND ‘DE RESURRECTIONE CARNIS.’— These two are so closely bound together that for our present purpose they may be regarded as one. Their close proximity to Scorpiace is also evident.157 In De Carne Christi there are definite indications that Adversus Marcionem has already been written.158 Several reflections of historical events also help us to place these books just here. The ‘eternal plaguey taxing of Cæsar’159reflects Caracalla’s device to increase the number of taxpayers by making all the inhabitants of Roman territory Roman citizens. Caracalla is also alluded to by the reference to Cain, the murderer of his brother.160 De Resurrectione Carnis also looks back to the building of the Odeum in Carthage, 161 and this is built and used already in Scorpiace.|p96A backward glance at the emptying of the islands of exile is found in De Resurrectione Carnis. 162
There is no trace of active persecution at this time. The reference to the sufferings of Christians in De Resurrectione Carnis has no immediate significance. True, the cry, ‘To the lions with the Christians ! ’ is still heard in the circus, but there is no mention of sword and beast and fire. The reference to the ten kings of the Apocalypse is of interest chronologically, since Caracalla is the tenth. De Corona Militis, De Fuga in Persecutione, and Adversus Marcionem, IV., are all brought to mind in De Resurrectione Carnis.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ V.—The tenth chapter of this book163 clearly shows that De Resurrectione Carnis was already written, and the ninth chapter develops the argument concerning the duration of bones after death. Further, both books treat of the question of baptism for the dead.164 The same distinction between ‘soul’ and ‘life’ is found in both books, but while in De Resurrectione Carnis Tertullian holds that the cup partakes of the guilt of the poisoner, he argues the direct contrary in Adversus Marcionem, V., 165 thus leaving to us the inference that the latter is later by some considerable time. Some of the general characteristics of the later works are evident here. Here he first shows that he knew that Marcion disapproved of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. 166 Here also are evidences of the more scientific use of Scripture on the author’s part. 167
‘DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS.’—Exact precision with regard to the date of this writing is difficult to attain. But that it is rightly placed at about this point in the series is fairly certain. It deals with a subject which was treated as early as De Oratione, 168but while the subject has been glanced at incidentally several times it is now treated systematically and fully. The point of view has changed considerably since De Oratione was written. The quotation from Ecclesiastes in chapter 1 forms a link with Adversus Marcionem, V.,169 and this is strengthened|p97 by many other correspondences. The view of the purpose of veils in the two books is not the same, that in De Virginibus Velandis being more severe. The quotation of a passage from Genesis and one from Corinthians in both books in the same connexion, and the similarity of the opening of both books, corroborates the evidence already mentioned as to their close temporal relation, while they also both bear marks which show that they are subsequent to De Resurrectione Carnis.
‘ADVERSUS PRAXEAN.’—This book has most of the characteristics of Tertullian’s later writings, while it brings in that anti-Roman tendency which marks the remainder of his writings from this point to the end. The writings of Hippolytus170 confirm our setting of Adversus Praxean here, because he tells us that it was in the time of Callistus that the Monarchianism which Tertullian combats in this work was rife at Rome. Of importance, too, are the fact that Tertullian has by this time not only toned down his anti-Gnosticism, but has become infected in some slight degree with Gnosticism, as his use of ‘prolation’ shows, 171 and the allusion to the Greeks, which indicates that they are becoming of more importance to him as he moves away from Rome. 172
‘DE MONOGAMIA’ AND ‘DE EXHORTATIONE CASTITATIS.’— These two books again lie side by side. But first we must notice that there are a few slight connecting-links between Adversus Praxean and De Exhortatione Castitatis. 173But between De Monogamia and De Exhortatione Castitatis the|p98 correspondences are many and close. 174 De Exhortatione Castitatis contains a clear reference to the days of Callistus. 175 In chapter 7 Tertullian quotes an undiscoverable passage from Leviticus: ‘My priests shall not pluralize marriages.’ De Exhortatione Castitatis cannot be dated earlier than A.D. 217. De Monogamia is later than De Exhortatione, since it corrects a statement made in the latter that Peter was a single man.
‘DE JEJUNIO ADVERSUS PSYCHICOS.’—The nature of the subject and the manner of its treatment prove abundantly that this book belongs to the anti-Roman period of Tertullian’s literary activity. Two passages remind us of De Exhortatione Castitatis. 176The Phrygian point of view is more marked than ever. Psychicos and spiritales are very numerous. The Phrygian point of view in regard to the Sabbath is also obvious. 177
‘DE PUDICITIA.’—That this is the last of Tertullian’s extant works may be presumed from the fact that no other writing makes a backward reference to it. It has many correspondences with Adversus Praxean178and De Monogamia, and points of agreement with Hippolytus179 also tend to confirm the late date of this writing. In De Monogamia Tertullian has mentioned the subject of which this writing treats, but without any indication that he at that time contemplated writing a|p99 tract specifically dealing with that topic, so that it is probably separated by some interval from De Monogamia.
THE THEOLOGICAL CONTENTS OF THE WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN IN THE ORDER INDICATED.—Hitherto we have endeavoured to establish the order in which Tertullian’s works were written without reference to the theological conceptions contained in them. This method is to be preferred as less arbitrary and more satisfactory in its results than the method of determining the priority of one writing to another by comparing the theological conceptions found in them. But a comparison of the theology of the books in the order in which we have placed them reveals a development of thought that is natural, and thereby confirms the accuracy of our arrangement of the writings. It will be seen that there is a movement from the elements of the Christian faith through ascending stages of difficulty to the most difficult doctrines, and at the same time a development of some at least of the doctrines. We shall also notice the introduction of Montanistic conceptions, which for the most part do not supplant the theology of the orthodox faith, but supplement it. It will further be possible to trace in chronological sequence the various streams of thought under whose influence Tertullian came—those of the earlier apologists, of the Roman tradition, and of the school of Asia Minor,
It will be observed at once that the earliest writings confine themselves to the discussion of such practical questions as baptism, prayer, martyrdom, idolatry, and the attitude of Christians to the world around them. They also contain a statement of the Rule of Faith, 180 and indicate an attitude towards the Scriptures and the Church which underwent a change with the lapse of time.
It is instructive also to notice the absence of anti-Gnosticism, and of any endeavour to treat the questions of the Trinity, the Logos, the Person of Christ, Man, Sin, and the Resurrection, in a systematic manner. No indication of Montanistic ideas or anti-Roman feeling are to be found.
Commencing again with Apologeticus, we find a statement181 of some length as to what the Christian religion really is. It is not so complete a statement as that which Tertullian gives in the Rule of Faith in De Praescriptione Haereticorum, but|p100 it is more discursive, and elaborates the first half of the Rule of Faith. The object of Christian worship is defined as the ‘one God who by His commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His Majesty.’ Here it is affirmed that God is the Creator of the world and its inhabitants. Further, Tertullian adds that God is both visible and invisible, incomprehensible yet manifested in grace. He is at once known and unknown, and the crowning guilt of men is that they will not recognize One of whom they cannot possibly be ignorant. The grounds of belief in Him are the evidence of the works of His hands and the testimony of the ‘soul by nature Christian.’
It is important to note that we have here; (1) A foreshadowing of the antithesis of visible and invisible, which is, however, not very clearly stated; (2) An intimation that the testimony of the soul was already of some importance in Tertullian’s view; (3) Evidence of the proof of the existence of God from the existence of the world. But these are not yet developed.
These proofs are supplemented by revelation in the Scriptures, 182 which speak of God’s judgements, and of the reward of eternal life for the worshippers of God, and the doom of fire for the wicked. The resurrection of all men is affirmed. The inspired writers of whom Tertuliian speaks with appreciation are the prophets of the Old Testament. The authority of the Scriptures is based upon their antiquity183 and majesty, 184 but the Christian religion is admitted to be of recent date.
Of Christ it is affirmed that He is the Son of God, the supreme Head and Master of the grace and discipline, the Enlightener and Trainer of the human race. He is the Logos—the Word, and Reason, and Power, by whom God made the world and all that it contains—that same Logos who is said by Zeno to be the Creator, and by Cleanthes to be the pervading spirit of the universe. 185 The illustration of the sun and the ray, the matrix and shoot, is already used. In the Son there is no division of the substance of the Father, but merely an extension. The Son is second in manner of existence, in position not in nature. This ray of God descending into a |p101 certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. ‘The flesh formed by the spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ.’
The essential elements of the orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ are contained in this statement. The divine and the human are duly recognized. The unity of substance of the Father and the Son is definitely expressed. But the subject of the Person of Christ is dealt with very briefly, and it is significant that the Holy Spirit as the third Person in the Godhead is not even mentioned.
Two comings of Christ are here186 mentioned by Tertullian, one in the humility of a human life, the other in all the majesty of God. The latter is imminent.
Another doctrine which is stated in Apologeticus is that of the existence of certain spiritual essences. 187 They are demons and angels, whose chief is Satan, and who have fallen of their own free will from a state of grace.
This is the first really orderly statement of Christian doctrine as a whole found in the writings of Tertullian. Before we proceed to trace the development of his theology from this nucleus we must supplement the statement found in Apologeticus by some notice of theological points found in those writings which preceded the latter.
In De Baptismo we find a clear recognition of the Holy Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God188 who hovered over the waters at the creation—a holy thing over a holy—and it is the Holy Spirit that is given to the baptized after baptism. 189 It is significant, in view of the absence of reference to the Spirit in Apologeticus, that the three Persons in the Trinity are named here together. The term Trinity, however, is not found, and it is questionable whether the thought of the Trinity was present to the mind of the writer.
Other points worthy of note in De Baptismo are : (1) The overemphasis of the virtue of water, as such, in the sacrament of baptism190; (2) the distinction of flesh and spirit in man is already made191; (3) The Church is where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are192 (4) Unction and the imposition of hands are explained193; (5) Allegorical and typical interpretations of Scripture |p102 are plentiful194; (6) The world is destined to fire195; (7) There is a connexion between the death and resurrection of Christ, and the salvation and resurrection of men, but it is not clearly defined196; (8) Baptism is an essential of salvation197; (9) Martyrdom is a ‘second font’ 198; (10) Children are innocent199; (II) The Church is ‘your mother.’ 200
In Adversus Judaeos the matters that call for special notice are a fuller statement of the expectation of Christ201 and a considerable reference to His passion. 202 The passage, ‘Cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree,’ applies to those who suffered for their sins. But Christ was humble and righteous, and was not hanged upon a tree for His own deserts, but in order that the sayings of the prophets should be fulfilled.
We may also notice as minor points: (1) The description of God as the ‘Founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations ’ 203; (2) Death is the result of sin 204 ; (3) The law, i.e. the universal law, was prior to Moses205; 4.) The temporary character of the Jewish Sabbath206; (5) The typical interpretation of Scripture is very prominent. 207
De Spectaculis is, as we should expect, not rich in theological statements, but there are a few which are significant. On the being of God the author says, ‘ Now nobody denies what nobody is ignorant of (for Nature herself is the teacher of it), that God is the Maker of the universe, that it is good, and that it is man’s free gift from his Maker.’ 208
What is wrong in the world is due to man, enticed by the devil. 209 In his search for Scripture support Tertullian makes use of a far-fetched application of the first Psalm. 210 The Holy Spirit is mentioned. 211 It is significant that Tertullian here acknowledges that even the heathen may be good. 212 References to the blood of Christ, 213 to demon possession, 214 and to the speedy approach of Christ’s advent, 215 complete the sentences which have any theological significance in De Spectaculis.
The only matter of interest to us in our present investigation in De Cultu Feminarum, I. and II., is the statement which |p103 traces the entrance of sin into the world to the action of the woman, and affirms that the guilt still remains on her sex. 216
De Oratione opens with a difficult statement: ‘The Spirit of God and the Word of God—Word of Reason and Reason and Spirit of Word—Jesus Christ our Lord namely, who is both the one and the other, has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer.’ But taken in conjunction with the statement following, that Jesus Christ is approved as the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and Reason of God, it carries us no farther than the statement of Apologeticus.
Other points of minor importance are: (1) The consummation of the age is desirable217; (2) The Fatherhood of God is mentioned, and, in conjunction with it, the motherhood of the Church218; (3) Christ is the Bread of Life219; (4) The clemency of God is remarked220; (5) Debt is a figure of guilt. 221
De Idololatria contains minor points only. They are:
(i) The Holy Spirit is mentioned as having led the apostles222; (2) Christians have a law223; (3) Sabbaths are strange to Christians224; (4) The powers and dignities of the world are hostile to Christ. 225
Ad Martyras furnishes little beyond the fact that the world is a prison226 and a passing reference to the Church as ‘our lady mother.’ 227
Ad Nationes, I. and II., like so many of these earlier writings, give us little of theological importance. Minor points are: (1) The Christian’s promise is eternal life, and the threat to the wicked is of eternal punishment228; (2) The great God of the Christians is the Dispenser of Kingdoms 229—a thought which is repeated in Apologeticus.
SUMMARY.—The existence of God is set forth as a self-evident truth. The proofs of that existence—if, indeed, proofs are required—are stated to be the evidence of the natural world, and the testimony of the ‘ soul by nature Christian,’ but these proofs are not developed. Of the internal economy of the Godhead we have simply the incidental occurrence of the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with some recognition of the |p104 distinction between the Father and the Son. Of the Person of Christ the divinity and the humanity are affirmed. The nature of man is twofold, flesh and spirit. Sin is attributable to the freewill of man under the influence of the devil. No transmissory devolution of guilt is taught, except in so far as it is implied in the guilt of woman as the inheritance of her sex from Eve. But against this we must place the statement that children are innocent. Some connexion between the resurrection of Christ and the salvation of men is indicated, but what the connexion is, is not made clear. The sufferings of Christ are not regarded as equivalent to the deserts of men. The resurrection of body and soul is stated, but not at any length. The second coming of Christ is imminent, and is associated with the consummation of the age. The Church is the mother of Christians, as God is the Father. Baptism is treated at great length, but the efficacy of the element of water is exaggerated. The eucharist is not mentioned.
‘DE TESTIMONIO ANIMAE.’—The brief treatise De Testimonio Animae is an amplification of a statement already made in Apologeticus. Tertullian lays stress upon the value of the witness to Christian truth of the untutored human soul. It supports the Christian claim that ‘there is one God, to whom the name of God alone belongs, from whom all things come, and who is the Lord of the whole universe.’ 230 It testifies to the ‘judgement’ of God, since it fears Him. 231 It also testifies to the existence of demons232 and to the resurrection of men to a judgement of punishment or reward. 233 Such testimony is not frivolous or feeble, but has its origin in God. He is the teacher of nature, and nature is in turn the teacher of the soul. 234 The soul of man, though fallen, yet retains the memory of its Creator, and His goodness, and His law, the final end both of itself and its foe. 235
‘DE PRAESCRIPTIONE HAERETICORUM.’—This is also an amplification of a position taken up in Apologeticus, i.e. that heretics may not discuss the Christian Scriptures, which are the exclusive possession of the Church. The points of importance for our present inquiry are: (1) The Rule of Faith is stated. 236 Comparison of this with the exposition of Christian belief given in Apologeticus, c. 17, shows that the former is |p105 more compact and comprehensive. It states within smaller compass what had already been stated in Apologeticus, and adds of the Christ that ‘having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father, sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe, will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of the flesh.’ (2) The origin of the Rule of Faith in the teaching of Christ, and its transmission through the apostles and the churches is asserted. 237 (3) It is one and undivided, and has been transmitted without pollution and without reserve. 238
‘ADVERSUS HERMOGENEM.’—The two points which are of importance for our study of the development of the theology of Tertullian are: (1) The defence of the assertion that God made all things out of nothing; and (2) a glimpse of the Logos doctrine. 239 With regard to (1), it is sufficient here to say that Tertullian defends a position which is assumed in the Rule of Faith (as he states it), and which was maintained by him from first to last. With regard to (2), we find here a development of the Logos doctrine in its relation to the creation of the world. The following points are noteworthy: (a) The Son of God is identified with ‘Wisdom’ as well as with ‘Sermo’; (b) Wisdom is also called the ‘ Spirit of God’; (c) The passage Prov. viii. 27-31 is quoted and expounded; (d) The purpose of the creation of Wisdom was the creation of the world; (e) Hence the inference is drawn that the Son is prior to all else, but subsequent to the Father. Two observations must here be made. The first is that Tertullian is obviously affected by the topic with which he is dealing, i.e. that the Father, as the supreme God, is prior to all existence, and the second is that he is likewise influenced by the passage of Scripture which he is expounding. Under these influences it was hardly to be expected that he should have expressed the relations of the Father and the Son in a manner which would be abstractly satisfactory. We shall see, however, that there were other reasons to account for this also. 240
SUMMARY.—In these three writings a few new subjects are introduced—the Rule of Faith and the relation of speculation |p106 to it, the value of tradition and the conception of the Church, and a foreshadowing of the resurrection of the flesh. Other subjects which are developed are the testimony of the soul, the creation of the world out of nothing, and the doctrine of the Logos. The last-named, however, is dealt with incidentally and very briefly.
‘DE POENITENTIA.’ In De Poenitentia Tertullian takes up the position that baptism is not to be received without repentance, 241 and that a second repentance (but no more) is possible. 242 Moreover, repentance is the price of pardon.243 It makes satisfaction to God, and the instrumental agent of repentance is fear. Sin is twofold, carnal and spiritual, and Tertullian introduces a distinction here which is to be carried farther. 244 Man consists of body and soul, flesh and spirit.
‘DE PATIENTIA.’—This contains a fine passage on the humiliation of Christ. God Himself became man, and gave to man the example of obedience. 245 Patience, like penitence, is twofold, bodily and spiritual, corresponding to the twofold nature of man. 246
‘AD UXOREM, I. AND II.’—These two books reveal Tertullian’s views concerning marriage at this time. Marriage is not condemned. In Book I. it is said to be the seminary of the human race. 247 In Book II. a beautiful picture of the married estate of a Christian man and woman is given. 248 Regarding persecution, Tertullian says that it is permissible to flee from it. 249
‘ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS.’—This book is chiefly of service to us in this connexion as a negative statement. It reveals a strong opposition to a system which Tertullian has but imperfectly apprehended, as compared with the attitude shown in Adversus Marcionem, but it shows, too, his antipathy towards freedom of speculation outside the limits of the Rule of Faith. The division of men into three classes is definitely repudiated.
SUMMARY.—In these books the idea of God as just emerges, the motive of fear is prominent, the twofold nature of man is asserted, a second repentance (but no more) is possible. Marriage is eulogized, baptism is associated with repentance, the humiliation of Christ is depicted, and the reality of His |p107 human nature implied. Satisfaction is made by man to God.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ I.—A higher appreciation of the speculations of Valentinus is revealed in this book than in the treatise specially designed to confute that heretic. 250 The unity of God, who is the great Supreme, is asserted. 251 God was revealed by His creation, and by the soul and conscience of man, before He was made known by Moses. 252 The antithesis of visible and invisible is developed. 253 God’s goodness is natural254 and rational. 255 God is just as well as good. Other points of interest to our inquiry are: (1) Tertullian’s attitude towards Scripture shows development. (2) He compares Peter and Paul as authorities. The twofold nature of man is again observed. 256 (3) The ends served by baptism are the remission of sins, deliverance from death, the regeneration of man, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. 257 (4) Marriage is defended against the Marcionite doctrine. 258 Tertullian does not counsel the rejection of marriage as a polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator, but he does recommend celibacy as the better state. (5) The authority of the Paraclete is claimed for this view of marriage. 259
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ II.—The new subjects introduced here are: (1) Man’s fall was due to his own free choice260; (2) Man is superior to the angels261; (3) The soul of man is the divine afflatus with the addition of freewill262; (4) The devil was not the creation of God—only the primaeval cherub was His work263; (5) In man’s recovery the devil was vanquished on his own ground; (6) Man should both love God and fear Him264; (7) Evil is of two kinds—malum culpae and malum poenae265; (8) The severity of God is remedial266; (9) The law of the Sabbath267; (10) Repentance in God268; (11) Antitheses in God. 269
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ III.—The matter dealt with in this book is very similar to that in Adversus Judaeos, but it is dealt with from a different point of view. No fresh theological ideas are introduced. |p108
‘DE PALLIO.’—This little tract deals with a subject which has no theological importance, and furnishes no matter of service to us in our quest.
‘DE ANIMA.’—De Anima is a remarkable work on the origin and nature of man. It deals with the subject systematically and fully. To summarize it satisfactorily is difficult, but it may be well to indicate briefly the links with Tertullian’s earlier thought, and the new matter introduced. He links this writing with his Adversus Hermogenem by the statement that he has in the latter work dealt with the subject of the origin of the soul ‘ex flatu Dei.’ 270We have seen, too, that he has already indicated his dichotomic view of the nature of man, and the close connexion between the body and the soul, in baptism, in repentance, in the exercise of patience, and in the resurrection.
The new matter which he introduces consists of a far fuller treatment of the relation of body and soul, and of the discussion of the following points: the corporeity of the soul, 271 the simple nature of the soul, 272 its supremacy, 273 its seat, 274 its parts, 275 the relation of soul and intellect, 276 sleep, 277 dream, 278 death, 279 and the resurrection. He also confutes the opinions of Plato, 280 Pythagoras, 281 Empedocles, 282 Simon Magus, 283 Carpocrates, 284 and Valentinus. 285
SUMMARY.—The idea of God as just is developed, and is blended with the conception of His goodness, while the thought of God as the great Supreme and as the ‘unicus Deus’ is introduced. The argument from the creation and from the soul and conscience of man is reiterated. Anthropology is developed at great length, and from many points of view. The corporeity of the soul and the traducian theory are noteworthy features. There are indications of an advance in the attitude towards Scripture. The ends served by baptism are succinctly stated, and the Montanist view of marriage is introduced. The only thing bearing upon the Logos doctrine is the recognition of the antithesis of the visible and the invisible in God.
‘DE CORONA MILITIS.’—This writing seeks to confirm the |p109 authority of custom when the support of Scripture is lacking, and it supplies a reasoned statement of the various grounds of authority—Scripture, nature, reason, custom, and tradition. It is an advance in this respect upon the fragmentary glimpses of the subject found in Tertullian’s earlier works.
‘AD SCAPULAM.’—This book contributes nothing of note to our inquiry.
‘DE FUGA IN PERSECUTIONE.’—This deals, as its title suggests, with the question of the conduct of Christians in times of persecution, and is chiefly noteworthy in that it reveals a strong antagonism on the author’s part to the officers of the Catholic Church. The position it endeavours to maintain is that Christians should not court persecution, but neither should they flee from it.
‘SCORPIACE.’—Scorpiace deals with the subject of the will of God and His character. It also shows a more scientific attitude towards the Scriptures. Tertullian says that he will deal first with the Law as the root of the Gospel, and later with the Gospels.
SUMMARY.—The threefold ground of authority—Nature, Reason, Scripture—is more fully developed than heretofore. The relation of God and the devil to persecution is frankly faced. Scripture is more methodically treated, but no great theological subjects are handled.
‘ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ IV.—The same scientific view of the Scriptures is found in this book. It notes the relation of the Old Testament and the New. 286 It also deals with the question of the authenticity of the Gospel of Luke, 287 and expounds that Gospel in a systematic manner. It speaks of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the bride. 288 The Sabbath is treated, 289 but Tertullian still seeks to prove that the lex talionis is consistent with love and kindness. 290 It treats of the judicial attributes of Christ, 291 and also of Christ’s love for children, 292 of God’s mercy and grace, of the promise of connubial fruit, 293 of marriage, 294 divorce, 295 resurrection, 296 of the second advent, 297 and of the Lord’s Supper. 298
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM,’ V.—This treats of Paul’s Epistles |p110 as the fourth book had done of Luke’s Gospel. It mentions God’s hiding of Himself and manifesting Himself. 299 It also deals with marriage, 300 the resurrection, 301 and Antichrist. 302
‘DE CARNE CHRISTI.’—The chief subject of this book is the defence of the reality of the incarnation of Christ against Marcion and Apelles. In chapter 16 the author deals with the distinction between ‘carnem peccati’ and ‘peccatum carnis.’ The subject of the relation of Christ to the race under the figure of the second Adam is set forth. The Son is called the Spirit.
‘DE RESURRECTIONE CARNIS.’—This work contains a full and many-sided discussion of the resurrection of the flesh. The relation of the flesh to the soul developed in De Anima is maintained here. Scripture is very methodically treated.
‘DE VIRGINIBUS VELANDIS.’—This is chiefly noteworthy as containing a fresh statement of the Rule of Faith. 303 It also mentions the Paraclete304 and the threefold ground of authority—Nature, Scripture, Discipline.
SUMMARY.—The methodical development of Scripture is continued. Marriage and the Sabbath are again brought in, and the Antichrist is dealt with briefly. The reality of the incarnation is fully treated, together with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the soul. The Rule of Faith is stated again.
‘ADVERSUS PRAXEAN.’—Tertullian asserts here, not simply that he has become a follower of the Paraclete, but that he has withdrawn from the carnally minded. 305 The Rule of Faith is again stated, 306 with two notable additions: (1) The notion of oi0konomi/a is introduced; and (2) the Holy Spirit is identified with the Paraclete, ‘the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.’ The name ‘Trinity’307 is used for the first time for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The subject of the Trinity is dealt with at great length, and expounded fully in opposition to Monarchianism. 308 The Logos doctrine is stated, and the distinction of Reason and Word is indicated more clearly than heretofore, 309 and is illustrated by human thought and speech. The |p111 ‘Wisdom’ passage from Proverbs, which has already been used in Adversus Hermogenem, is employed again as a scriptural basis for the distinction between the Father and the Son. 310 The illustration of the sun and the ray, the matrix and the shoot, in Apologeticus, is here amplified. 311 A threefold illustration of the emanation of the Son from the Father is found in the root and the tree, the fountain and the river, the sun and the ray, while it is further extended to indicate the relation of the third Person in the Trinity to the other two. ‘Now the Spirit is indeed third from God and the Son, just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun.’ The word probolh&, or ‘prolation,’ is appropriated from the Gnostics to express the relation of the Son and the Spirit to the Father. 312 The names ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are held to imply personal distinction. 313 Scripture passages in which the Divine Being speaks in the plural form, e.g. ‘Let us make man,’ are quoted to uphold the same distinction, and these are balanced by others which illustrate the unity of the Godhead. 314 The invisibility of the Father and the visibility of the Son are shown from the Old Testament and the New. 315 The appearances of the Son in the Old Testament were rehearsals of the incarnation. 316 The Fourth Gospel is quoted at length to show that the Father and the Son are distinct, and also to show the distinction from both of the Holy Spirit. 317 More briefly, the same distinctions are supported out of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 318 The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul and of John are quoted in the same connexion. 319 The union without confusion of the two natures in Christ is also set forth320 Christ is not a tertium quid, neither God nor Man, but one Person possessing the two substances, God and Man.
‘DE EXHORTATIONE CASTITATIS.’—The only matters of theological importance in this writing are: (1) The distinction between the indulgence and the will of God321; (2) The insistence upon the freedom of man’s will322; (3) Second marriages are condemned323; (4) Even first marriage is an indulgence, |p112 and abstinence is better; 324 (5) The contrast of spiritual and carnal is set out; 325 (6) The words of the ‘holy prophetess Prisca’326 are quoted to reinforce the teaching of Scripture.
‘DE MONOGAMIA.’—Points to be noted here are: (1) Spiritales and Psychici are contrasted327; (2) The Paraclete is prominently and openly set up as an authority328; (3) The Scriptures are dealt with in their natural order—Patriarchs, Law, Gospel, Epistles329; (4) Monogamy is defended from all these sources.
‘DE JEJUNIO ADVERSUS PSYCHICOS.’—Here the noteworthy matters are: (1) The opposition to the Psychics is bitter in tone330; (2) The adhesion to the Montanist sect is very clear and close331; (3) Exposition of Scripture follows the order Law, Gospel, Acts, Epistles. 332
‘DE PUDICITIA.’—The following may be remarked: (1) The last times are imminent333; (2) Fellowship with the Psychics is renounced334; (3) Granting of indulgence by the Church is opposed335; (4) The mercy and the justice of God are compatible336; (5) Scripture is systematically considered337; (6) Repentance is defined338; (7) The difference between ‘power’ and ‘discipline’ is noted, and power is given to Peter and to spiritual men, not to the psychic Church339; (8) The Church is properly and principally the Spirit Himself, ‘in whom is the Trinity of one Divinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ’ 340 (9) It is sufficient for the martyr to have purged his own sins. 341
SUMMARY.—Two questions of great importance are dealt with finally, and show Tertullian’s mature thought, the Trinity, and the two natures in Christ. The name ‘Trinity’ is used, and the doctrine is developed: (1) From the economic point of view; (2) In opposition to Monarchianism; (3) As emanations; (4) Philosophically. The relation of the human and the divine in Christ is clearly stated. The Rule of Faith is stated for the third and last time, and with variations from the earlier statements. Scripture is dealt with more systematically, and with due regard to chronological sequence. The break with the Catholic Church is complete, and the view of the Church is strongly coloured by Montanistic opinions. Stricter views |p113 of marriage, chastity, and fasting, are also indicative of the complete change over from the Roman Church to Montanism.
THE LINES OF DEVELOPMENT IN TERTULLIAN’S THOUGHT.— It is now possible to trace in broad outline: (1) The influence upon Tertullian’s thought of the teaching of the Greek apologists; (2) That of the Roman tradition; (3) That of the Asia Minor theology; and (4) Finally, to indicate something of the force of Tertullian’s own mind in the framing of his theology. These different strains can be indicated approximately only, and in broad outline, because, in the first place, they themselves are not so distinct and so mutually exclusive as to render conclusions as to the sources of his conceptions beyond all question, and, in the second place, some of the conceptions (e.g. the emanation idea illustrated by the sun and the ray) are found in both earlier and later expositions.
From the earliest days of his literary activity the influence of the Greek apologists and of the Roman tradition is to be seen in Tertullian, and it is not possible to separate the two clearly. We have seen that as early as Apologeticus there are strong evidences of his acquaintance with the writings of the apologists, and we saw reason to believe that he had before that time been a visitor to Rome. The close connexion between the Church of Carthage and that of Rome also favoured the similarity of their tradition.
The influence of the apologists upon Tertullian’s thought is particularly evident in his view of the Church, the Rule of Faith, and the Scriptures, as shown in his earlier writings.
It is also to be traced in his theology. His first attempts (in Apologeticus and Adversus Hermogenem) to set forth the doctrine of the Logos betray the imperfections of the apologists’ presentation of that doctrine. The emphasis upon the relation of the Logos to the creation of the world is evident. ‘We have already asserted that God made the world, and all that it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power.’ The teaching of Justin and Tatian and Theophilus is very similar.
It accords with this that he can say (Adversus Hermogenem, c. 3) of the Son that there was a time when He did not exist (‘fuit tempus cum ei non fuit’), and in the same writing (c. 18), where he identifies the Word of God with Wisdom, the same generation of Wisdom in view of the creation of the world is |p114 evident. ‘Indeed, as soon as He perceived it to be necessary for His creation of the world He immediately creates It and generates It in Himself. . . . Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning— I mean His Wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works—how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord.’
The chief characteristic of the Roman tradition, as far as we are able to distinguish it, lay in the fact that, while a distinction between God and the Logos was recognized, the Holy Spirit was identified with Christ, or alternatively was regarded as one of the gifts of God to the Church. In the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle to Barnabas this tendency is evident, and it appears after a long interval in Hippolytus, so that we are justified in regarding it as a characteristic of the Roman tradition.
Traces of this are found in Apologeticus, c. 21, where the Spirit is identified with Christ: ‘Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position—not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ.’ The Spirit here is obviously Christ.
In Adversus Hermogenem, where Tertullian is setting forth the Rule of Faith, he speaks of Christ sending, instead of Himself, the power of the Holy Spirit (vicaria vis spiritus). But the thought is not of a distinct hypostasis, ranking with the Father and the Son, but of one of the gifts of Christ to the Church.
Moreover, in De Oratione, c. 2., Tertullian sets as a third, by the Father and the Son, ‘our mother the Church’: ‘Moreover, in saying Father we also call Him God. . . . Again, in|p115 the Father the Son is invoked. . . . Nor is even our mother the Church passed by, if, that is, in the Father and the Son is recognized the mother from whom arises the name both of Father and Son.’
It is a debated question as to how far it can be said that Asia Minor was the home of a specialized theology, with definite characteristics, prior to Irenaeus. Harnack opposes the idea (History of Dogma, vol. II., p. 238, note 1). He notes among other points that ‘the doctrine of Irenaeus cannot be separated from the received canon of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation,’ and, ‘Tertullian owes his Christo-centric theology so far as he has such a thing, to Irenaeus (and Melito ?).’Loofs, on the other hand (Leitfaden, pp. 98 if.), asserts that Asia Minor in the second half of the second century was the place of the greatest spiritual activity within the Christian Church. He instances the writings of Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Rhodon, Miltiades, Apollonus, and other unknown writers, and indicates the sources of their specialized theology in the writings of Ignatius. The characteristics of this specialized theology are: (1) The distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament is clearly marked; (2) The Christo-centric tendency—Christ is the centre of the Divine oi0konomi/a;(3) Modalism, arising out of the close connexion between the Christology and the popular idea of Christ as the Revealer of God; (4) The connexion between the knowledge of God and the assurance of immortality, and the contrasting of the real humanity and real death of Christ with His deity and immortality.
Examination of the case as put by Loofs leads one to the conclusion that the characteristics which he enumerates are found in the apologists whom he names, and that they are certainly found in germ in the writings of Ignatius. 342 Moreover, it would be strange indeed if Irenaeus had not found |p116 some of the sources of his theology in Asia Minor, though the development of it was in a great measure due to the necessity of combating Gnosticism. Our knowledge of the fact that Tertullian was acquainted with the writings of Irenaeus, and was also influenced by the Church of Asia Minor, leads us to expect to find that at any rate what was common to Irenaeus and the tradition of Asia Minor will find a reflection in his writings, and such is certainly the case.
The distinction between the Old and New Testaments is not found in Tertullian’s early writings, but it is clearly brought out in Adversus Marcion, IV. 1. Here the two dispensations are acknowledged, each having its own Testament, but the unity of purpose running through the two is maintained. ‘And, indeed, I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator, and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, in their teachings of the Law, but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold.’ The distinction there made grows clearer and clearer to the end. The last writings—Adversus Praxean, De Monogamia, De Jejunio, and De Pudicitia—show it most clearly, the Law and the Gospel being considered in their true order, and the same principle being advanced to the consideration of Gospels, Acts, and Epistles.
The Christo-centric view of the divine oi0konomi/a never became a leading conception of Tertullian, but it is reflected in his writings. The emphasis was shifted from the Logos to the incarnation, and the purpose of the incarnation as redemption was given a prominence which it did not receive in the writings of the earlier apologists in the West. This point of view was most clearly worked out by Irenaeus. It had also, before the time of the apologists, been indicated by Ignatius. Hence Irenaeus was able to view the history of salvation as an oi0konomi/a qeou~, which unfolded itself by|p117 degrees (Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. II,, p. 240). ‘It is his strong hold on the conception of the unity and continuity of God’s purpose and revelations of Himself thus manifested in the incarnation as the natural sequence and culmination of the design of creation, not necessarily conditioned by the fall of man, that is most characteristic of the thought of Irenaeus’ (Bethune-Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 132).
Tertullian did not really grasp this idea and work it out, but there are signs that he was not unacquainted with it. Cf. Adv. Marcionem, V., c. 17: ‘Now, to what God will most suitably belong all those things which relate to “that good pleasure, which (God) hath purposed in the mystery of His will, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might recapitulate (recapitulare, if I may so say, according to the exact meaning of the Greek word) all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth,” but to Him whose are all things from their beginning, yea, the beginning itself too; from whom issue the times and the dispensation of the fullness of times, according to which all things up to the very first are gathered up in Christ . . . Indeed, what has he (the god of Marcion) ever done on earth, that any long dispensation of times to be fulfilled can be put to his account, for the accomplishment of all things in Christ.’ Cf. also De Monogamia, c. 5: ‘The apostle, too, writing to the Ephesians, says that God “had proposed in Himself, at the dispensation of the fulfilment of the times, to recall to the head” (that is to the beginning) “things universal in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him.”’
The strong monotheistic tendency of the theology of Asia Minor resulted in a modalistic view of the Person of Christ as the Logos. A reflection of this appears in Tertullian (Adversus Praxean, c. 13): ‘But when Christ alone (is mentioned) I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says, “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam considered in itself, but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.’|p118
The treatment of the Person of Christ in Adversus Praxean, cc. 27-30, reflects the contrast between the real humanity and the real death and the deity and immortality of Christ very clearly. Tertullian says that God was born, and God died, but it was not after the divine nature, but after the human, that He did so. When Christ cried on the cross, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ this was the voice of flesh and soul—that is to say, of man—not of the Word and Spirit—that is to say, not of God.
In the same treatise Tertullian himself reveals the fact that his connexion with the Montanists has brought to him a clearer view of the relationship of the Persons in the Godhead as an oi0konomi/a. ‘We, however, as we indeed always have done, and more especially since we have been instructed by the Paraclete (who leads men indeed into all the truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oi0konomi/a, as it is called.’ The oi0konomi/a is that this one only God has a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and who sent also from heaven, from the Father, the Holy Spirit. This oi0konomi/a is further elucidated by Tertullian: ‘As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity, that is, of substance, while the mystery of the oi0konomi/a is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.’ It is from this point of view that Tertullian opposes Monarchianism.
Tertullian’s own contribution to these great theological questions is evident. The streams of thought with which he came into contact influenced him, no doubt. But that is no more than to say that he was the child of his own age. His own mind was alert and active, and contributed in no small degree to the shaping of his theology: His interests were polemical rather than constructive. The defence of the Christian faith, rather than the building up of a system of Christian theology, was his work. But in opposing heresies he expounded his own views, and made a substantial contribution towards the solution of the two great questions of the Christian faith—the Trinity and the Person of Christ.
His mature thought as revealed in Adversus Praxean shows us that, in regard to the Trinity, he has, by following up the ideas culled from his Stoic philosophy, from the teaching of|p119 the earlier apologists, from the tradition of Rome, and from that of. Asia Minor, built up a theory of his own, which is a distinct advance upon anything that is found up to his time, and which contains all the essential elements of the later doctrine of the Church. It also shows us that, in regard to the Person of Christ, he has recognized the essential elements of the problem of relating the divine and the human in Him. His solution is that in Christ the two substances God and man are found, each complete with all its properties; and they are unconfused. Christ is not a tertium quid—neither God nor man. He is both God and man.|p120
1. p.81 n.1 Apologeticus, c. 3.
2. p.81 n.2 Ibid., c. 35; cf. Dion Cassius, c. 76 (8).
3. p.81 n.3 So Bonwetsch, Noeldechen, and Harnack agree against Mosheim, who refers it to A.D. 198.
4. p.81 n.4 Cf. Dion Cassius, c. 76 (4).
5. p.81 n.5 Apologeticus, c. 1 ; cf. Idololatria, c. 14, De Spectaculis, c. 27.
6. p.81 n.6 Ibid., c. 1 ; De Idololatria, cc. 13, 14.
7. p.81 n.7 Ibid., c. 30; cf. c. 32.
8. p.81 n.8 Ibid., c. 50.
9. p.82 n.1 Ad Nationes, I. 7, 9.
10. p.82 n.2 Ad Nationes, I. 15; cf. Apologeticus, c. 9.
11. p.82 n.3 Ad Nationes, I: 11.
12. p.82 n.4 Apologeticus, c. 16.
13. p.82 n.5 Ad Nationes, I. 14; cf. Apologeticus, c. 16.
14. p.82 n.6 Ad Nationes, II. 10; Cf. Dion Cassius, 76 (8) : ‘ To Commodus, whom but recently he was wont to abuse, he gave heroic honours . . . he introduced a defence of Commodus, and inveighed against the Senate for dishonouring him.’
15. p.82 n.7 Ad Martyras, c. 6; cf. Dion Cassius, 76 (8): ‘He (Severus) condemned to death twenty-nine men.’
16. p.82 n.8 Ibid., c. 1; cf. De Idolo., c. 4.
17. p.82 n.9 Ibid., c. 1; cf. De Baptismo, c. 20.
18. p.82 n.10 Ibid., c. 1, cf. De Oratione, c. 1, De Baptismo, c. 20.
19. p.82 n.11 Ibid., c. 2.
20. p.82 n.12 Ibid., c. 1.
21. p.82 n.13 Cf. Ad Nationes, I. 18.
22. p.83 n.1 Ad Martyras, c. 3.
23. p.83 n.2 Ibid., c. 5; cf. Apologeticus, 16, 50; Ad Nationes, I. 14.
24. p.83 n.3 De Idololatria, c. 54.
25. p.83 n.4 De Idololatria, cc. 13, 14 ; cf. Apologeticus, c. 1.
26. p.83 n.5 De Idololatria, c. 4 ; cf. Apologeticus.
27. p.83 n.6 Ibid., c. 4.
28. p.83 n.7 De Spectaculis, c. 3 ; cf. 15, 18, 19.
29. p.83 n.8 De Idololatria, c. 10.
30. p.83 n.9 De Idololatria, c. 17.
31. p.83 n.10 Ibid., c. 8. It was completed in A.D. 203.
32. p.83 n.11 Ibid., cc. 4, 9.
33. p.84 n.1 Apologeticus, c. 35.
34. p.84 n.2 De Spectaculis, c. 4.
35. p.84 n.3 Ibid., c. 4.
36. p.84 n.4 Adversus Judaeos, cc. 8, 53.
37. p.84 n.5 De Spectaculis, c. 4.
38. p.84 n.6 Ibid., c. 30.
39. p.84 n.7 Ibid., c. 29.
40. p.84 n.8 De Spectaculis, c. 27
41. p.84 n.9 Ibid., c. 2.
42. p.84 n.10 De Idololatria, c. 24.
43. p.84 n.11 De Anima, c. 35.
44. p.84 n.12 De Spectaculis, c. 28.
45. p.84 n.13 De Idololatria, c. 13.
46. p.84 n.14 Ad Martyras c 2.
47. p.85 n.1 De Spectaculis, c. 8.
48. p.85 n.2 De Spectaculis, c. 16.
49. p.85 n.3 Ibid., c. 19.
50. p.85 n.4 De Spectaculis, c. 5; cf. Ad Nationes, II., passim.
51. p.85 n.5 De Spectaculis, c. 3.
52. p.85 n.6 De Idololatria, c. 4.
53. p.85 n.7 De Spectaculis, c. 3.
54. p.85 n.8 De Idololatria, cc. 4, 9.
55. p.85 n.9 Apologeticus, c. 35.
56. p.85 n.10 De Cultu Feminarum, I. c. 8.
57. p.85 n.11 Ibid., II., c. 13.
58. p.85 n.12 Ibid., II. 1.
59. p.85 n.13 Ibid., II. 9.
60. p.85 n.14 Ibid., I.6,8.
61. p.85 n.15 Ibid., I., c. 4.
62. p.85 n.16 De Oratione, c. 1; cf. Ad Martyras, c. 1.
63. p.86 n.1 De Oratione, c.20.
64. p.86 n.2 Ibid., c. 5.
65. p.86 n.3 De Oratione, c. 20.
66. p.86 n.4 Ibid., c. 29.
67. p.86 n.5 De Oratione, c. 19; cf. Ad Martyras, c. 3.
68. p.86 n.6 See p. 155-6.
69. p.86 n.7 De Baptismo, cc. 10, 12.
70. p.86 n.8 De Baptismo, c. 17.
71. p.86 n.9 De Baptismo, c. 20; cf. Ad Martyras, c. 1.
72. p.86 n.10 Ibid., c. 6; De Oratione, c. 25.
73. p.86 n.11 Ibid., c. 15; cf. De Oratione, c. 14.
74. p.86 n.12 Ibid., c. 20; Ad Martyras, c. 1; De Oratione, c. 1.
75. p.86 n.13 Ibid., c. 11.
76. p.86 n.14 Ibid., c. 4.
77. p.86 n.15 Ibid., c. 1.
78. p.86 n.16 De Praes. Haereticorum, c. 33.
79. p.87 n.1 De Baptismo, c. 5.
80. p.87 n.2 Adv. Judaeos, c. 8; cf. De Baptismo, cc. 2-5.
81. p.87 n.3 Adv. Judaeos, c. 13 ; cf. De Baptismo, c. 1, 2.
82. p.87 n.4 Ibid., c. 10; cf. De Baptismo, c. 9.
83. p.87 n.5 Ibid., c. 13; cf. De Baptismo, c. 9.
84. p.87 n.6 Apologeticus, c. 16, Ad Nationes, I., c. 14.
85. p.87 n.7 Adv. Judaeos, c. 4; cf. De Idololatria, c. 19.
86. p.87 n.8 Adv. Judaeos, c. 7: ‘The Germans to this day are not allowed to cross their own limits.’ This, with the references to the Parthians in the same chapter, reflects a state of things which had been reached under Severus prior to the Parthian campaign.
87. p.87 n.9 Justin Martyr wrote: ‘And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syro-Phoenicia’ (Dial. c. Trypho, c. 78). Tertullian’s words are: ‘Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syro-Phoenicia, on the division of the Syrias’ (Adv. Judaeos, c. 9).
88. p.87 n.10 Adv. Judaeos, c. 4 ; cf. De Idololatria, c. 14, and Apologeticus, 16,and contrast with the later view in Adv. Marc., IV. 13, De Jejunio, c. 14.
89. p.88 n.1 Apologeticus, c. 17.
90. p.88 n.2 Ibid., c. 47.
91. p.88 n.3 De Testimonio Animae, c. 1.
92. p.88 n.4 De Idololatria, c. 4.
93. p.88 n.5 De Testimonio Animae, c. 1, ‘ructas’; cf. Apologeticus, 23, ‘ ructando,’ 39, ‘ructantibus.’ De Testimonio Animae, c. 3, ‘interpolatricem’ ; cf. Apologeticus, 46, interpolator.’ Apologeticus, 48, ‘tu Homo, tantum nomen’; cf. De Testinionio Animae, ‘omnium gentium, unus homo nomen est.’ The argument from such similarities of vocabulary must not be pressed. But it may be used in corroboration of attained conclusions.
94. p.88 n.6 cf. with 5,De Praes. Haereticorum, c. 7 ‘ interpolatricem.’
95. p.88 n.7 De Praes. Haereticorum, c. 29.
96. p.88 n.8 De Idololatria, c. 5.
97. p.88 n.9 De Praes. Haereticorum, cc. 30 ff.
98. p.88 n.10 Ibid., c. 44.
99. p.88 n.11 De Spectaculis, 3, 15, 18, 19.
100. p.88 n.12 De Idololatria, c. 4.
101. p.88 n.13 De Baptismo, c. 15.
102. p.88 n.14 De Praes. Haereticorum, passim.
103. p.89 n.1 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1, the rule of ‘lateness’; cf. De Praes. Haer., 31, 34.
104. p.89 n.2 Ibid., c. 1; cf. Apologeticus, c. 46, and De Praes. Haer., c. 7.
105. p.89 n.3 Ibid., c. 27; cf. De Praes. Haer., c. 39.
106. p.89 n.4c. 77: ‘On Mount Vesuvius a great gush of fire burst out, and there were bellowings mighty enough to be heard in Capua, where I live whenever I am in Italy.’
107. p.89 n.5Eruption of Vesuvius in De Poenitentia, c. 12. Death of Plautian, c. 1.
108. p.89 n.6 De Poenetentia, c. 11.
109. p.89 n.7 De Poenitentia, c. 12 ; cf. c. 4.
110. p.90 n.1 Ibid., c. 5.
111. p.90 n.2 Ibid., c. 7.
112. p.90 n.3 Ibid., c. 6; De Baptismo, c. 6.
113. p.90 n.4 Ibid., c. 1.
114. p.90 n.5 De Patientia, c. 7: ‘When, after the manner of wild beasts, they play the bandit along the highway.’
115. p.90 n.6 Ibid., c. 5. The reference to Cain is probably (after the manner of Tertullian) a veiled allusion to the death of Plautian.
116. p.90 n.7 De Patientia, c. 5 ; ‘ In edification no loquacity is base’; Ibid., c. 4: ‘Every good thing ought, because it belongs to God, to be earnestly pursued with the whole mind by such as themselves pertain to God.’ De Poenitentia, 12 : ‘ I cannot easily be silent’ ; Ibid., c. 4 : ‘To exact the rendering of obedience the Majesty of divine power has the prior right,’ &c.
117. p.90 n.8 De Patientia, c. 12, parables of the sheep and the lost coin; De Poenitentia, c. 8, the same parables are similarly treated.
118. p.91 n.1. Cf. Adv. Val., c. 17: ‘Then there arose a leash of natures, from a triad of causes— one material, arising from her passion; another animal, arising from her conversion; the third spiritual, which had its origin in her imagination’ ; De Anima, c. 21 : ‘Now, if neither the spiritual element, nor what the heretics call the material element, was properly inherent in him . . . it remains that the one only original element of his nature was what is called the animal, which we maintain to be simple and uniform in its condition’ ; Adv. Val., c. 29 : ‘That nature (the material) they have pronounced to be incapable of any change or reform in its natural condition ‘; De Anima, c. 21 :‘(They) deny that nature is susceptible of any change’ ; Adv. Val., c. 1 : ‘They have the knack of persuading men before instructing them; although truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by first persuading’; De Anima, c. 2: ‘That facility of language . . . which has greater aptitude for persuading men by speaking than by teaching’; Adv. Val., c. 18: ‘Like a puppet (sigillario) which is moved from the outside’; Adv. Val., c. 12 : ‘By way of adding external honour also to their wonderful puppet (sigillarium) ’; De Anima, c. 6: ‘A sort of internal image (sigillario) which moves and animates the surface.’
119. p.91 n.2 Adv. Val., c. 36: ‘ How much more sensible are they who, rejecting all this tiresome nonsense, have refused to believe that any one aeon has descended from another by steps like these . . . but that on a given signal the eightfold emanation issued all at once from the Father and His Thought’; Adv. Marc., I. 5 : ‘Valentinus was more consistent and more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities . . . poured forth a swarm of divine essences.’
120. p.91 n.3 Adv. Val. c. 5.
121. p.91 n.4 Ibid., c. 3; cf. Adv. Praxean, c. 13.
122. p.91 n.5 Ibid., c. 42 ; cf. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 7.
123. p.92 n.1 Adv. Marcionem, I., c. 29.
124. p.92 n.2 Adv. Marcionem, c. 20.
125. p.92 n.3 Ibid., cc. 17, 27.
126. p.92 n.4 Ibid., c. 16.
127. p.92 n.5 Ibid., c. 23.
128. p.92 n.6 Adv. Marcionem, I., c. 13 : ‘Peacock’ ; c. 14: Minute creatures referred to; c. 18 : ‘Tatius Cloacina’; cf. De Pallio, c. 3: ‘ Peacock’ (pavo); c. 3 : Reference to minute creatures; c. 4: ‘Cloacinarum.’
129. p.92 n.7 De Pallio, c. 2.
130. p.92 n.8 De Pallio, c. 2 : ‘Silenus’; cf. De Anima, c. 2 : ‘Silenus’; c. 3 : ‘Mercury’ cf. c. 2 : ‘Mercury’; c. 5: ‘Apicus’; c. 33: ‘Apicus.’
131. p.92 n.9 Adv. Marcionem, II. 9; cf. De Anima, 37 : ‘Afflatus Dei.’ ; Adv. Marcionem, II., 9; cf. De Anima, 7:‘Veritas et imago.’
132. p.92 n.10 Adv. Marcionem, II. 21; cf. De Anima, 37.
133. p.92 n.11 Adv. Marcionem, II. 9.
134. p.92 n.12 Ibid., c. 6.
135. p.93 n.1 Adv. Marcionem, III. 7:‘Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors, along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this direction.’ This indicates that Tertullian is here working over the argument of Adv. Judaeos again. Cf. also c. 6.
136. p.93 n.2See Note 7, p. 171.
137. p.93 n.3 De Pallio, c. 1.
138. p.93 n.4 De Anima, c. 30.
139. p.93 n.5 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
140. p.93 n.6 Ad Scapulam, passim.
141. p.93 n.7 Ibid., c. 4.
142. p.93 n.8 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
143. p.94 n.1 De Anima, c. 30.
144. p.94 n.2 De Corona Militis, c. 1.
145. p.94 n.3 Ibid., c. 4.
146. p.94 n.4 Ibid., c. 1.
147. p.94 n.5 Ibid., c. 4.
148. p.94 n.6 Ibid., c. 5.
149. p.94 n.7 Ibid., c. 4.
150. p.94 n.8 De Fuga, c. 12.
151. p.94 n.9 Dion Cassius, c. 77.
152. p.94 n.10 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
153. p.95 n.1 De Fuga, c. 4; cf. Scorpiace, c. 8 : ratio. De Fuga, c. 1; cf. Scorpiace, cc. 2, 3 : attitude towards flight. De Fuga, c. 2; cf. Scorpiace, c. 10: ‘A drop of the bucket, dust of the threshing floor; the spittle of the mouth.’ De Fuga, c. 7; cf. Scorpiace, c. 12 : ‘ The lake of brimstone and fire.’ De Fuga, c. 14; cf. Scorpiace, c. 6: the relation of suffering to the will of God.
154. p.95 n.2 Scorplace, c. 8.
155. p.95 n.3 Scorpiace, c. 6. Martyrdom here takes the place of a second repentance as a means of rendering satisfaction for post-baptismal sin. Cf. De Poenitentia, c. 9.
156. p.95 n.4 Scorpiace, c. 1. The simplicity of many Christians is here a reproach. Contrast Tertullian’s earlier eulogies of simplicity in De Baptismo, De Testimonio Animae, De Praes. Haereticorum, and Adv. Valentinianos.
157. p.95 n.5 De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 48; cf. Scorpiace, c. 2. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 45; ‘possidere haereditate.’ The hand of God and the breath of God. The confession of Christ before men. Insistence upon the literal meaning of Scripture. De Carne Christi, c. 5 ; cf. Scorpiace, c. 9. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 18; cf. Scorpiace, c. 11.
158. p.95 n.6 De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 30, shows a development of parabolic interpretation compared with Adv. Marcionem, IV., 30. De Carne Christi, c. 22, implies the discussion of the gospels in Adv. Marcionem, IV., 2.
159. p.95 n.7 De Carne Christi, c. 2.
160. p.95 n.8 Ibid., c. 17.
161. p.95 n.9 De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 42.
162. p.96 n.1 Ibid., c. 34.
163. p.96 n.2 ‘Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given, indeed, sufficient attention in another work of ours.’
164. p.96 n.3 Adv. Marcionem, V., c. 10; De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 48.
165. p.96 n.4 Adv. Marcionem, V., c. 10; De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 16.
166. p.96 n.5 Adv. Marcionem, V., c. 1.
167. p.96 n.6 Ibid., passim.
168. p.96 n.7 De Oratione, c. 21.
169. p.96 n.8 Adv. Marcionem, V., c. 4.
170. p.97 n.1 ‘Hippolytus, Philosophumena: ‘For they advance statements after this manner—that one and the same God is the Creator and Father of all things; and that when it pleased him, He appeared (though, however, being invisible) to just men of old’ (book ix., c. 5). Cf. also the following passages: ‘For in this manner he’—Noetus— ‘thinks to establish the sovereignty (of God), alleging that Father and Son, (so-called), are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself: and that He is styled by name Father amid Son, according to vicissitude of times ‘ (Hippolytus, Philosophumena, book ix., c. 5). ‘But in what sense we call Him “Another” we have already often described. In that we call Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical—not identical, indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division ‘ (Adv. Praxean, c. 21). These passages indicate that Tertullian and Hippolytus are contending with the same heresy, and the latter says explicitly that it was in the time of Callistus that it was introduced to Rome (book ix., Preface).
171. p.97 n.2 Adv. Praxean, c. 8.
172. p.97 n.3 Ibid., c. 3.
173. p.97 n.4 Adversus Praxean, c. 26: ‘We have run through John’s Gospel’; cf. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 3: ‘I may now follow the course of the Apostle’s words.’ Adversus Praxean, c. 17: ‘We do, indeed, definitely declare that two Beings are God . . . according to the principle of the (divine) economy, which introduces number’ ; cf. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7: ‘That which is not unity is number. In short, after unity begins number.’
174. p.98 n.1 De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 3; cf. De Monogamia, c. 3: burning and marrying. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 5 ; cf. De Monogamia, c. 7:‘Lamech.’ De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 6; cf. De Monogamia, c. 7; ‘Grow and multiply.’ De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 8; cf. De Monogamia, c. 8: ‘Marriage of Apostles.’
175. p.98 n.2 De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7: ‘Thence, therefore, among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for digamy.’ Hippolytus says that ‘about the time of this man (Callistus) bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been twice married and thrice married, began (to be allowed) to retain their place among the clergy (book ix., c. 7). The inference that Tertullian could not have written this prior to the days of Callistus is obvious.
176. p.98 n.3 De Jejunio, c. 11; cf. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 4. De Jejunio, c. 4; cf. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 6.
177. p.98 n.4 De Jejunio, cc. 14, 15.
178. p.98 n.5 De Pudicitia, c. 21: The Trinity is mentioned; c. 16. Cf. Adv. Praxean, c. 20.
179. p.98 n.6 Compare the following: ‘Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is His alone, prerogative; for ‘Who remitteth sins but God alone?’ (De Pudicitia, c. 21). ‘And yet those scars graven on the Christian combatant . . . will anew be remitted to such, because their apostasy was expiable! In their case alone is the flesh weak. Nay, no flesh so strong as that which crushes out the Spirit!’ (De Pudicitia, c. 21). ‘The sovereign Pontiff . . . issues an edict, “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirement of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication’ (De Pudicitia, c. 1). ‘And he (Callistus) first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in (sensual) pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself’ (Hippolytus, Philosophumena, book ix., c. 7).
180. p.99 n.1 De Praes. Haer., c. 13.
181. p.99 n.2 Apologeticus, c. 17.
182. p.100 n.1 Apologeticus c. 18.
183. p.100 n.2 Ibid., c. 19.
184. p.100 n.3 Ibid., c. 20.
185. p.100 n.4 Apologeticus, c. 21.
186. p.101 n.1 Apologeticus, c. 21.
187. p.101 n.2 Apologeticus, c. 22.
188. p.101 n.3 De Baptismo, c. 4.
189. p.101 n.4 Ibid., c. 6.
190. p.101 n.5 Ibid., c. 1.
191. p.101 n.6 Ibid., c. 4.
192. p.101 n.7 Ibid., c. 6.
193. p.101 n.8 Ibid., cc. 6, 7.
194. p.102 n.1 De Baptismo, cc.8, 9.
195. p.102 n.2 Ibid., c. 8.
196. p.102 n.3 Ibid., c. 11.
197. p.102 n.4 Ibid., c. 12.
198. p.102 n.5 Ibid., c. 16.
199. p.102 n.6 Ibid., c. 18.
200. p.102 n.7 Ibid., c. 20.
201. p.102 n.8 Adv. Judaeos, cc. 7-8.
202. p.102 n.9 Ibid., cc. 10-13.
203. p.102 n.10 Ibid., c. 2.
204. p.102 n.11 Ibid., c. 2.
205. p.102 n.12 Ibid., c. 2.
206. p.102 n.13 Ibid., c. 4.
207. p.102 n.14 Ibid., passim.
208. p.102 n.15 De Spectaculis, c. 2.
209. p.102 n.16 Ibid.
210. p.102 n.17 Ibid., c. 3.
211. p.102 n.18 Ibid., c. 15.
212. p.102 n.19 Ibid., c. 19.
213. p.102 n.20 Ibid., c. 29.
214. p.102 n.21 Ibid.,c. 26.
215. p.102 n.22 Ibid., c. 30.
216. p.103 n.1 De Cultu Fem., c. 1.
217. p.103 n.2 De Oratione, c. 5.
218. p.103 n.3 Ibid., c. 2.
219. p.103 n.4 Ibid., c. 6.
220. p.103 n.5 Ibid., c. 7.
221. p.103 n.6 Ibid., c. 7.
222. p.103 n.7 De Idololatria, c. 24.
223. p.103 n.8 Ibid., c.24.
224. p.103 n.9 Ibid., c. 14.
225. p.103 n.10 Ibid., c. 18.
226. p.103 n.11 Ad Martyras, c. 2.
227. p.103 n.12 Ibid., c. 1.
228. p.103 n.13 Ad Nationes, I., c. 7.
229. p.103 n.14 Ibid., II., c. 17.
230. p.104 n.1 De Test. Animae, c. 2.
231. p.104 n.2 Ibid.
232. p.104 n.3 Ibid., c. 3.
233. p.104 n.4 Ibid., c. 4.
234. p.104 n.5 Ibid., c. 6.
235. p.104 n.6 Ibid., c. 6.
236. p.104 n.7 De Praes. Haereticorum, c. 13.
237. p.105 n.1 D.P.H., c, 20.
238. p.105 n.2 Ibid., c. 28.
239. p.105 n.3 Adv. Herm., c. 18.
240. p.105 n.4 See pp. 207 ff.
241. p.106 n.1 De Poenit., c. 6.
242. p.106 n.2 Ibid., c. 7.
243. p.106 n.3 Ibid., c. 7.
244. p.106 n.4 Ibid., c. 3.
245. p.106 n.5 De Patientia., c. 3.
246. p.106 n.6 Ibid., cc. 13, 14.
247. p.106 n.7 Ad. Uxorem, I., c. 2.
248. p.106 n.8 Ibid., II., c. 8.
249. p.106 n.9 ibid., I., c. 3.
250. p.107 n.1 Adv. Marc., I., c. 5.
251. p.107 n.2 Ibid., cc. 3, 4.
252. p.107 n.3 Ibid., cc. 10, 15.
253. p.107 n.4 Ibid., c. 16.
254. p.107 n.5 Ibid., c.22.
255. p.107 n.6 Ibid., c.23.
256. p.107 n.7 Ibid., c. 24.
257. p.107 n.8 Ibid., c. 28.
258. p.107 n.9 Ibid., c. 29.
259. p.107 n.10 Ibid., c. 29.
260. p.107 n.11 Adv. Marc., II., c. 5.
261. p.107 n.12 Adv. Marc., II., c. 8.
262. p.107 n.13 Ibid., c. 9.
263. p.107 n.14 Ibid., c. 10.
264. p.107 n.15 Ibid., c. 13.
265. p.107 n.16 Ibid., c. 14.
266. p.107 n.17 Ibid., c.15.
267. p.107 n.18 Ibid., c. 21.
268. p.107 n.19 Ibid., c. 24.
269. p.107 n.20 Ibid., c. 28.
270. p.108 n.1 De Anima, c. 1.
271. p.108 n.2 Ibid., c. 5.
272. p.108 n.3 Ibid., c. 10.
273. p.108 n.4 Ibid., c. 13.
274. p.108 n.5 Ibid., c. 15.
275. p.108 n.6 Ibid., c. 16.
276. p.108 n.7 Ibid., c. 19.
277. p.108 n.8 Ibid., c. 42.
278. p.108 n.9 Ibid., c. 45.
279. p.108 n.10 Ibid., cc. 50, 53.
280. p.108 n.11 Ibid., c. 23.
281. p.108 n.12 Ibid., c. 28.
282. p.108 n.13 Ibid., c. 32.
283. p.108 n.14 Ibid., c. 34.
284. p.108 n.15 Ibid., c. 35.
285. p.108 n.16 Ibid., c. 21.
286. p.109 n.1 Adv. Marc., IV., c. 1.
287. p.109 n.2 Ibid., cc. 2, 4.
288. p.109 n.3 Ibid., c. 11.
289. p.109 n.4 Ibid., c. 12.
290. p.109 n.5 Ibid., c. 16.
291. p.109 n.6 Ibid., c. 29.
292. p.109 n.7 Ibid., c. 23.
293. p.109 n.8 Ibid., c. 23.
294. p.109 n.9 Ibid., c. 29.
295. p.109 n.10 Ibid., c. 34.
296. p.109 n.11 Ibid., c. 38.
297. p.109 n.12 Ibid., c. 39.
298. p.109 n.13 Ibid., c. 40.
299. p.110 n.1 Adv. Marc., V., c. 6.
300. p.110 n.2 Ibid., c. 7.
301. p.110 n.3 Ibid., cc. 12, 15.
302. p.110 n.4 Ibid., c. 16.
303. p.110 n.5 De Virginibus Velandis, c. 1.
304. p.110 n.6 Ibid., c. 1.
305. p.110 n.7 Adversus Praxean, c. 1.
306. p.110 n.8 Ibid., c. 1.
307. p.110 n.9 Ibid., c. 3.
308. p.110 n.10 Ibid., c. 3.
309. p.110 n.11 Ibid., c. 5.
310. p.111 n.1 Adv. Praxean, c. 6.
311. p.111 n.2 Ibid., c. 8.
312. p.111 n.3 Ibid., c. 8.
313. p.111 n.4 Ibid., c. 10.
314. p.111 n.5 Ibid., c. 11.
315. p.111 n.6 Ibid., c. 14.
316. p.111 n.7 Ibid., c. 16.
317. p.111 n.8 Ibid., c. 21ff.
318. p.111 n.9 Ibid., c.26.
319. p.111 n.10 Ibid., c. 26.
320. p.111 n.11 Ibid., c. 27.
321. p.111 n.12 De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 3.
322. p.111 n.13 Ibid., c, 2.
323. p.111 n.14 Ibid., c. 5.
324. p.112 n.1 De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 9.
325. p.112 n.2 Ibid., c. 10.
326. p.112 n.3 Ibid., c. 10.
327. p.112 n.4 De Monogamia, c. 1.
328. p.112 n.5 Ibid., c. 3.
329. p.112 n.6 Ibid., c. 4 ff.
330. p.112 n.7 De Jejunio, c. 1.
331. p.112 n.8 Ibid., c. 1.
332. p.112 n.9 Ibid., c. 2.
333. p.112 n.10 De Pudicitia, c. 1.
334. p.112 n.11 Ibid., c. 1.
335. p.112 n.12 Ibid., c. 1.
336. p.112 n.13 Ibid., c. 2.
337. p.112 n.14 Ibid., cc. 5 ff.
338. p.112 n.15 Ibid., c. 3.
339. p.112 n.16 Ibid., c. 21.
340. p.112 n.17 Ibid., c. 21.
341. p.112 n.18 Ibid., c. 22.
342. p.115 n. 1 (i) The distinction between N.T. and O.T.— ‘The prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher’ (Magn., IX.). ‘The priests, indeed, are good, but the High-Priest is better. . . . He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets. . . . But the gospel possesses something transcendent (above the forming dispensation)’ (Philad., IX.). (ii.) The Christo-centric tendency—’ I shall. . . make further manifest to you the dispensation of which I have begun to treat with respect to the new man Jesus Christ’ (Eph. XX.). (iii.) Modalism.—’ There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn., VIII.). ‘ For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment (or economy) of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost’ (Eph. XVIII.). (iv.) The connexion between the knowledge of God and the assurance of immortality.— ‘I exhort you to do all things in harmony of God. . . . Be united with those that preside over you as a type and evidence of your immortality’ (Magn., VI.). The contrasting of the real humanity and real death of Christ with His deity and immortality is well exemplified in Ad Polyc., c. III.: ‘Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.’
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press
SPIonic font, free from here.
This document ( last modified 14th July 2001)
from the Tertullian Project.
© Epworth Press, Methodist Publishing House. Reproduced by permission.