Columbia ©ntoerattp mtijeCttptrfltogork THE LIBRARIES ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES ILLUSTRATED FROM THE WRITINGS TERTULLIAN. -COL) to mean, that Tertullian had ob- tained distinction among Latin writers. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. 11 tory decision. Semler admits that, after Tertullian seceded from the church, he left Rome and re- turned to Carthage. Jerome does not inform us whether Tertullian was born of Christian parents, or was converted to Christianity. 6 There are passages in his writings which seem to imply that he had been a Gentile : yet he may perhaps mean to describe, not his own condition, but that of Gentiles in general before their conversion. Allix and the majority of com- mentators understand them literally, as well as 7 some other passages in which he speaks of his own infirmities and sinfulness. His writings shew that he flourished at the period specified by Jerome, that is, during the reigns of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, or between the years 193 and 216; but they supply no precise information respecting the date of his birth, or any 6 Pcenitentiam hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, eaeci, sine Domini lumine, natura tenus norunt. De Poenitentia, c. 1. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in qua et inventi sumus. De Fuga in Persec. c. G. Et nationes, quod sumus nos. Adv. Marc. 1. iii. c. 21. Haec et nos risiinus aliquando; De vestris fuimus. Apology, c. 18. To these passages Mr. Dodgson adds de Spect. c. 19. 7 De Cultu Fcem. 1. ii. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 59. De Poenitentia, c. 4, 12. De Patientia, c. 1. In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 4, lie says of himself, Et quid ego modicae me- moriae homo ? 12 of the principal occurrences of his life. Allix places his birth about the year 145 or 150; his conversion to Christianity about 185; his marriage about 186; his admission to the priesthood about 1 92 ; his adoption of the opinions of Montanus about 199; and his death about 220 : but these dates rest en- tirely upon conjecture. Mr. Dodgson places his conversion to Christianity in the year 196; and thinks that he was certainly a Montanist in 201. As the most remarkable incident in Tertullian's life was his adoption of the errors of Montanus, it will be necessary to give some account of that Heresiarch. We find in 8 Eusebius the statement of an anonymous author, supposed by Lardner and others to be Asterius Urbanus, who wrote it about thirteen years after the death of Maxim ilia, one of the prophetesses who accompanied Montanus. From this statement we learn that he began to prophesy at Ardabau, a village in that part of Mysia which was contiguous to Phrygia, while Gratus was procon- sul of Asia, — that many persons were induced to be- lieve him divinely inspired, particularly two females, Maximilla and Priscilla or Prisca, who also pretend- ed to possess the same prophetic gifts ; that the fallacy of their pretensions was exposed, and their doctrine condemned ; and that they were themselves excommunicated by different Synods held in Asia. 8 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 16. 13 The same anonymous author adds, that Montanus and Maximilla hanged themselves ; and that Theodotus, one of the earliest supporters of their cause, was taken up into the air and dashed to pieces bv the Spirit of falsehood, to whom he had consigned him- self under the expectation that he should be convey- ed into heaven. The author, however, tells us that he does not vouch for the truth of either of these stories. Considerable difference of opinion prevails respect- ing the exact period when Montanus began to pro- phesy. The date of the proconsulship of Gratus has not been ascertained ; but in speaking of the perse- cution in which the martyrs of Lyons and Vienrie suffered, 9 Eusebius says, that Montanus and his companions then began to be spoken of as prophets in Phrygia. The seventeenth year of Marcus Anto- ninus, or the year 177, is assigned by Eusebius him- self as the date of the persecution in Gaul. In speaking also of the works of Apollinaris of Hiera- polis, who flourished about the year 170, 'Eusebius 9 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 3. The martyrs addressed letters to the brethren of Asia and Phrygia, as well as to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, respecting the New Prophecy. Irenaeus does not expressly mention the Montanists, but is supposed to allude to them twice, 1. iii. c. 11, p. 223; 1. iv. c. 61. Clemens Alexandrinus twice mentions the Cataphrygians. Strom. 1. iv. p. 605 ; 1. vii. p. 900. Ed. Potter. 1 Eccl. Hist. 1. iv. c. 2". 14 says, that he wrote against the Cataphrygian heresy, of which Montanus then began to lay the founda- tions. 2 Epiphanius places the rise of this heresy in the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, or the year 157, in which date he is followed by Pearson and Beausobre ; Baratier places it as early as 126. Lard- ner decides in favor of the date assigned by Euse- bius, whose authority on chronological questions is more to be relied upon than that of Epiphanius. It appears from the account given by the anony- mous author already quoted, that the followers of Montanus were numerous and powerful. One of them, named Themiso, possessed sufficient influence to prevent Zoticus and Julian, the bishops of Comana and Apamea, from questioning the evil Spirit by whom they supposed Maximilla to be inspired. 4 The general opinion of Christians in those days, founded as they conceived on Apostolic 2 Hser. 28 or 48. 3 We know from Tertullian that one of the bishops of Rome (learned men are not agreed respecting the particular bishop) was disposed for a time to recognise the prophetic character of Montanus. Adv. Praxeam, c. 1. 4 The anonymous author urges (c. 17.) as an argument against the Montanists, that there had been no succession of prophets among them since the death of Maximilla. She ap- pears from Epiphanius to have herself foreseen this objection, and to have furnished her followers with an answer by declaring, that after her no prophetess would appear, but the end of the world would come. 15 authority, was that the spirit of prophecy would remain in the Church until the secoud coming of Christ. They felt, therefore, a predisposition to lend an attentive ear to one who assumed the character of a prophet ; and though the trances and ecstatic raptures and fanatical ravings of Montanus might disgust and repel the judicious and sober minded, they would be regarded by the credulous and won- dering multitude as the surest signs of Divine in- spiration. From a long extract, given by 5 Eusebius out of the writings of Apollonius against the Montanists, we collect, that their leader was charged with re- commending married persons to separate ; G with laying down laws respecting fasts; with calling Pepuza and Tymium, villages of Phrygia, Jerusalem, to which he wished to gather all the nations of the earth. He seems to have established a regular body of preachers, to whom he assigned salaries, which he paid out of contributions raised from his followers under the name of Oblations. Of Maximilla and Priscilla, Apollonius relates, that they left their husbands when they joined themselves to Montanus; and he accuses the Montanists in general of con- 5 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 18. 6 The expression is 6 vtiardaz vo/jLodtTi'iactQ. Montanus did not merely himself observe additional fasts, but enjoined the observance of them by others. 16 verting religion into a source of profit, as well as of being licentious in their conduct. He confirms the statement of the anonymous writer respecting the attempt made by certain bishops to try the Spirit in Maximilla whether it was of God ; and mentions Themiso as a man of great wealth, who wrote a catholic epistle in defence of Montanism. Of him- self he says, that he composed his work forty years after Montanus began to prophesy. The account given by 7 Epiphanius of the Mon- tanists is, that they received both the Old and New Testaments; believed in the Resurrection of the Dead ; and maintained the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. Their error consisted in supposing that Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla were divinely in- spired ; and maintaining that the recognition of the Charismata, or Spiritual Gifts, announced by Mon- tanus, was of absolute necessity. The larger portion of the account of Epiphanius is taken up in refuting the notions of Montanus respecting inspiration ; and proving that the prophets both of the Old and New Testaments, at the time when they delivered their predictions, were in a state of complete self-posses- sion, and perfectly understood what they said. 8 He gives some specimens of the prophecies of Montanus and his female associates, which are of the most ex- travagant character. In one of them Montanus 7 Hser. 28 or 48. f Sect. 4, 10, 11, 12, 13. 17 says, " I am the Lord God who dwell in man." In another, " I am no angel or embassador : I myself, God the Father, am come." Yet Epiphanius seems not to have understood these expressions as de- signed to convey the idea, that Montanus repre- sented himself to be God the Father. Otherwise, he would scarcely have said that the Montanists agreed with the Catholic Church respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. According to the anonymous author quoted by Eusebius, Maximilla predicted that wars and tumults — according to Epiphanius, that the end of the world — would closely follow her decease. The former observes, in confutation of her predictions, that in the interval of thirteen years, which had elapsed between her death and the time at which he wrote, the world and the Church had enjoyed profound peace: the latter that, although she had been dead '220 years, the world still continued to exist. Epiphanius men- tions also the respect entertained by the Montanists in his day for a desolate spot in Phrygia, called Pepuza ; once the site of a town, which had been levelled with the ground: and adds that they ex- pected the heavenly Jerusalem to descend there. To the general head of Cataphrygians 9 he refers a number of minor sects, called Quintilliani, Pepu- ziani, Priscilliani, Artoturita?, and Tascodrugitse. 9 Hser. 29 or 49. 18 The first three were so called in consequence of a vision seen by a female, of the name of ' Quintilla or Priscilla, at Pepuza. The Artoturitse derived their name from using bread and cheese in the cele- bration of the Eucharist ; and the Tascodrugitse from their custom of putting the forefinger on the nose in the act of prayer ; raoKog in the Phrygian lan- guage signifying a stake, and Spovyyog a nose or beak. The foregoing statements, respecting the doctrines and opinions of Montanus, are in great measure confirmed by the notices scattered over Tertullian's works. We find him, on the authority of the New Prophecy, enforcing the necessity of frequent fasts — if not actually condemning marriage, yet on all occasions giving a decided preference to a life of celi- bacy, and positively pronouncing second marriages unlawful — maintaining that favorite notion of en- thusiasts in all ages of the Church, that the heavenly ' Tertullian wrote his Treatise de Baptismo against a female named Quintilla, who denied the necessity and efficacy of bap- tism. He describes her as belonging to the sect of Cainites (Caiani) ; wild and profligate fanatics, who called Cain their father, and regarded with particular veneration Esau, Corah, Judas, and all the characters noted in Scripture for their opposi- tion to the will of God. Perhaps, therefore, Tertullian called Quintilla a Cainite, from analogy only, because she set herself against a divine ordinance, not because she was actually a mem- ber of the sect. 19 2 Jerusalem would descend on earth, and that the saints would reign there for a thousand years. We find him also uniformly asserting the orthodoxy of the Montanists upon the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; though with respect to the Trinity they appear to have 3 introduced certain novel illus- trations of the generation of the Son from the Father. We learn further from Tertullian, that Montanus denied to the Church the power of grant- ing absolution to persons guilty of flagrant offences — particularly to adulterers and fornicators — and maintained that Christians were not at liberty to avoid persecution by flight, or to purchase their safety with money. 4 Mosheim asserts, on the authority of the work already quoted under the title of Prsedestinatus, that among his other doctrines Montanus taught the approaching downfall of the Roman Empire ; which would be followed by the appearance of Antichrist, and the second coming of our Lord to avenge the 2 In confirmation of this notion, Tertullian narrates a prodigy which occurred in Judea, and was witnessed by the army then on its march into the east. For forty successive days, early in the morning, a city was seen suspended from heaven. Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 24. 3 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Para- cletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol radium. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. 4 De rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Sseculum secun- dum, c. 67. c 2 20 persecutions inflicted on his saints. The more judi- cious and sober-minded Christians would naturally take alarm at the open avowal of tenets, the neces- sary effect of which must be to render their religion obnoxious to the ruling- powers, and to bring upon them fresh hardships and sufferings. We have seen that Maximilla predicted the speedy approach of those wars and tumults which were to precede the end of the world ; and there are passages in 5 Tertul- lian's works which lead to the suspicion that he en- tertained similar sentiments. He appears, however, to have felt the necessity of concealing them, and is betrayed by the struggle between his conviction and his prudence into occasional inconsistency of lan- guage. 6 He sometimes speaks as if Christians ought, at others as if they ought not to pray for the speedy consummation of all things. One question still remains to be considered : What was the precise nature of the pretensions of Montanus ? The two passages, quoted by Epipha- 5 See particularly the concluding chapter of the Tract de Spectaculis, where Tertullian's exultation at the prospect of the approaching triumph of the Christians, and of the punishment of their adversaries, nearly gets the better of his discretion. Quale autem spectaculum in proximo est adventus Domini jam indubi- tati, jam superbi, jam triumphantis ? See also de Oratione, c. 5. 6 Compare Apology, c. 32. 39. ad Scapulam, c. 2, with de Oratione, 3. 5. de Res. Carnis, c. 22, sub in. 21 nius from his Prophecies, would at first sight lead us to suppose that he gave himself out to be God the Father. Some writers have thought that he pretended to be the Holy Ghost, who was incarnate in him, as the Word was in Jesus. Mosheim ap- pears at different times to have held different opi- nions on the subject. In his 7 work de Rebus Chris- tianorum ante Constantinum, he thus speaks of Montanus : " Homo nullius norninis, minime malus, natura. tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi in tantarn incidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum Sanctum sen Paracletum ilium qui animaverat Apos- tolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti prsedicandas, et morum vitseque disciplinam, priori ab Apostolis tra- dita, sanctiorem et meliorem, tradendam." But in his 8 Ecclesiastical History, he gives the following account of the pretensions of Montanus : " Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete or Comforter, whom the Divine Saviour, at his departure from the earth, promised to send to his disciples to lead them into all truth. Neither have they," he adds, " who in- form us that Montanus pretended to have received from above the same Spirit or Paraclete, which for- merly animated the Apostles, interpreted with accu- racy the meaning of this Heretic. It is, therefore, 7 Saeculum secundum, c. 66. 8 Century ii. c. 5. p. 237, note. 22 necessary to observe here, that Montanus made a distinction between the Paraclete promised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost ; and understood by the former a Divine Teacher, pointed out by Christ under the name of Paraclete or Comforter, who was to perfect the Gospel by the addition of some doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast a full light upon others which were expressed in an obscure and imperfect manner, though for wise rea- sons which subsisted during the ministry of Christ. This Paraclete, Montanus represented himself to be." It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the former statement is directly at variance with the latter, which Mosheim professes to have collected from an attentive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my own perusal of the same writings has con- ducted me to the conclusion, that the former, not the latter, is the correct representation of the pre- tensions advanced by Montanus, I shall proceed to state the reasons on which my opinion is founded. Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let us first turn to the commencement of the Treatise de Vir- ginibus velandis, which contains the fullest and most connected account of Tertullian's notions respecting the Paraclete. Having laid down what he calls the immutable rule of faith respecting the Father and the Son, Tertullian goes on to say " that those parts 23 of the Christian dispensation, which relate to the life and conversation of Christians, admit of change and improvement. On this very account our Lord sent the Paraclete ; to the end, that as the weakness of man's nature rendered him incapable of bearing the whole truth at once, the Christian rule of life might by degrees be carried to 9 perfection by him, who was substituted in the place of the Lord, i. e. the Holy Spirit. Man, in his earliest state, was directed by the fear of God implanted in his nature : under the Law and Prophets he was in his infancy : under the Gospel in his youth : but now, through the Paraclete, he has reached the state of perfect man- hood." In this passage the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit are clearly identified. We will now proceed to the Tract de Monoga- mia; in which Tertullian is endeavouring to esta- blish the superior sanctity of a life of celibacy, and contending that the Apostle's Avords, " It is better to marry than burn," imply only a permission granted in condescension to the infirmities of human na- 9 Ab illo vicario Domini, Spiritu Sancto. Tertullian's notion was that, when our Lord ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit to carry on the Gospel Dispensation. Thus in the Tract de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 13. Misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes agat ; and again, c. 28, Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius. 24 ture l . " Whether then," he proceeds, " we look to the grounds on which the permission was granted, or to the preference given to a state of celibacy (in the preceding words of St. Paul ' It is good for a man not to touch a woman'), the evident tendency of the Apostle's reasoning is to do away the permis- sion to marry. This being so, why may not the same Spirit, coming after the days of the Apostles at the appropriate time (there being, according to the Preacher, a time for all things), for the purpose of leading Christians into all truth — why may not, I say, the same Spirit have imposed a final and com- plete restraint upon the flesh ; and called men away from marriage, not indirectly, but openly ? especially as St. Paul's argument, that ' the time is short,' is much more forcible now that 1 60 years have elapsed since he wrote his Epistle. Had such been the in- junction of the Paraclete, ought you not thus to have reasoned with yourself? This is in truth the ancient discipline, exhibited in the flesh and will of the Lord (who was not married), and afterwards in the recommendations and examples of his Apostles. 1 c. 3. Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nubendi, &c. It should be observed, that Tertullian's professed object, in the second and third chapters of the Tract de Monogamia, is to shew, that although the injunctions of the Paraclete were new and burthensome to human weakness, Christ had prepared the minds of his followers to expect that such would be their character. Compare c. 14. 25 This is the holiness to which we were originally destined. The Paraclete introduces no new doc- trine : he now definitively enjoins that of which he before gave warning : he now requires that for which he has hitherto been content to wait. Reflect upon these observations, and you will easily be convinced that it was competent to the Paraclete to limit man to a single marriage ; since he might (in perfect con- sistency with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles) have forbidden marriage altogether : and if you rightly understand the will of Christ, you will admit it to be credible that the Paraclete would curtail a liberty which might with propriety have been wholly taken away. Nay, you will acknowledge that, in this case also, the Paraclete is your advocate ; since he has not imposed upon your weakness the obli- gation of absolute and tindeviating continence." Surely the fair inference to be deduced from the comparison of this and the preceding passage is, not that 2 Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete ; or made a distinction between the Paraclete promised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost : but 2 So far was Tertullian from supposing that Montanus was the Paraclete, that he did not even conceive the revelations of the Paraclete to have been confined to him. For in the Tract de Res. Carnis, c. 11, he quotes some words, as spoken by the Paraclete through the prophetess Prisca ; de quibus luculenter et Paracletus per Prophetidem Priscam, " Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt." 26 that Montanus conceived himself to be inspired by the same Spirit as the Apostles, though it was his peculiar office to close as it were the Christian reve- lation, and to place in a clear and refulgent light those sublime truths, those doctrines of perfection, which, during Christ's residence upon earth, his dis- ciples had not been able to bear; but which had been in a progressive state of development since the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente- cost. To say that the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles, and the Paraclete Montanus, is to make a distinction only of words ; if, as is evident from the general tenor of Tertullian's writings, he 3 identified the Holy Spirit with the Paraclete. It is true that Tertullian generally speaks of the New Prophecy as proceeding from the Paraclete ; but this is not in- variably the case. In the 4 Treatise against Praxeas, he calls it the prophecy of the Holy Spirit. He makes a distinction between the revelations vouch- safed to the Apostles and to Montanus, with respect to their different degrees of perfection ; but none with respect to the source from which they were 3 He uses the word Paracletus to designate the third Person in the Holy Trinity. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alteram ex altero. Adv. Praxeam, c. 25. And in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13, we find Spiritus Sanctus — qua Paracletus, id est, advocatus. 4 Hie interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchiae sed et vJmi'0/j.iaQ interpretatorem, si quis sermones Novae Prophetiae ejus admiserit, c. 30. 27 derived. For in the Tract 5 de Prsescriptione Hsere- ticorura, he says that " the Paraclete was the teacher of the Apostles when they went forth to preach unto the Gentiles ;" and in 6 the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, that "the Holy Spirit, having previously allowed some doctrines to remain involved in a cer- tain degree of obscurity in order to prove the faith of Christians, had now removed all ambiguities by a clear and explicit development of the whole mys- tery of the Gospel ; through the New Prophecy which had been poured out abundantly from the Paraclete." My conclusion is, that the pretensions of Montanus were correctly represented by Augus- tine, when 7 he said, of him and his two female asso- ciates, Adventum Spiritus Sancti a Domino promis- sum in se potius quam in Apostolis fuisse asserunt ; and 8 by Philaster, according to whom the Mon- tanists held that the fulness of the Holy Spirit was not given to the Apostles, but to Montanus. This is also the view taken by 9 Lardner ; who says, that 5 Quod si nationibus destinati doctores Apostoli, ipsi quoque doctorem consecuti erant Paracletum, c. 8. 6 Sed quoniam nee dissimulare Spiritum Sanctum oportebat, quo minus et hujusmodi eloquiis superinundaret, quae nullis hsereti- corum versutiis semina subspargerent, imo et veteres eorum cespites vellerent, idcirco jam omnes retro ambiguitates et quas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua totius sacramenti praedi- catione discussit per Novam Prophetiam de Paracleto inundantem. Sub fine. 7 Liber de Haeresibus, c. 26. 8 Haeres. Cataphryges. 9 History of Heretics. Of the Montanists, c. 19. 28 " the followers of Montanus supposed God to have made some additional revelations by him for the perfection of believers." But when Lardner, speak- ing of the comparative importance attached by the Montanists to the Revelations, made to their leader, and to the Apostles, contends that, " they could not think this inspiration of Montanus equal to that of the Apostles, as it did not relate to the great articles of faith, but chiefly to matters of external order and discipline," he certainly does not give an accurate representation of the opinions of our author; who ought perhaps so to have reasoned, but in fact rea- soned otherwise. Tertullian, who believed that Montanus was commissioned to complete the Chris- tian revelation, could not deem him inferior to the Apostles, by whom it was only obscurely and im- perfectly developed ; nor can Lardner's statement be reconciled with the distinguished appellation of Tri'EVjuaTifcoj, or spiritual, which Tertullian confers on the Montanists ; while he brands with the epithet of ipv^iKo\, or 5 animal, those who, though they believed all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, rejected the new revelation from the Paraclete. Tertullian's works furnish presumptive proof that the effusions of Montanus and his female associates had been committed to writing. A passage has been 5 Homines solius aniinae et camis. De Jejuniis, c. 17. De Monogamia, c. 1. 29 6 already cited containing a saying of the prophetess Prisca ; and in 7 the Treatises de Fuga in Persecu- tione and de Pudicitia. are citations from the Dis- courses of Montanus. Yet the work from which Epiphanius made his extracts could not have been known to our author. Had he been acquainted with it, he could scarcely have failed in his Treatise against Praxeas to give some explanation of expressions, which appear at first sight to identify Montanus with God the Father. Such were the tenets and pretensions of Montanus, as far as we can collect them from the writings of authors who lived near his time ; and particularly of Tertullian, who appears to have adopted all his pe- culiar opinions. Some of his followers are said to have fallen into great errors both of doctrine and practice ; though we may reasonably suspect that 6 Note 38. 7 Spiritum vero si consulas, quid magis Sermone illo Spiritus probat? namque omnes pene ad Martyrium exhortatur non ad fugam, ut et illius commemoremur " Publicans, inquit : bonum tibi est. Qui enim non publieatur (Trapa^ayjucm'fcrai) in homi- nibus, publieatur in Domino. Ne confundaris : justitia te pro- ducit in medium. Quid confunderis, laudem ferens ? Potestas fit quum conspiceris ab hominibus." Sic et alibi, " Nolite in lectulis, nee in aborsibus et febribus mollibus optare exire, sed in Martyriis, ut glorificetur qui est passus pro vobis." De Fuga in Persec. c. 9. Si et Spiritum quis agnoverit, audiet et fugitivos denotantem, c. 11. Hoc ego magis et agnosco et dispono, qui ipsum Paracletum in Prophetis Novis habeo dicentem, "Potest Ecclesia donare delictum," sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant. De Pudicitia, c. 21. 30 they were in many instances charged with crimes which existed only in the invention of their accusers. Montanus was evidently a man of weak intellects, who was induced, partly by a superstitious temper, partly 8 by the desire of distinction, himself to pursue, and to recommend to others, an ascetic course of life. The austerity of his doctrine and practice naturally gained him admirers and followers ; and he confirmed his empire over their minds by professing to see visions, and to receive revelations from heaven. Perhaps he had succeeded in persuading himself that he was divinely inspired. Fanaticism is for the most part combined with fraud, in the character of the religious impostor ; nor is it improbable that, in the state of exhaustion to which the body of Montanus was reduced by the length and frequency and se- verity of his fasts, his mind might occasionally be- come disordered, and he might mistake for realities the creations of a distempered fancy. The notion that the doctrine of the Gospel was not publicly delivered by the Apostles in its full per- fection, but that certain important truths were re- served which the minds of men were not yet able to bear, does not appear to have been peculiar to the school of Montanus. The 9 Valentinians held a similar language, and supposed these mysterious 8 The anonymous author in Eusebius imputes the conduct of Montanus to this motive. 9 De Pneseriptione Hfereticorum, c. 25. 31 truths to relate to their extravagant and unin- telligible fancies respecting the Pleroma and the successive generations of iEons. Even among the orthodox, a notion not altogether dissimilar very generally prevailed. The principal object of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus is to point out the distinction between the Christian who is perfected in knowledge (yvtonTiicos), and the great mass of believers; and to lay down rules for the formation of this perfect character. He does not, indeed, like Montanus, profess to communicate truths which he had received by immediate revelation from above, and of which the Apostles were ignorant. He sup- poses them to have been revealed by Christ to Peter, James, and John, at ] the time of the Transfigura- tion, and to Paul at a subsequent period ; and to have been by them orally transmitted to their suc- cessors in the superintendence of the Church. When, how r ever, we come to enquire into the nature of this 2 sublime knowledge, we find that it consisted of subtle explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity 1 Eusebius says after the resurrection, Eccl. Hist. 1. ii. c. 1. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. i. p. 322, 1. 18; p. 323, 1. 23; p. 324, 1. 26 ; 1. vi. p. 771, 1. 14 ; p. 774, 1. 27 ; p. 802, 1. 36 \ p. 806, I. 25 ; Ed. Potter. 2 Clemens says that he is not at liberty to disclose fully and openly wherein this yvuoiQ consists, as it is of too pure and spi- ritual a nature to be comprehended by Christians in general, 1. i. p. 327, 1. 41. The notion, if not originally suggested by certain passages in St. Paul's Epistles, was at least defended by a refer- ence to them. Strom. 1. v. p. 683, 1. 18. 1 32 and of other Christian doctrines ; of allegorical and mystical interpretations of Scripture ; and of moral precepts not widely differing from those, the observ- ance of which was enjoined by Montanus, though carried to a less degree of extravagance. For in- stance, 3 Clemens does not pronounce second mar- riages positively unlawful, but says that a man who marries a^ain after the decease of his wife falls short of Christian perfection. The notions of Clemens bear a close affinity to mysticism, and are calculated to form a sort of philosophic Christian, raised far above the sensible world, and absorbed in sublime contemplations ; those of Montanus would lead men to place the whole of virtue in bodily austerities and acts of mortification : both may be justly charged with having assisted in paving the way for the intro- duction of the monastic mode of life. There is nothing more flattering to the pride of man than the persuasion that he is the favoured de- positary of knowledge which is unattainable by the generality of his fellow-creatures ; — that, while they are destined to pass their lives amidst thick clouds and darkness, he with a select few is permitted to bask in the meridian sunshine of divine truth. Both the philosophy and the religion of the Gentile world had their external and internal doctrines ; and from them in an evil hour the distinction was intro- 3 Strom. 1. iii. p. 548, 1. 26. 33 duced into the Church of Christ. Clemens Alexan- drinus is the earliest Christian writer in whose works any allusion to it appears ; and we say that he introduced the distinction in an evil hour, because on it, and on the account which he gives of its origin, are founded the two principal arguments urged by Roman Catholics in defence of their doctrinal and other corruptions. When driven from every other point, they fly, as to a last refuge, to the disciplina arcani and to oral tradition ; and though the writings of Clemens afford no countenance whatever to the particular errors which the Romish Church is anxious to maintain, yet it derives no small advantage to its cause from the statement of so early a writer — that Christ communicated important truths to the Apos- tles, which were neither intended for the ear, nor adapted to the comprehension of the great body of believers, and which had come down to his own time through the medium of oral tradition. But to return to Tertullian — his adoption of the opinions of Montanus has, without the slightest sem- blance of truth, been imputed by Pamelius and others to disappointed ambition. He was indignant, they say, because he was defeated in his pretensions to the See, either of Rome or Carthage. The true cause of his defection from the Church is to be sought in 4 the ' Mosheim de reb. Christ, ante Constant, s. 2. c. Go. D 34 constitution and temper of his mind ; to which the austere doctrines and practice of the new Prophet were perfectly congenial, and of which the natural warmth and acerbity were, as 5 Jerome informs us, increased by the censures, perhaps by the misrepre- sentations, of the Roman clergy. Before we quit this part of the subject, it will be necessary to obviate an objection, which the fore- going statement may possibly suggest. " What re- liance, it may be asked, can we place upon the judg- ment, or even upon the testimony of Tertullian, who could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pre- tensions of Montanus? or what advantage can the theological student derive from reading the works of so credulous and superstitious an author?" These are questions easily asked, and answered without hesitation by men who take the royal road to theo- logical knowledge : who either through want of the leisure, or impatience of the labour, requisite for the examination of the writings of the Fathers, find it convenient to conceal their ignorance under an air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair sentence of con- demnation has been passed upon the Fathers, and their works have fallen into unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty, because it besj)eaks great ignorance of human nature, which often presents the 5 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. 35 curious phenomenon of an union of the most oppo- site qualities in the same mind ; of vigour, acuteness, and discrimination on some subjects, with imbecility, dulness, and bigotry on others. The sentence is unfair, because it condemns the Fathers for faults, which were those, not of the individuals, but of the age : of the elder Pliny and Marcus Antoninus, as well as of Tertullian. It is moreover unfair, because the persons, who argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue differently in other cases. Without intending o to compare the gentle, the amiable, the accomplished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual reveries of Madame Guyon with the extravagancies of Mon- tanus and his prophetesses, it may be remarked that the predilection of Fenelon for the notions of the mystics betrayed a mental weakness, differing in degree, rather than in kind, from that which led Tertullian to the adoption of Montanism. We do not, however, on account of this weakness in Fene- lon, throw aside his works as utterly undeserving of notice, or deem it a sufficient ground for questioning the superiority of his genius and talent : we regard with surprise and regret this additional instance of human infirmity, but continue to read Telemachus with instruction and delight. Let us shew the same candour and sound judgment in the case of the Fathers: let us separate the wheat from the tares, and not involve them in one indiscriminate confla- d2 36 gration. The assertion may appear paradoxical, but is nevertheless true, that the value of Tertullian's writings to the theological student arises in a great measure from his errors. When he became a Mon- tanist, he set himself to expose what he deemed faulty in the practice and discipline of the Church : thus we are told indirectly what that practice and that discipline were; and we obtain information which, but for his secession from the Church, his works would scarcely have supplied. In a word, whether we consider the testimony borne to the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, or the information relating to the cere- monies, discipline, and doctrines of the primitive Church, Tertullian's writings form a most important link in that chain of tradition which connects the Apostolic age with our own. 6 Attempts have been made to arrange Tertullian's works in chronological order ; with how little suc- 6 For the better understanding of the remarks upon Tertullian's writings, the dates of the principal events connected with the reign of Severus are inserted, as given by the Benedictines in their learned work, L'Art de Verifier les Dates. A.D. Commencement of the reign of Severus . . . 193 Defeat of Niger 195 Taking of Byzantium 196 Defeat of Albinus 197 Caracalla associated in the empire . . . . 198 War against the Parthians 198 37 cess we may judge from the diversity of opinions which has prevailed among learned men respecting the date of a single tract, that entitled de Pallio. It appears that Tertullian had exchanged the Roman Toga for the Pallium, which was worn by the Greeks and by those who affected to be called philosophers. This change of dress excited the ridicule and censure of his fellow-citizens of Carthage ; and he composed the Treatise de Pallio in answer to their attacks. 7 Pamelius, with whom Scaliger agrees, supposes that it is the earliest of Tertullian's works now extant; written immediately after his conversion to Chris- tianity, on which occasion he put on the Pallium, the garment then universally worn by Christians. Sal- masius contends that the Pallium was the dress, not of Christians in general, but of presbyters only; and A.D. Severus returns from that war 203 Celebration of the Secular Games .... 204 Plautianus put to death 204 or 205 War in Britain 208 Wall built by Severus 210 Death of Severus 211 Caracalla born 188 ■ called Caesar 196 Augustus 198 Geta born 1 89 called Caesar 198 Augustus 208 7 Mr. Dodgson adopts the opinion of Pamelius : I know not whether we should be justified in inferring from the paucity of Scriptural quotations that the tract was written soon after Ter- tullian's conversion. 38 that the tract was consequently written after the ad- mission of Tertullian into that order. 8 Allix differs both from Pamelius and Salmasius, and affirms, that the Pallium was worn only by those Christians who adopted an ascetic course of life ; he concludes, there- fore, that the tract was written shortly after Tertul- lian openly professed himself a Montanist. Each of the three critics supports his opinions by quotations from the tract itself; and there is one passage which at first sight would lead the reader to hope that the date might be ascertained with a considerable degree of precision. Tertullian 9 says, that three persons were then united in the administration of the em- pire, and that the world enjoyed profound peace. Unfortunately, the commentators cannot agree among themselves whether the three emperors were l Seve- rus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus, or 2 Severus, Antoninus Caracalla, and Geta ; or whether the pro- found peace of which Tertullian speaks was that which followed the suppression of Niger's revolt, or that which the empire enjoyed during the latter years of the life of Severus. 3 Sender leans to the former opinion, but admits that the question is involved in great obscurity. In fact, the style of the Treatise is 8 Dissertatio de Tertulliani vita et scriptis, c. 6. 9 Quantum urbium aut produxit, aut auxit, aut reddidit prae- sentis Imperii triplex Virtus! Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, quot census transcripti ! &c. c. 2. 1 A. S. 196. a A. S. 208. 3 Dissertatio in Tertullianum, c. 1. 39 so declamatory and rhetorical, that no inference can be safely drawn from particular expressions ; i to rne, however, it appears to have been written as a de- fence of the general adoption of the Pallium at that period, by the Christians of Carthage ; or perhaps of its adoption by himself in particular, because he deemed it more suitable to the Christian character. The only work which supplies positive evidence of its date, is the first Book against Marcion. In 5 c. 15 Tertullian says, that he is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Severus, or the year 207. There is also positive evidence in 6 this book that the author was, when he wrote it, a believer in the prophecies of Montanus. In a passage from the 7 Tract de Monogamia, 1 This inference I draw from the following passages : Enimvero quum hanc primum sapientiam vestit, quae vanissimis superstitio- nibus renuit, tunc certissime pallium super omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superque omnes apices et titulos sacerdos sug- gestus ; deduc oculos, suadeo, reverere habitum unius interim erroris tui renuntiatorem, c. 4. sub fine. And again, Sed ista pal- lium loquitur. "At ego jam illi etiam divinae Sectae ac Dis- ciplinae commercium confero." Gaude pallium et exidta ; melior jam te Philosophia dignata est, ex quo Christianum vestire coe- pisti. c. 6. 8 Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris. B Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quern quidem apud nos Spiritalis Ratio, Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum in Fide matri- monium praescribens. c. 29. 7 c. 3. See note 1 , p. 24. 40 already referred to, Tertullian says, that 160 years had elapsed since St. Paul addressed his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Pamelius in consequence as- signs the year 213 as the date of the tract, conceiv- ing that the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written in 53. But in the first place, learned men are not agreed respecting the exact date of the Epistle, some fixing it as late as 59 ; and in the next, it is highly probable that Tertullian did not speak with precision, but used round numbers. In the first Address ad Nationes our author says, 8 in one place that 250 years, in another that 300 years had not yet elapsed since the birth of Christ : it is evident, therefore, that in neither instance did Ter- tullian mean to express the precise number. Unable to discover in the works themselves any marks by which their dates may be precisely ascer- tained, later critics have been content to divide them into two classes ; those written before Tertullian adopted the errors of Montanus, and those written afterwards. But even on this point a diversity of opinions subsists, and the commentators are not agreed to which of the two classes each work belongs. Unless indeed the tract contains some allusion to the Paraclete or to the New Prophecy, we are not warranted in positively asserting that it was written ' The first number occurs in c. 7, the second in c. 9. 41 by a Montanist ; nor does the absence of all such allusion justify a contrary inference. The subject of the tract might afford its author no opportunity of disclosing his belief in the inspiration of Montanus ; while on the other hand the mere fact, that one of the tenets maintained by that Heresiarch occurs in a particular work, is not of itself sufficient to prove that Tertullian, when it was written, was professedly a Montanist. There were in that age, as in most ages of the Church, two parties, the advocates of a milder and of a severer discipline. In the latter class would be many, whose opinions respecting the course of life to be pursued by a Christian would not differ widely from those of Montanus ; although they might give no credit to his pretended revela- tions from heaven. The natural disposition of Ter- tullian would incline him to the more rigid side ; yet it is probable that a gradual change was effected in his sentiments, and that, as he advanced in years, they continually assumed a harsher and more un- compromising character. Such is the usual progress of opinion, and we know that on two points at least this change actually took place in his case — the re- admission of penitents into the Church, and the degree of criminality to be attached to a second marriage. As the inclination to the severe disci- pline of Montanus always existed in Tertullian's mind, and increased by slow and almost impercepti- ble degrees, it is scarcely possible, in the absence of 42 all external testimony, to draw a well-defined line of separation between the works which were and those which were not composed before his secession from the Church. Having premised these observations respecting the difficulty of arriving at any certainty on the subject, I will proceed to state the result of my own examination of Tertullian's writings. The Tracts de Pcenitentia, de Oratione, and de Baptismo, are allowed by the majority of commenta- tors to have been written before Tertullian had become a follower of Montanus. Erasmus doubted the genuineness of the Tract de Poenitentia ; partly on account of its superiority in point of style to the acknowledged works of Ter- tullian, and partly because it contains opinions at variance with those which he has expressed in the Tract de Pudicitia. 9 In the former, he expressly says, that all crimes without exception committed after baptism may once, but only once, be pardoned by the Church upon repentance : in the l latter, he denies that adulterers, as well as idolaters and mur- derers, can ever be reconciled to the Church. But 2 in the commencement of the Tract de Pudicitia he himself alludes to this change in his sentiments, 9 See c. 7, 8, 9. ' See c. 5. 2 c. 1. Erit igitur et hie adversus Psychicos titulus, adversus mcce quoque sententice retro penes illos societatem, &c. 43 which is also mentioned by 3 Jerome ; and the neces- sary inference from a comparison of the passages is, that the Tract de Poenitentia is genuine, and that it was composed while Tertullian was yet a member of the Church. 4 A passage in the fifth Chapter of Hilary's Com- mentary on St. Matthew implies that Tertullian composed the Treatise de Oratione before he quitted the communion of the Church. It is certain that 5 he mentions the Shepherd of Hermas without be- stowing upon it any of those opprobrious epithets which he employs in 6 the Treatise de Pudicitia, written after he became a Montanist. Aliix thinks that he discovers traces of a leaning to Montanism in the Tract de Baptism o. He founds his suspicions on an allusion to the name of 7 Pisci- 3 Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal Son : Untie vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro, quem de Pudicitia adversum Pcenitentiam scripsit et sententiam veterem nova opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire. De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos commen- tandi Cyprianus vir Sanctge memoriae liberavit. Quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit ; sed consequents error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem. 5 c. 12. c c. 10. 7 Sed nos Pisciculi secundum l-^tivv nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur, c. 1. Cicero says (De Divinatione, 1. ii. c. 54. or 111.) that the original Sibylline Verses were Acrostics ; and in the eighth book of the spurious verses are some Acrostics, com- mencing with the initial letters of the words 'Ijjtovs Xpiirroe, 44 culi, which Tertullian applies to the Christians, and on the mention of 8 Charismata. But with respect to the latter term, there appears to be no reason for restricting* it to the revelations of Montanus ; and with respect to the appellation of Pisciculi, though Allix may be right in supposing it to have been borrowed by Tertullian from the Sibylline Verses, the work, according to him, either of Montanus or a Montanist ; yet the majority of learned men are of opinion that the forgery of the Sibylline Verses was prior to the rise of the heresy of Montanus. There is in my opinion a far more suspicious passage in 9 this book, where Tertullian says, that three persons compose a Church ; a notion which frequently occurs in the works confessedly written after he became a believer in the New Prophecy. Allix, in like manner, discovers a leaning to Mon- tanism in the two Treatises ad Uxorem ; in the former of which Tertullian dissuades his wife, in case she should survive him, from contracting a second Qeov Y'ioq, 2w-*)p, of which letters the word indite is composed : but according to Lardner, there is no good ground to think that Tertullian has alluded to these Acrostics. Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 29. 8 Petite de Domino peculia, gratias, distributiones charismatum subjiciente, c. 20. sub fine. 9 Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesise mentio ; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est. c. G. 45 marriage; in the latter, fearful that she might be unwilling to impose upon herself so severe a restraint, he cautions her at least not to marry a heathen. This condescension to human weakness is so utterly at variance with the harsh language which he ap- plied to second marriages after he became a Mon- tanist, that I cannot assent to the opinion of Allix. In the Tract ad Martyres is ' an allusion to a practice which then prevailed, of restoring penitents to the communion of the Church, at the request of persons confined in prison on account of their pro- fession of Christianity. If we compare the tone of this allusion with the pointed condemnation of the practice in the 2 Tract de Pudicitia, we must, I think, conclude that Tertullian was not yet a convert to Montanism when he wrote the Tract ad Martyres. The death of the philosopher Peregrinus, which hap- pened between the years 164 and 170, is mentioned in c. 4 ; and the concluding sentence has been sup- posed, with great appearance of probability, to re- late to the numerous executions, particularly of persons of the Senatorial Order, which took place 1 c. 1. Quam pacem quidam, in Ecclesia non habentes, a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Et ideo earn etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire debetis, ut si forte et aliis prsestare possitis. 2 c. 22. 46 after the defeat and death of 3 Albinus ; though it &' may perhaps relate to the death of Plautianus. A comparison of the different modes in which Tertullian speaks of flight in time of persecution, in the Tracts de 4 Patientia and de Fuga, in Persecutione, will lead to the conclusion that the former was writ- ten while he was yet a member of the Church. The Treatise adversus Judseos is supposed by Pa- melius to have been written in the year 198 ; by Allix (after Baronius) in 208. Allix grounds his opinion on the expressions respecting the state of the Roman empire which occur in c. 7, and which he conceives to be applicable only to the latter years of the reign of Severus ; but they are so general that no inference as to the date of the tract can be safely drawn from them. Allix infers from the mention of Charismata in the 5 Tract de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, that it was written after Tertullian became a Montanist. But, as was observed with respect to the Tract de Bap- 3 A.S. 197. 4 c. 13. Si fuga urgeat, adversus incommoda fugae caro militat. The fair inference from these words appears to be, that flight in time of persecution is allowable. 5 c. 29. 47 tismo, the context suggests no reason why we should restrict the word to the peculiar gifts of the Paraclete of Montanus. Allix also quotes a passage from the first book against Marcion, from which he argues that it was prior to the Tract de Praescriptione Hsereti- corum ; G the context leads me to an opposite con- clusion. Besides, had the tract been written by a Montanist, some mention of the Paraclete would probably have been introduced into the short sum- mary of faith given in c. 13; as is the case in the first chapter of the Tract de Virginibus velandis. 7 The conclusion also warrants the inference that it was written before all the Treatises against particular Heresies. It was certainly prior to the Tract de 8 Carne Christi. It was also prior to the 9 Tract against Hermo- genes, in the first chapter of which there is an allu- 6 Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus Hcereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de Praescriptione Novitatis. Nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium Prcescriptionis ubique advocatum diffidentiae deputetur, regulam Adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis quaestio dimicatura est. c. 1. 7 c. 45. Sed nunc quidem generaliter actum est a nobis ad- versus haereses omnes, certis et justis et necessariis praescriptioni- bus repellendas a conlatione Scripturarum. De reliquo, si Dei gratia annuerit, etiam specialiter quibusdam respondebimus. 8 c. 2. Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses alibi jam usi sumus. 9 c. 1. Solemus Haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate praescribere. 48 sion to it. Allix thinks that Tertullian was a Mon- tanist, when he wrote against Hermogenes, J because he charges that heretic with marrying repeatedly ; but I doubt whether the words are sufficiently pre- cise to warrant the inference. Great diversity of opinion prevails among the commentators respecting the date of the Apology. Allix appears to me to have shewn satisfactorily that it was written, 2 not at Rome, but at Carthage : and that it was addressed, not 3 to the Senate, but to the governors of Proconsular Africa. He has not, how- ever, been equally successful in proving that it was written so late as the year 217. I cannot discover, in 4 the passage in which Tertullian speaks of the re- 1 c. 1. Praeterea pingit illicite, nubit assidue. Legem Dei in libiclinem defendit. 2 Speaking of Rome, Tertullian says, c. 9, Ecce in ilia reli- giosissima urbe iEneadum : and in c. 21, sub fine, he tbus ad- dresses the Romans : Ut ad vos quoque, dominatores gentium, aspiciam. And again, in c. 35 : Ipsos Quirites, ipsam vernacu- lam septem collium plebem, convenio : modes of expression which he would scarcely have used, had the Tract been written at Rome. 3 In designating the persons to whom the Apology is ad- dressed, he styles them in general Prsesides ; thus, Veritatis extorquendse Prsesides, c. 2. Ex ipsis etiam vobis justissimis et severissimis in nos Praesidibus, c. 9. Hoc agite, boni Praesides, c. 50. In c. 2 he uses the expression, Hoc imperium cujus ministri estis ; and from a passage in c, 45, Deum non Procon- sulem timentes, it may fairly be inferred that he was writing in a province governed by a Pro-Consul. 1 Nonne vanissimas Papias Leges, quae ante liberos suscipi 49 formation of the Papian Laws, any reason for think- ing that Severus was then dead; I should rather infer the contrary. The allusion to the conspiracies which were daily 5 detected at the very time when the book was written, as well as the 6 enumeration of the barbarous nations which either then were, or had recently been, at war with Rome, correspond to the events which took place during the reign of Severus; and as the work contains internal testimony that the Christians were then suffering persecution, why may it not have been written soon after 7 the promulgation of the law, by which the Christians were forbidden to make proselytes, that is, about the year 204? The date assigned by Mosheim, in a Tract written expressly on the subject, is 198. It was not to be cogunt quam Juliae matrimonium contrahi, post tantee auctoritatis senectutem heri Severus constantissimus Principum exclusit ? c. 4. 5 Unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini ? and again, Sed et qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores quotidie revelantur, post vindemiam parricidarum racematio superstes, &c c. 35. This passage appears to relate to the triumph of Severus after his re- turn from the Parthian War, and to the conspiracy of Plautianus which took place about the year 204. 6 c. 37. Plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique Parthi. 7 The part taken by the Syrians of Palestine in favour of Niger greatly irritated Severus, and probably gave occasion to this law. iElii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. C. From the words of the historian it might be inferred that the law applied only to Palestine. In itinere Palaestinis plurima jura fundavit. Judseos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit. p. 904. Speaking shortly after of the inhabitants of Alexandria, he says, Multa praeterea his jura mutavit. 50 expected that any marks of Montanism would appear in the Apology. The two books, entitled ad Nationes, have come down to us in so imperfect a state that it is difficult to ascertain whether they were designed to be a dis- tinct work from the Apology ; or whether Tertullian at first wrought his materials into this form, which he afterwards thought proper to change. The argu- ments are for the most part the same as those urged in the Apology, and are frequently expressed in the same words. Allix fancied that he found an allusion 8 to the assumption of the title of Parthicus by Ca- racalla, and concluded, therefore, that these books were written after the death of Severus ; but I sus- pect that the allusion existed only in his own fancy. The Tract de Testimonio Animas was subsequent to the Apology, to which it contains a reference. Ut loco suo edocuimus ad fidem earum (Divinarum 8 Ita vero sit, quum ex vobis nationibus quotidie Caesares, et Parthici, et Medici, et Germanici, 1. i. c. 17. Allix drew his in- ference from a passage in the life of Caracalla which goes under the name of iElius Spartianus. Datis ad Senatum, quasi post victoriam, literis Parthicus appellatus est ; nam Germanici nomen patre vivo fuerat consecutus, p. 930, D. The circumstance here alluded to occurred not long before the death of Caracalla in 217. But the titles of Parthicus and Germanicus had been so frequently conferred upon Emperors, that it cannot be affirmed with any degree of certainty that a particular allusion to Caracalla was intended. 51 Scripturarum) demonstrandam, c. 5. The reference is to the nineteenth chapter of the Apology, in which Tertullian establishes the superior antiquity of the Hebrew Scriptures to the literature of the Gen- tiles. The terms in which Tertullian speaks 9 , in his address to Scapula, of the favour shown by Severus to the Christians, in consequence of the cure wrought upon him by one of their body named Proculus, lead to the conclusion that the work was composed after that Emperor's death. There is ' in this Tract an allusion to the destruction of Byzantium which took place in the year 196; as well as to a preternatural extinction of the Sun's light which occurred at Utica, and which Allix supposes to have been an eclipse of the Sun that happened in the year 2 1 0. He agrees with Scaliger and Holstenius in thinking that this was one of the latest of Tertullian's works, and written about the year 217. In c. 4. Tertul- lian mentions Cincius Severus among the governors who treated the Christians with lenity. This gover- nor was put to death by Severus after the defeat and death of 2 Albinus. The Tract contains no 9 c. 4. The cure was performed by the use of oil. Severus laboured under an arthritic complaint. iElii Spartiani Severus, p. 903. D. 1 c. 3. Extincto pene lumine. 2 A.D. 198. EX\\ Spartiani Severus, p. 902. A. E 2 52 traces of Montanism, yet was probably written after the author became a Montanist. The Treatises, in which we find positive allusions to the prophecies of Montanus, are those 3 de Corona, 4 de Anima, 5 de Virginibus velandis, G de Resurrec- tione Carnis, 7 against Praxeas, 8 the first, 9 third, 1 fourth, and 2 fifth books against Marcion, and the Tracts de Fuga in Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, and de Pudicitia. The four last-mentioned Tracts are stated by Jerome to have been composed by our author in direct opposition to the Church, and their contents fully confirm the statement. With respect to their order, we know only that the Tract de Monogamia was prior to that de Jejuniis 3 , which contains a reference to it. 4 Gibbon affirms it " to be evident that Tertullian composed his Treatise de Corona long before he was engaged in the errors of Montanus." I am afraid 3 c. 1. Qui prophetias ejusdem Spiritus Sancti respuerunt. 4 cc. 9. 11. 55. 58. There is in this Tract, c. 55. an allusion to the martyrdom of Perpetua, which is supposed to have happened about the year 203. 5 cc. 1. 17. 6 c. 11. 7 cc. 1, 2. 8. 13. 30. 8 c. 29. 9 c. 24. J c. 22. 2 c. 16. Ut docent Veteres et Novae Prophetiaa. 3 c. 1. 4 Chapter 15. Note 49. 53 that the historian was induced to adopt this opinion, because it assisted him in transferring the sentiments, expressed by Tertullian, from the followers of Mon- tanus to the primitive Christians in general ; and thereby to confirm his representation of their rash- ness and extravagances. But the allusion to the New Prophecy, in the first chapter, affords a complete refutation of the assertion. Gibbon also supposes the event, which gave occasion to the Treatise, to have happened at Carthage, when a donative was distributed to the soldiers by the emperors Severus and Caracalla ; and consequently before the title of Csesar was conferred on Geta; that is, before the year 198. But should we allow the correctness of this date to be better ascertained than it really is, the only inference to be drawn from it would be, that even at that early period Tertullian had openly avowed his belief in the prophecies of Montanus. There is moreover in this Tract an allusion to a 5 Tract on Public Spectacles, which Tertullian com- posed in Greek ; if it agreed with the Latin Tract now extant, he was probably a Montanist when he wrote it. 6 Tertullian appears in the Tract de Corona to announce his intention of writing the Scorpiace. 5 Sed et huic materiae propter suaviludios nostras Graeco quo- que stilo satisfecimus, c. 6. sub fine. 6 c. 1. Sed de quaastionibus confessionum alibi docebimus. 54 The second book against Marcion affords an exam- ple of the difficulty of accurately determining from the Treatises themselves, whether the author was a Montanist when he composed them : for it contains no decisive marks of Montanism. The same remark is applicable to the Tract de Carne Christi, though we find 7 in it an express reference to the fourth book against Marcion ; and 8 to the Scorpiace, in which we also find a reference to the works against Marcion. Jerome, in his work against Vigilantius, c. 3, says that the latter Tract was written against the Cain- ites, a branch of the Gnostics, who appear to have spoken contemptuously of martyrdom, and to have dissuaded Christians in times of persecution from exposing themselves to danger by an open profes- sion of their faith ; 9 contending that He was the true martyr, fxaprvg, who bore testimony to the Gospel by his virtuous life and conversation. Here then we might expect to find strong proofs of Tertullian's Montanism ; yet they do not occur. 7 c. 7. Audiat igitur et Apelles quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello, quo ad Evangelium ipsius provocavi- mus. The reference is to c. 19. 8 c. 5. Longum est ut Deum meum bonum ostendam ; quod jam a nobis didicerunt Marcionitae. The reference is to the second book. From c. 1, and c. 4, it appears that the Scorpiace was written during a time of persecution. 9 Compare Irenseus 1. iii. c. 20. 1. iv. c. 64. and Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. iv. c. 4. p. 571. 1. 10. 55 1 There is in the Scorpiace an allusion to the esta- blishment of the Pythian games at Carthage, as if it had recently taken place. If the Proculus, whom Tertullian 2 calls Proculus noster, and mentions with respect in his Treatise against the Valentinians, was the same to whose dispute or dialogue with Caius both 3 Eusebius and Jerome refer, we may fairly conclude that Tertullian was a Montanist when he composed the Treatise. Allix infers that the Tract de Spectaculis was written after Tertullian became a Montanist, because in enumerating the privileges of the Christian, he mentions 4 that of asking revelations from heaven. The introduction 5 of the New Jerusalem in the last chapter, when compared with the final chapter of the third book against Marcion, supplies in my opinion far more decisive proof of his Montanism. 6 Allix has shown satisfactorily that it was written, 1 Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant, donatam Pythico Agone post stadii senectutem, c. 6. 2 c. 5. 3 Hist. Eccl. 1. vi. c. 20. Catalogus Scriptorum Eccl. sub Caio. 4 c. 29. Quod revelationes petis. 5 Qualis Civitas nova Hierusalem ? 6 Quanta preeterea Sacra, quanta Sacrificia prsecedant, inter- cedant, succedant, quot Collegia, quot sacerdotia, quot officia moveantur, sciunt homines illius urbis (Romas) in qua Dsemo- 56 not at Rome, but at Carthage. It was prior to the Tract 7 de Idololatria and to the 8 first book de Cultu Fceminarum, which contain references to it. These two Tracts, therefore, were probably written after Tertullian became a Montanist, though they contain no decisive marks of Montanism. 9 In the Tract de Idololatria, Allix fancies that he discovers an allusion to the festivities which took place at Carthage, when the birth-day of Geta was celebrated in the year 203 '. The notion that three persons compose a Church has been 2 already mentioned as indicative of Mon- tanism. It occurs in 3 the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis : yet I am led to infer, from a comparison of this Tract with that de Monogamia, that Tertul- lian, when he wrote it, had not embraced the tenets of Montanus in all their rigour. niorum conventus consedit, c. 7. Proinde tituli : Olympia Jovi, quae sunt Romse Capitolina, c. 11. Observe also the use of the word Praesides in the last chapter. 7 c. 13. 8 c. 8. 9 c. 15. 1 Mr. Dodgson considers both these Tracts to have been written before Tertullian quitted the Church. 2 p. 44. 3 c. 7. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 21. Pamelius supposes that the three persons alluded to in the latter passage were Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla; but, as it appears to me, without sufficient grounds. 57 Perhaps we shall not deviate very widely from the truth, if we adopt the following classification of Ter- tullian's works, without attempting to arrange them in the order in which they are written : Works probably written while he was yet a mem- ber of the Church : De Pcenitentia. De Oratione. De Baptismo. The two books ad Uxorem. Ad Mar tyres. De Patientia. Adversus Judseos. De Prsescriptione Hsereticorum *. Works certainly written after he became a Mon- tanist : First book against Marcion. Second book against Marcion 5 . De Anima 6 . Third book against Marcion. 4 Referred to in the first book against Marcion, c. 1. adv. Praxeam, c. 2. de Carne Christi, c. 2. adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. 5 Referred to in the Scorpiace, c. 5. In the Treatise de Anima, c. 21. where the allusion is to c. 5. De Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 14. 6 Referred to in the Tract de Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 17. 45. Com- pare cc. 18 and 21. 58 Fourth book against Marcion 7 . De Carne Christi 8 . De Resurrectione Carnis 9 . Fifth book against Marcion. Adversus Praxeam. Scorpiace \ De Corona Militis. De Virginibus Velandis. De Exhortatione Castitatis. De Fuga in Persecutione. De Monogamia 2 . De Jejuniis. De Pudicitia. Works probably written after he became a Mon- tanist : Adversus Valentinianos. Ad Scapulam. De Spectaculis 3 . De Idololatria. 7 Referred to in the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 7. 8 Referred to in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 2. See also the concluding words of the Tract de Carne Christi. ' Referred to in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 10. 1 In c. 4, Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted all the heretics. 2 Referred to in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 1. 3 Referred to in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 13. and in the first book de Cultu Fceminarum, c. 8. In the Tract de Corona, c. 6. is a reference to the Greek Tract de Spectaculis. 59 The two books de Cultu Foeminaruni *. Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced : The Apology. The two books ad Nationes. The Tract de Testimonio Animse 5 . De Pallio. Ad versus Hermogenem. In addition to the works already enumerated, Ter- tullian composed others not now extant : A Treatise, entitled de Paradiso 6 . Another 7 de Spe Fidelium. Six books 8 de Ecstasi, and a seventh against Apollonius, mentioned by Jerome in his account of our author. A Tract 9 against the Apelliaci, or followers of Apelles. 4 The second book de Cultu Fceminarum was written during a time of persecution. Cseterum tempora Christianorum semper, et nunc vel maxime, non auro, sed ferro transiguntur. c. 13. 5 Subsequent to the Apology, see c. 5. Prior to the Tract de Came Christi, in the twelfth chapter of which it is quoted. 6 Mentioned in the Tract de Anima, c. 55, and in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 12. 7 Mentioned in the third book against Marcion, c. 24. and by Jerome in his account of Papias, and in Ezechielem, c. 36. 8 There is an allusion to the books de Ecstasi in the fourth book against Marcion, c. 22. 9 Mentioned in the Treatise de Carne Christi, c. 8. GO A Tract ' against Hermogenes, entitled tie Censu Animse. In the Treatise 2 de Anima, Tertullian mentions his intention of discussing the questions of Fate and Free-Will, upon the principles of the Gospel. Jerome mentions other works of Tertullian : One 3 de vestibus Aaron. One 4 ad Amicum Philosophum : Jerome's words are, Et nunc eadem admoneo, ut, si tibi placet scire quot molestiis virgo libera, quot uxor astricta sit, legas Tertullianum ad Amicum Philosophum, et de Virginitate alios libellos, et beati Cypriani volumen egregium. Among Tertullian's works now extant, there is none entitled ad Amicum Philosophum ; and I should have supposed that Jerome referred to the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, had he not in his first Book against Jovinian said that Tertullian wrote upon the subject of celibacy in his youth. In the Index to Tertullian's works given in the Codex Agobardi appear the three following titles : De Animai Summissione ; De Superstitione Sseculi ; 1 Mentioned in the Treatise de Anima, cc. 1. 3. 22. 24. 2 c. 20. 3 Epistola ad Fabiolam de veste Sacerdotali, sub fine. 4 Epistola 22, ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis. I am in doubt whether Jerome here alludes to Tracts expressly entitled de Virginitate, or means only that Tertullian had in various works written on the advantages of the unmarried state. 61 De Carne et Anima. The tracts themselves are not extant in the MS. ; which appears at one time to have contained the Tracts de Paradiso and de Spe Fidelium. 5 Mosheim classes the Montanists amongst the illiterate sects : but this epithet is wholly inapplicable to Tertullian, who appears to have been acquainted with every branch of science and literature that was studied in his day. 6 Eusebius mentions particularly his knowledge of 7 Roman law, which displays itself in his frequent use of legal terms ; and his quotations embrace not only the poetry and history, but also the 8 natural philosophy and 9 medical science of anti- quity. The Greek language must have been familiar to him, as he composed in it three l Treatises, not now extant. So great indeed was his reputation for ge- nius and learning, that, notwithstanding his secession from the Church, succeeding Ecclesiastical writers 5 Cent. II. c. 5. sect. 23. 6 Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 2. 7 See the Tract de Anima, c. 6. sub fine. 8 He appears to have been well acquainted with Pliny. 9 See the Tract de Anima, cc. 2, 6. 1 Those de Spectaculis (see de Corona, c. 6,) de Virginibus velandis, c. 1. and de Baptismo, c. 15. For additional proof of his knowledge of Greek, see adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. cc. 9. 24; 1. iii. cc. 15. 22; 1. iv. cc. 8. 11. 14; 1. v. c. 17; de Prescript. Hseret. c. 6. adv. Hermogenem, cc. 19. 40. adv. Praxeam, cc. 3. 5. ad Scapulam, c. 4. de Idololatria, c. 3. He sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. See adv. Marc. 1. iv. c. 39; adv. Praxeam, c. 5. adv. Jud. c. 9. 62 always speak of him with high respect. Cyprian, as we have seen, called him his master, and never passed a day without reading some portion of his works. We cannot, however, among the merits of Tertullian, reckon that of a natural, flowing, and per- spicuous style. He frequently hurries his readers along by his vehemence, and surprises them by the vigour, as well as inexhaustible fertility of his imagi- nation ; but his copiousness is without selection ; and there was in his character a propensity to exaggera- tion, which affected his language and rendered it inflated and unnatural. He is indeed the harshest and most obscure of writers, and the least capable of being accurately represented in a translation. With respect to his Latinity, I know only one critic who has ventured to speak in its commendation — the late Gilbert Wakefield ; between whom and Tertullian, widely as they differed upon doctrinal questions, there appear to have been some points of resem- blance. Both possessed great stores of acquired knowledge, which they produced in and out of sea- son ; both were deficient in taste, discrimination, and judgment. 2 In one of his letters to Mr. Fox, Mr. Wakefield complains that the " words of Tertullian, Arnobius, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, are usually marked in dictionaries as inelegant and of suspicious authority : when they are, 2 Letter 54. 63 in reality, the most genuine remains of pure Roman composition," or, as he had previously expressed him- self, " of the language of the old comedians and tra- gedians, of Ennius and Lucilius." I am far from intending to assert that this statement is wholly destitute of foundation. When I have myself been obliged to consult the dictionaries for the meaning of some strange and portentous word which crossed me in my perusal of Tertullian's works, I have occasion- ally found that it had been used by Plautus ; but the general opinion, which I have formed respecting Tertullian's Latin ity, cannot be better expressed than in the words of the learned Ruhnken. 3 " Fuit nescio quis — qui se pulchre de Latina, Lingua meriturum speraret, si verba et verborum construct i ones ex Ter- tulliano — in Lexicon referret. A cujus sententia dici vix potest quantopere dissentiam. Sit Tertul- lianus quam velis eruditus, sit omnis peritus antiqui- tatis ; nihil impedio ; Latinitatis certe pessimum auctorem esse aio efc confirmo. At usus est sermone eo quo tunc omnes Afri Latine loquentes utebantur. Ne hoc quidem concesserim. Nam si talis Afrorum sermo fuit, cur, non dicam Apuleius et Arnobius scriptores priscse elegantiae studiosi, sed Cyprianus, &c. aliter locuti reperiuntur? Quid ergo? Fecit hie, 3 Praefatio ad Schelleri Lexicon. 64 quod ante eum arbitror fecisse neminem. Etenim quum in aliorum vel summa infantia tamen appareat voluntas et conatus bene loquendi, hie, nescio qua ingenii perversitate, cum melioribus loqui noluit, et sibimet ipse linguam finxit duram, horridam, Lati- nisque inauditam ; ut non mirum sit per eum uimm plura monstra in Linguam Latinam, quam per omnes Scriptores semi-barbaros, esse invecta." In the preceding remarks we have all along taken for granted that the works, the dates of which we have been investigating, were composed by an indi- vidual, named Tertullian. This fact we conceived to be established by testimony precisely similar to that by which the genuineness of the works of every author is ascertained — by the testimony of writers whose proximity to the times in which he lived, and whose opportunities of information, rendered them competent to form a correct opinion on the subject. We are told that Cyprian, who was Bishop of Car- thage within forty years after the period at which Tertullian lived there, held his works in the highest estimation ; and in confirmation of this statement we find that Cyprian frequently repeats, not only the sentiments, but even the words contained in the writings now extant under his name. We find 4 Eusebius, a diligent enquirer into all points con- 4 1. ii. c. ii. The only work of Tertullian quoted by Euse- 65 nected with Ecclesiastical history, quoting within a century after Tertullian's death one of his works which had been translated into Greek, and speaking of him 5 as well known in the capital of the world. We find Jerome, who has left us a catalogue of Ecclesiastical authors, accompanied by succinct ac- counts of their lives and writings, quoting various works of Tertullian without giving the slightest hint that he entertained a doubt of their genuineness. We find him quoted by 6 Augustine, who had resided at Carthage and made enquiries there respecting the sect which bore his name ; and by later writers, who may be deemed too far removed from his time to be received as independant witnesses. Here surely is a chain of testimony sufficient to satisfy even a scep- tical mind. It did not, however, satisfy that of Semler ; who in a dissertation, inserted in his 7 edi- tion of Tertullian's works, endeavours to fix a mark of spuriousness, not only upon them, but also upon bius is the Apology, which he states to have been translated into Greek, and with which alone he appears to have been acquainted. He was perhaps little versed in the Latin language ; and had never met with the tracts composed by Tertullian himself in Greek, which were of less general interest than the Apology. 5 If we adopt the interpretation suggested by Valesius, after Rufinus, of the words rwv fxakinra kiii 'Pw/xjjc \afiirpG>i', inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, the inference will be strengthened. Liber de Haeresibus, 86. Tertullianistae. 7 Halse Magdeburgicse, 1770. ► F 66 the writings which are extant, under the names of Justin Martyr, and IrenaBus. 8 His theory is, that all those works, though bearing the names of dif- ferent authors, proceeded from one and the same shop established at Rome ; and were the produce of the joint labours of a set of men, who entered into a combination to falsify history and corrupt the Scrip- tures, principally with the view of throwing discredit upon certain persons, Marcion, Valentinus, &c. whom they thought to brand with the title of Heretics. This, it must be allowed, is a theory which, for novelty and singularity, will bear a comparison with the boldest speculations of the German critics. Let us, therefore, enquire upon w r hat foundations it rests; first observing that we neither profess, nor deem it incumbent upon us, to give a full and complete solution of all the doubts and difficulties which an ingenious mind may frame, in order to disprove the genuineness of works written sixteen centuries ago. Were this requisite, vain would be the attempt to establish the genuineness of any work of great anti- quity ; for by the mere lapse of time many facts 8 Ex una atque eadem officina quidam libri videntur pro- diisse quos studiosissime solebant variis et diversis Scriptoribus dividere. Antiquissima fuit haec Societas et impensa sive ab uno sive a duobus diligentia, quae cum Romana ilia, tarn Grseca quam Latina, Societate nova videtur sic cohaerere ut communi consilio operam dederint. Sect. 10. See also the concluding Section. 67 and circumstances are consigned to oblivion, the knowledge of which can alone enable us to dispel all obscurity and to reconcile all seeming contradic- tions. In these cases we must not expect demon- stration, but be content to weigh probabilities and ascertain on which side the evidence preponderates. To proceed then to Semler's proofs, or rather sur- mises ; for the latter appears the more appropriate term. He 9 first complains, that the allusions con- tained in these books to the life and history of their author are very scanty and obscure, and afford no useful information. ' He even insinuates, that the works themselves, like the writings of the Sophists, were mere exercises of wit ; and that the historical facts and marks of time were introduced by the author in order to give his fiction an appearance of reality. But this insinuation is utterly unsupported by proof. The author, whoever he may be, certainly meant his readers to suppose that he lived in the time of Severus ; and his statements in many points accord, in none are at variance with the accounts handed down to us by the historians of that Empe- s Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse, quae horum Librorum Auctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat. Sect. 1. Solet enim bic Scriptor Declamatorum imitari exemplum qui ipsi confingunt argument!, quod sibi desumpserunt, tempus, et omnes illas rerum Appendices quibus tempora solent commode et studiose distingui. Sect. 1. F 2 68 ror's reign. The manners and customs which he describes, the transactions to which he alludes, cor- respond with the information which we derive from other sources. Still his works may be wholly of a fictitious character ; he may have invented the cir- cumstances which are supposed to have occasioned them — the calumnies, against which he defends the Christians — the persecutions, which he exhorts them to bear with constancy — the heretical opinions, which he undertakes to confute ; and he may have occa- sionally interspersed historical facts in order to give his inventions an air of probability. All this we may allow to be possible. But what are we to think of the Montanism of our author? was that also fictitious ? What could induce a member of Sem- ler's New Roman Society, who comes forward at one time as the Apologist for Christianity and the vehe- ment champion of Orthodoxy, to assume at another the character of a Separatist from the Church ? This fact appears to be wholly irreconcileable to Semler's theory. It should also be observed, that the few notices of Tertullian's personal history which occur in his works are not introduced with any parade, or in order to answer a particular purpose, but in that incidental manner which has usually been deemed most strongly indicative of truth. Semler next proceeds to consider Jerome's ac- count of Tertullian, on which he remarks that, 69 2 had Jerome been able to discover more particulars of our author's life,he would certainly have inserted them. This is by no means clear ; for the extreme concise- ness with which he has drawn up his notices of Ecclesiastical writers proves, that he made no labo- rious researches into the history of their lives, but contented himself with such information as happened to fall in his way. 3 Semler further conjectures, that even the particulars in Jerome's brief account were not derived from independant sources, but col- lected from Tertullian's works. This may be partly true ; he might have inferred from different passages that Tertullian was born in Africa, resided at Car- thage, and flourished during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. But, not to mention the story re- specting Cyprian's admiration of Tertullian, for which he gives his authority, whence did he learn that Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church until he reached the middle age of life, and was extremely old when he died ? It may be doubted whether the generality of readers, unless they had previously learned the fact from some other source, would infer, from the perusal of the works now extant, that 2 Haec Hieronymus ; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque discere potuisset ad historian! Tertulliani facientia, haud dubie hie omnino perscripsisset. Sect. 2. a Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjecturis reperisse ex variis horum scriptorum locis. Sect. 2. 70 Tertullian had ever been admitted to the order of priesthood. Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's ac- count, which begins thus : Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem et Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. The obvious meaning of these words is, that Jerome had at length, after enume- rating so many Greek authors, arrived at the place which Tertullian's name was to occupy ; he being the first Latin Ecclesiastical writer after Victor and Apollonius, of whom Jerome had before spoken, 4 Semler thinks that the more accurate statement would have been, that Tertullian was the first presby- ter who used the Latin language, and that this was in fact Jerome's meaning ; an assertion in which few of his readers will, I conceive, be disposed to acqui- esce. But how, asks Semler, can Tertullian be called the first presbyter who used the Latin language, when he himself says that he composed several trea- tises in Greek ? I must confess myself at a loss to discover the slightest inconsistency between the two 4 Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et narrasset accuratius, Tertullianus Latinorum presbyter primus est ; nempe id vult Hie- ronymus eorum hominum, qui Romae Latind lingua uti solebant, Tertullianus fuit primus presbyter. At hie idem Tertullianus Grcecarum multarum Scriptionum se auctorem dixit ; quomodo igitur Latinorum dicitur primus esse Romanus presbyter 1 Sect. 10. 71 statements. If an author composes three treatises in Greek, and two or three and twenty in Latin, may he not with propriety be classed among Latin writers ? It is probable that Jerome had never met with Tertullian's Greek compositions ; it is nearly certain that Eusebius had not. "But, continues Semler, in the beginning of the Treatise de Testimonio Animse, the author alludes to certain Christian writers, who had employed profane literature, and appealed to the works of the Gentile poets and philosophers in defence of Christianity. 5 This, he contends, is a mere fiction of the author's brain. In vain, he says, shall we seek in the history of the Church for a confirmation of this statement ; in vain try to discover any traces of those learned works by which the early apologists for Christianity asserted its cause. Had such writings ever existed, they could not have been unknown to Eusebius and Jerome; who are, however, entirely silent on the subject." These are bold affirmations. Let us en- 5 Confictum est hoc argumentum universum declamatorum more ; nisi putamus hujus generis scriptores, tarn antiquos, tarn frugiferos, adeo oblivioni statim addictos fuisse, neglectosque et deperditos omnino ; ut ne Eusebius quidem vestigium vel notam talium scriptorum reperire potuerit, qui in isto opere de Prcepara- tione Evangelicd id omnino egit, quod hie Tertullianus dicit suo jam tempore quosdam instituisse. Eusebius vero nihil quicquam ejus rei didicit, nee Hieronymus aliquid reperire potuit. Aude- mus, igitur, statuere scriptorem talia ultro confinxisse, ex suo ingenio rem illam arbitratum. Sect. 10. 72 quire how far they are supported by proof. The Ecclesiastical writers whom Tertullian mentions by name, are c Justin Martyr, Tatian, Miltiades, and Irenreus. All these wrote Treatises in defence of Christianity against Paganism. The works of Justin and Tatian are still extant, and prove their authors to have been, as Lardner expresses himself respecting the latter, 7 " men of reading, and well acquainted with the Greek learning." We are also in possession of the Apology of Athenagoras, and the work of Theophilus against Autolycus ; both of which were prior in time to the Apology of Tertullian, and con- tain, especially the former, frequent references to profane literature, as well as arguments drawn from the heathen philosophy, in defence of Christianity. But the most extraordinary part of Sender's state- ment is that which respects Jerome ; among whose works is 8 an Epistle, entitled ad Magnum Oratorem, and written expressly to defend his own practice of mixing together profane and sacred literature in his writings. In this Epistle he appeals to the authority of preceding Ecclesiastical writers who had pursued the same plan ; mentioning by name Quadratus and Aristides, who presented their Apologies to the Em- peror Adrian, and describing the work of the latter 6 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. He also mentions Clemens Romanus, and Hermas, but they do not appear to have written in defence of Christianity. 7 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 13. 8 Ep. 84. 73 as almost entirely 9 composed of opinions taken from the philosophers. He adds, that Apollinarius, Dio- nysius of Corinth, Titian, Bardesanes, and Irenseus, had carefully pointed out the different philosophical sects to which the origin of each heretical opinion then prevalent might be traced. He states, that Cyprian had even been censured, because in his work against Demetrianus he had confined himself entirely to scriptural testimonies, the authority of which De- metrianus did not acknowledge; and had not ap- pealed to the Poets and Philosophers, whose autho- rity a Heathen could not have disputed. The apologists for Christianity were well aware that no writings which did not bespeak an acquaintance with the learning and philosophy of the age, would gain a moment's attention from a heathen philosopher ; and they accordingly adapted their mode of reasoning to the temper and prejudices of the persons with whom they had to deal. The remarks with which TertuI- lian prefaces his Tract de Testimonio Animse, are meant as an apology for deviating from the es- tablished course ; and appealing, not to the specula- tions of the Philosophers, but to the testimony borne by the soul of man in favour of the doctrines of Christianity. " But ] even, continues Semler, if such works as 9 Contextum Philosophorum sententiis. 1 Pamelii sententiam vel illud evertit ; Tertullianus Roma? 74 those to which Tertullian is supposed to allude, had really existed, since they were written in Greek and at places remote from Rome and Carthage, he could not possibly have procured them." Why not ? Was the communication between the different parts of the Roman Empire so difficult, that years must elapse before a work published in Greece could be known at Rome or Carthage ? Let us hear the opinion of Gib- bon. Speaking of the public roads, as they existed in the time of the Antonines, he says 2 that " they united the subjects of the most distant provinces by an easy and familiar intercourse." With respect to the Christians in particular, he 3 states that by the institution of provincial Synods, which took place towards the end of the second century, a regular correspondence was in the space of a few years esta- blished between the most remote Churches. We find accordingly the Churches of Vienne and Lyons well acquainted with the state of the Asiatic Churches ; and Irenseus, the Bishop of Lyons, acting the part of a mediator between the latter and the Roman pontiff, in the dispute which arose respecting the celebration of Easter. The mention of Irenreus leads me to consider an- Carthagine, tot scriptorum libellos, qui inter Grsecos satis remoti ab istis urbibus vivebant, nancisci non potuit. Sect. 10. 2 Chapter I. p. 51. ed. A to. 3 Chapter XV. p. 491. 75 other of Semler's objections. 4 " Who, he asks, can read the works of Irengeus which are now extant, without being convinced that the author was alike deficient in talent and information ? Yet Tertullian has designated him as a minute enquirer into all kinds of learning (or doctrine). Does not this grossly inapplicable eulogium clearly bespeak the sophist and declaimer?" To this objection we reply, that we are scarcely competent to form an opinion respect- ing the talent of Irenaeus from a work which, with the exception of part of the first Book and some scattered fragments, is extant, not in the original, but in a barbarous Latin translation. From the por- tions of the original which still remain, we should infer that he possessed one of the most useful quali- fications of an author — that of being able to write perspicuously upon a very obscure and unpromising subject. What ground, moreover, is there for sup- posing that Tertullian 3 in pronouncing this eulogium upon Irenseus, referred only to the single work, now extant, against the Gnostics? Eusebius 5 gives a list 4 Quis autem sine taedio et stomacho legat istam declamationem, "Irenaeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator?" Nos certe statuimus, hoc encomium monstro non carere. Ea, quae nobis supersunt, Irenaei profecto hominis ingenium humile et parum excultum prae se ferunt; ista vero Tertulliani nostri scripta sic turgent rerum fere omnium copia et varietate, ut in ipsum hoc maxime conveniat hunc scriptorem id diligenter egisse, ut omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator videretur. Sect. x. 5 Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 26. 7(j of* other works written by him ; and uniformly speaks of him as a person to whose authority great weight was attached, in all Ecclesiastical concerns. But 6 Tertullian, it seems, was not content with praising ; he also borrowed from Irenseus, and that too without acknowledgement. His Treatise against the Valentinians is not merely an imitation ; it is in many places a translation of the first book of that author's work ; yet he gives not the slightest intima- tion of the source from which he has drawn so largely. How are we to account for this extraordinary fact ? Only, as Semler would persuade us, by adopting his theory, that there existed a club of authors who 'sent forth their own productions into the world under borrowed names ; and appeared at one time as the Greek Irenaeus, at another as the Latin Tertullian.' 6 Jam novae rei alius superest observatio, quae non parum facit ad illustrandam hujus suspicionis rationem. Ista enim Irenaei, quae sunt nostris in manibus, scripta, si comparantur cum his Tertulliani nostri, mirifice conveniunt. Scimus autem Tertullia- num istum esse illorum primum qui Irenaei nomen recitant inter scriptores ; nempe omnium, doctrinarum curiosissimum explorato- rem dicebat Irenaeum noster Tertullianus. Si vero ille Irenaeus Lugduni scripsit istos libros adversus haereses, quomodo Tertul- lianus isto jam tempore hoc (1. hos) libros oculis et manibus usur- pavit suis 1 Quo autem jure sic fecit Tertullianus, ut ex Graeco illo textu Irenaei sublegeret sua et Latine repeteret, quae ille cre- ditur scripsisse Greece ? Atque sic quidem, ut ne nominaverit quidem Irenaeum, quern tamen Latine exscribebat? Viderint Lectores quid statuendum putent de ista causa : nobis certe non videtur monstro carere. Sect. xii. 77 But if this were so, whence arises the great inequality which Semler himself has discovered between them ? How comes it that, while the works of Tertullian exhibit 7 such an extent and variety of knowledge ; those of Irenseus, according to Semler, betray a miserable poverty of intellect and learning? The close resemblance between Tertullian and Ire- na;us in the case alluded to, may, in our opinion, be satisfactorily accounted for. The design of the first book of Irenseus, and of Tertullian's Treatise is pre- cisely the same — to explain the doctrine of the Va- lentinians respecting the generation of iEons : and thus, the common subject of the two writers would naturally lead them to pursue the same order, and almost to use the same language. Most strange, in- deed, is Semler's assertion, that Tertullian has not even named 8 Irenaeus ; whom he has named in the 7 See the quotation from Section x. in note 4, p. 75. 8 Nee undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias quas tot jam viri sanctitate et praestantia insignes, nee solum nostri Anteces- sors sed ipsorum Haeresiarcharum contemporales, instructissimis voluminibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt : ut Justinus Philo- sophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum Sophista, ut Irenaeus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas : quos in omni opere fidei, quemadmodum in isto, optaverim assequi. Aut si in totum haereses non sunt, ut qui eas pellunt finxisse credantur, mentietur apostolus praedicator illarum. Porro si sunt, non aliae erunt quam quae retractantur. Nemo tarn otiosus fertur stylo, ut materias habens fingat. Adv. Valentin, c. 5. 78 very passage which Semler quotes, in conjunction with Justin, Miltiades, and Proculus. He there states that all these writers had refuted the Valen- tinians ; and declares that it is his earnest wish to imitate them, not only in this work of faith (the re- futation of heresy) but in all others. He has, there- fore, told his reader, as plainly as he could, that in this Treatise he is only an imitator: and his oc- casional deviations from the statement of Irenseus convince me that he did not borrow from him alone, but also from the other writers whom he has men- tioned. Semler, however, has other objections in reserve, founded on this very passage from the Tract against the Valentinians 9 . "How happens it, that Tertullian 9 Section iv. note 27. Miltiades vero ? Ecquid tandem illud est, Ecclesiarum Sophista ? quid tandem est ? Putamusne Ter- tullianum legisse aliquid hujus Miltiadis ; Miltiadis aliquas scriptiones Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 1. v. c. 17.) ex Rhodone nominat contra Montanum, Priscillam et Maximillam: contra gentes et Judseos ; sed contra Gnosticos aut Haereticos nihil. Cur ergo hie excitatur, quasi scripserit adversus Valentinianos ? Though Eusebius may not have mentioned or seen any work of Miltiades against the Gnostics, such a work may have been known to Tertullian. So this note stood in the first edition. I have since met with a passage in which Eusebius, on the authority of an anonymous author, speaks of Miltiades as having written against the Heretics. kcu aSeXfUv Si nvtov earl ypcipfxara irpecrfivTepn ru>v BiKTopoQ xP° ywp > " EKzirot irpog to. tOvq virep rrjg a\»70£i'ae kcu npog rag tote alpiaeic, eypaipav' Xiyu) ce 'lovorivov, kcu Mikridhov, kcu Tartarov, kcu KXi'ifitvToc, kcu 79 alludes to and speaks respectfully of Miltiades, who, as we learn from Eusebius, composed a work ex- pressly against the Prophecy of Montanus?" This question will perhaps be best answered by another. Would not a forger of writings in Tertullian's name carefully have avoided such an appearance of incon- sistency? The fact appears to be perfectly recon- cileable to the history and character of Tertullian, as far as they can be collected from his writings ; since, 'at the very time when he was defending Montanus against the Church, he constantly professed his agreement with the Church in all fundamental articles of faith. It is wholly irreconcileable to Sem- ler's theory. " But 2 what are we to think of the extraordinary reason assigned by Tertullian for introducing the names of Miltiades and the rest ? He supposes that srepwv itXewvwv kv olc anatri OeoXoytlrai 6 Xptarog. Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 28. 1 De Jejuniis, c. 1. 2 Section iv. note 27. Semler introduces the passage quoted in note 8, p. 77, by the following words : " Ipse hie scriptor videtur (sicut dici solet) se prodere sicut sorex : nam hoc ipso libro ad- versus Valentinianos, c. 5. sic scribit." He then gives the pas- sage at length, and subjoins, " Totus hie locus videtur aliquid monstri prodere. Si omnino Romae alibique vivebant homines haeretici, eos igitur non solus Tertullianus noverat : Christiani alii similiter hanc Haereticorum causam sciebant. Itaque non intel- ligimus qua ratione amoliatur hie scriptor earn suspicionem, qua dici ipse possit sibi finxisse materias." 80 he may be charged with inventing the strange opi- nions which he imputes to the Valentinians ; and thinks it necessary to guard himself against the charge, by appealing to the authority of Justin Martyr, &c. Have we not here a strong indication of the mere sophist and declaimer, aware that he is about to advance statements for which there is no foundation in fact, and anxious to anticipate the feeling of incredulity which their improbability would naturally excite ?" That this construction should be put upon the passage by Semler is not surprising. His theory required that he should so interpret it. But in me it excites no surprise that an author who was about to detail opinions so extra- vagant as those entertained by the Valentinians, should apprehend that his readers might suspect him of attempting to impose upon them the fictions of his own brain as the religious tenets of others. In the Tract de Baptismo, we find Tertullian offering a simi- lar apology for the extravagance of 3 an opinion which he undertakes to refute, and affirming with great solemnity that he had himself heard it advanced. 3 The opinion was proposed in the form of a dilemma. The Apostles did not receive Christian baptism, inasmuch as they were baptized with the baptism of John. Either, therefore, the Apostles have not obtained salvation, or Christian baptism is not of absolute necessity to salvation. After stating the opinion, Tertullian adds, Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi, ne quis me tarn perditum existimet, ut ultro exagitem, libidine styli, quae aliis scrupulum incutiant. c. 12. 81 Semler 4 grounds another argument in support of his theory, on the fact, that a considerable portion of the third book against Marcion, is repeated almost word for word in the Treatise against the Jews. But the difficulties arising out of this fact are not greater on the supposition that Tertullian was the real au- thor of both the works, than on the supposition that they were composed by others in his name. I know no reason why an author should be precluded from repeating the same arguments in the same words, when an occasion presents itself on which they are equally applicable. Such was the case which we are now considering. Both Marcion and the Jews denied, though on different principles, that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. Both, therefore, were to be refuted by shewing that the prophecies respecting the Messiah were actually ac- complished in him ; and this is the object of the two passages in which we find so close a resemblance. When Tertullian had the argument ready stated and arranged to his hand, it would surely have been an egregious waste of time to amuse himself in varying the language : especially as the passages in question consist entirely of expositions of Prophecies. He does, however, make such alterations as the difference of the circumstances under which he is writing appears to require. It should be observed, that the Treatise 4 Section ix. G 82 adversus Judseos is expressly quoted by 5 Jerome, as the work of Tertullian. It would be foreign from the immediate object of this volume, to discuss the 6 reasons assigned by Sem- ler for asserting, that the works now extant under the names of Justin and Irenseus contain manifest plagiarisms from Clemens Alexandrinus, and that they are consequently spurious. He admits that they are quoted as genuine by 7 Eusebius ; and this cir- cumstance alone will probably, in the opinion of sober critics, outweigh a thousand conjectures un- supported by positive evidence. I have devoted so much time to the examination of Sender's Dissertation, not on account of s its in- trinsic value, which I am far from estimating highly, but out of regard to the distinguished place which has been assigned him among Biblical critics. His object evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin, Irenseus, and Tertullian : but he does not fairly and openly avow it ; he envelopes himself in a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious language, designed to insi- 5 In his Comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel. 6 Section xiv. xv. xvi. 7 Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 8; 1. iv. c. 18. 8 The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertation is, in my opinion, that which relates to Tertullian's quotations from Scrip- ture, and to the Latin Version from which he derived them ; to this I shall perhaps recur hereafter. 1 83 nuate more than it expresses. The reader finds his former opinions unsettled, yet is not told what he is to substitute in their place ; and is thus left in a disagreeable state of doubt and perplexity. Had Semler contented himself with saying, that Tertullian, in his Tract against the Valentinians, had done nothing more than copy the statements of preceding writers, and consequently could not be deemed an independant witness to the tenets of those Heretics — had he said, with respect to our author's writings in general, that the natural vehe- mence of his temper betrayed him into exaggeration, and caused him to indulge in a declamatory tone, which renders it often difficult to determine to what extent his expressions are to be literally understood, and his statements received as matters of fact — had Semler even gone further, and contended that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that 9 Irenseus and Tertullian had, either through ignorance or design, occasionally misrepresented the opinions of the Gnostics, and imputed to them absurdities and extravagances of which they were never guilty— had he confined his assertions within these limits, they would probably have met with the concurrence of all who are conversant with the subject. But when 3 We should always bear in mind, that far the greater por- tion of the work of Irenaeus is extant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under heavy suspicions of interpolation. G 2 84 he proceeds, upon surmises such as we have been now considering and in opposition to the unanimous voice of Ecclesiastical antiquity, to denounce the writings of Irenseus and Tertullian as the offspring of fraud and imposture — as the productions of men who had combined together for the purpose of film- ing forgeries on the world — he overleaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism, and opens a door to universal incredulity. CHAPTER II. ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. Having in the preceding chapter laid before the reader an account of the Life and Writings of Tertullian, we shall now proceed, in conformity with the arrangement adopted by Mosheim, to collect from his works such passages as serve to illustrate the external history of the Church during the period in which he flourished. ! In the first place then, he bears explicit testimony to the wide diffusion of Christianity in his day. To refute the charges of disloyalty and disaffection to the Emperors which had been brought against the Christians, he thus appeals to the patience with which they bore the injuries and cruelties inflicted on them. 2 " Not," he 1 Obsessam vociferantur civitatem : in agris, in castellis, in insulis Christianos : omnera sexum, setatem, conditionem, etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrimento mcerent. Apology, c. 1. 2 Quid tamen de tarn conspiratis unquam denotastis, &c. ? Apology, c. 37- 86 says, " that we are destitute of the means of resist- ance, if our Christian principles allowed us to resort to them. Though we date our existence only from yesterday, we have filled every part of your empire ; we are to be found in your cities, your islands, your camps, your palaces, your forum So great are our numbers, that we might successfully contend with you in open warfare ; but were we only to with- draw ourselves from you, and to remove by common consent to some remote corner of the globe, our mere secession would be sufficient to accomplish your destruction, and to avenge our cause. You would be left without subjects to govern, and would tremble at the solitude and silence around you — at the awful stillness of a dead world." In another place Tertullian tells 3 Scapula, the Proconsul of Africa, that if the persecution against the Christians were persisted in, the effect would be to decimate the inhabitants of Carthage. 4 He elsewhere speaks also of tlie immense revenue which might be col- lected, if each Christian was allowed to purchase 3 Ad Scapulam, c. 5. In c. 2. speaking of the Christians, he says, quum tanta hominum multitudo, pars pene major civi- tatis cujusque, in silentio et modestia agimus. 4 Tanta quotidie serario augendo prospiciuntnr remedia cen- suum, vectigalium, collationum, stipendiorum : nee unquam usque adhuc ex Christianis tale aliquid prospectum est, sub aliquam redemptionem capitis et sectse redigendis, quum tantae multitudinis nemini ignotae fructus ingens meti possit. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 12. 87 the free exercise of his religion for a sum of money. After we have made all reasonable allowance for any exaggeration into which Tertullian may have been betrayed, either by the natural vehemence of his temper, or by his anxiety to enhance in the eyes of the Roman governors the importance of the cause which he is pleading, the above cited passages will justify the belief that the Christians in his day com- posed a numerous and respectable portion of the subjects of Rome. Nor were the triumphs of the Gospel confined within the limits of the Roman Empire. 5 " Christ is preached among the barba- rians" — is the incidental, and therefore less suspicious expression of Tertullian. 6 " We witness," he says, while arguing against the Jews, "the accomplish- ment of the words of the Psalmist (as applied by St. Paul), ' their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.' For not only the various countries from which worship- pers were collected at Jerusalem on the day of Pen- tecost, but the most distant regions have received the faith of Christ. He reigns among people whom the Roman arms have never yet subdued : among 5 Et apud barbaros enim Christus. De Corona, c. 12. 6 Adversus Judaeos, c. 7. Quern exaudierunt omnes gentes, id est, cui omnes gentes crediderunt, cujus et prsedicatores Apos- toli in Psalmis David ostenduntur, &c. 88 the different tribes of Getulia and Mauritania, — in the furthest extremities of Spain, and Gaul, and Britain, — among the Sarmatians, Dacians, Germans, and Scythians,— in countries and islands scarcely known to us by name." The language is declama- tory ; yet such a representation would not have been hazarded, unless it had been realised to a consider- able extent, in the actual state of Christianity. In speaking of the numerous converts continually added to the Church, and of the extension of its limits, Tertullian contents himself for the most part with simply stating the fact. Convinced of the divine origin of the Gospel, he ascribed the triumphs of the cross to the power of God bringing to pass in the fulness of time the events which had been foretold by the Prophets; without deeming it ne- cessary to go in quest of secondary causes of the rapid progress of Christianity. But though he has not expressly directed his attention to the develop- ment of the means, which the Almighty was pleased to employ in the establishment of the empire of the Gospel, we may collect from his writings much inte- resting information on the subject. The success which attended the preaching of the Apostles, and their immediate successors, is doubtless to be principally ascribed to the supernatural powers, by the exercise of which they proved their divine 89 commission. But the writings of Tertullian furnish little reason for supposing, that the preachers of the Gospel in his day were indebted for their success to the display of similar powers. He asserts indeed that Christians possessed 7 the power of expelling Daemons, of curing diseases, of 8 healing the wounds occasioned by the bites of serpents : but he casts a doubt upon the accuracy of his own statement by ascribing to Christians in general those extraordinary gifts which, even in the days of the Apostles appear to have been confined to Them, and 9 to the Disciples upon whom they laid their hands. The miraculous powers conferred upon the Apos- 7 Edatur hie aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quern dsemone agi constat. Jussus a quolibet Christiano loqui, Spiritus ille tarn se dsemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi Deum de falso. Apology, c. 23. See also cc. 37. 43. Quod calcas Deos na- tionum, quckl daemonia expellis, quod medicinas facis, de Spec- taculis, c. 29. de Testimonio Animse, c. 3. ad Scapulam, c. 2. de Corona, c. 11. de Idololatria, c. 11. 8 Nobis fides prsesidium, si non et ipsa percutitur diffidentia signandi statim et adjurandi et unguendi bestiae calcem. Hoc denique modo etiam Ethnicis saepe subvenimus, donati a Deo ea potestate quam Apostolus dedicavit, quum morsum viperae sprevit. Scorpiace, c. 1. 9 It is not intended by this remark to convey the idea that all upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were endowed with miraculous powers ; but that the imposition of hands was the mode in which the Apostles communicated those powers to others. See Acts vi. G. (compared with vi. 8. and viii. 6.) viii. 17, 18. xix. 6. 90 ties were the credentials, by which they were to prove that they were the bearers of a new Revela- tion from God to man ; and thus to mark the com- mencement of a new sera in the order of divine dis- pensations. ' We might, therefore, infer from the purpose for which they were conferred, that they would in process of time be withdrawn. That they have been withdrawn is a fact which few Protestants will controvert, though great difference of opinion prevails respecting the precise period to which we must refer this important alteration in the circum- stances of the Church. Gibbon has endeavoured to convert what he terms the insensibility of the Chris- tians to the cessation of miraculous gifts, into an argument against their existence at any period. 1 A view somewhat similar seems to have been taken by Pascal in the following extract from his Pensees, which has been pointed out to me by a learned friend. Jesus Christ a fait des iniracles, et les Apotres en-suite, et les premiers Saints en ont fait aussi beaucoup : parce que les Proprieties n'etant pas encore accomplies et s'accomplissant par eux, rien ne rendoit temoignage que les Miracles. II etoit predit que le Messie convertiroit les nations. Comment cette pro- phetie se fut-elle accomplie sans la conversion des nations ? et comment les nations se iussent-elles converties au Messie, ne voyant pas ce dernier effet des Proprieties qui le prouvent ? Avant done qu'il fut mort, qu'il fut resuscite, et que les nations fussent converties, tout n'etoit pas accompli. Et ainsi il a fallu des miracles pendant tout ce tems-la. Maintenant il n'en faut plus pour prouver la verite de la Religion Chretienne : car les Proprieties accomplies sont un miracle subsistant. Diverses preuves de Jesus Christ, c. 16. 91 " So 2 extraordinary an event must," he argues, " have excited universal attention ; and caused the time at which it happened to be precisely ascertained and noted. But in vain do we consult Ecclesiastical History, in the hope of assigning a limit to the period during which supernatural powers subsisted in the Church : we find pretensions to them advanced in every age, and supported by testimony no less weighty and respectable than that of the age which preceded it." The inference, which he manifestly intends his reader to draw, is that, as pretensions to miraculous gifts had been asserted in all ages, and continued to be asserted even at the time when he wrote and every reasonable man was convinced of their cessation, those pretensions were in all ages equally unfounded. The argument is plausible, and is urged with the author's wonted ingenuity and address. Yet the supposition, that miraculous powers were gradually withdrawn from the Church, appears in a great measure to account for the uncertainty which has prevailed respecting the period of their cessation. To adopt the language of undoubting confidence on such a subject, would be a mark no less of folly, than presumption; but I may be allowed to state 2 Chap. xv. p. 477. ed. 4to. We have given only the pur port of Gibbon's observations. 92 the conclusion to which I have myself been led, by a comparison of the statements in the book of Acts, with the writings of the Fathers of the second cen- tury. My conclusion then is, that the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the dis- ciples, upon whom the Apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands. As the number of those disciples gradually diminished, the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers became continually less frequent ; and ceased entirely at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the Apos- tles had been laid. That event would, in the natural course of things, take place before the middle of the second century : at a time when, Christianity having obtained a footing in all the provinces of the Roman Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon its first teachers had performed their appropriate office — that of proving to the world that a New Revelation had been given from heaven. What then would be the effect produced upon the minds of the great body of Christians by their gradual cessation ? Many would not observe, none would be willing to observe it ; for all must naturally feel a reluctance to believe that powers, which had contributed so essentially to the rapid diffusion of Christianity, were withdrawn. They who remarked the cessation of miracles, would probably succeed in persuading themselves that it was only temporary, and designed by an all-wise Providence to be the prelude to a more abundant 93 effusion of supernatural gifts upon the Church. Or if doubts and misgivings crossed their minds, they would still be unwilling openly to state a fact, which might shake the stedfastness of the friends, and would certainly be urged by the enemies of the Gos- pel, as an argument against its Divine Origin. They would pursue the plan which has been pursued by Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenseus, &c. ; they would have recourse to general assertions of the existence of supernatural powers, without attempting to pro- duce a specific instance of their exercise. The silence of Ecclesiastical history, respecting the ces- sation of miraculous gifts in the Church, is to be ascribed, not to the insensibility of Christians to that important event, but to the combined operation of prejudice and policy — of prejudice which made them reluctant to believe, of policy which made them anxious to conceal the truth. Let me repeat, that I offer these observations with that diffidence in my own conclusions, which ought to be the predominant feeling in the mind of every enquirer into the ways of Providence. I collect from passages already cited from the book of Acts, that the power of working miracles was conferred by the hands of the Apostles only; and consequently ceased with the last disciple on whom their hands were laid. 3 1 perceive in the language of the Fa- 3 In confirmation of this remark, I refer the reader to the following passages of Tertullian's works. In the Tract de 94 thers, who lived in the middle and end of the second century, when speaking on this subject, something Pudicitia, he is contending that the Church possesses not the power of pardoning certain offences ; but foreseeing that the example of the Apostles, who had pardoned those offences, might be objected to him, he thus anticipates the objection. " Itaque si et ipsos beatos Apostolos tale aliquid indulsisse constaret, cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine, competeret, non ex disciplina, sed ex potestate fecisse." The meaning is, that the Apostles pardoned those offences, not in the ordinary course of Church discipline, but by a peculiar power vested in themselves. " Nam et mortuos suscitaverunt, quod Deus solus : et debiles redinte- graverunt, quod nemo nisi Christus : immo et plagas inflixerunt, quod noluit Christus ; non enim decebat eum saevire qui pati venerat. Percussus est Ananias et Elymas, Ananias morte, Elymas caecitate, ut hoc ipso probaretur Christum et haec facere potuisse. Sic et prophetae caedem et cum ea meechiam pceni- tentibus ignoverant, quia et severitatis documenta fecerunt. Exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica (f. legendum Apostolica et Prophetica) exempla, et (f. ut) agnoscam divini- tatem, et vindica tibi delictorum ejusmodi remittendorum potes- tatem. Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus es, nee impe- rio praesidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere ? qui neque Prophetam, nee Apostolum exhibens, cares ea virtute cujus est indulgere, c. 21. It is evident that the whole argu- ment proceeds on the supposition, that the miraculous powers, which had been exerted by the Prophets and Apostles, no longer subsisted ; since, if they did subsist, the individual possessing them might exercise the Apostolic or Prophetic privilege of pardoning the offences in question. Again in c. 22. Sic enim Dominus potestatem suam ostendit : " quid cogitatis nequam in cordibus vestris ? Quid enim facilius est dicere Paralytico, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, aut surge et ambula ? Igitur ut sciatis filium hominis habere dimittendorum peccatorum in terra potestatem, tibi dico, Paralytice, surge et ambula." (Matt, ix.) Si Dominus tantum de potestatis suae probatione curavit, ut traduceret cogitatus et ita imperaret sanitatem, ne non crederetur posse delicta dimittere ; non licet mihi eandem potes- tatem in aliquo sine iisdem probationibus credere. In the Tract 95 which betrays, if not a conviction, at least a suspi- cion, that the power of working miracles was with- drawn, combined with an anxiety to keep up a belief of its continuance in the Church. They affirm in general terms, that miracles were performed, but rarely venture to produce an instance of a particular miracle. Those who followed them were less scru- pulous, and proceeded to invent miracles ; very differ- ent indeed in circumstances and character from the miracles of the Gospel, yet readily believed by men who were not disposed nicely to examine into the evidence of facts which they wished to be true. The success of the first attempts naturally encouraged others to practise similar impositions upon the cre- dulity of mankind. In every succeeding age mira- cles multiplied in number, and increased in extrava- gance ; till at length, 4 by their frequency, they lost all title to the name, since they could no longer be considered as deviations from the ordinary course of nature. But to return to Tertullian. The only specific instances which he mentions, of the exercise of supernatural powers, relate to the exorcism of da> de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, where Tertullian calls upon the Heretics to declare what miracles had been wrought by the founders of their several sects, it is worthy of remark that he does not appeal to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in his own day, c. 30. See also c. 44. 4 Gibbon, c. xxviii. p. 99. ed. 4to. 96 mons. He is contending in 5 the Apology, that the gods of the heathen are no other than daemons ; of which assertion he offers the following proof. " Bring," he says, " before your tribunals a man possessed with a daemon : the evil spirit, if com- manded by a Christian, will speak and confess himself a daemon. In like manner produce a person sup- posed to be inspired by one of your deities : he too will not dare to give a false reply to a Christian, but will confess that his inspiration proceeds from a daemon," In the 6 Tract de Spectaculis, we find a story of a female who went to the theatre, and returned possessed by a daemon. The unclean spirit, when asked by the exorcist how he dared to assault a Christian, replied, " I was justified in so doing, for I found her on my own ground 7 ." Surely if miraculous powers still subsisted in the 5 c. 23. quoted p. 89, in note 7. 6 Nam et exemplum accidit, Domino teste, ejus mulieris quae theatrum adiit et inde cum dsemonio rediit. Itaque in exorcismo quum oneraretur immundus Spiritus quod ausus esset fidelem adgredi. " Constanter et justissime quidem," inqviit, "feci: in meo earn inveni," c. 26. 7 See also the Tract ad Scapulam, c. 4. Nam et cujusdam notarius, quum a daemone praacipitaretur, liberatus est ; et quo- rundam propinquus et puerulus. Et quanti honesti viri de vul- garibus enim non dicimus, aut a dsemoniis aut valetudinibus remediati sunt ! In the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 12. sub fine, is a story of a man who married a second wife under the idea that she was barren ; but she proved pregnant ; preter- naturally as our author would insinuate. See also two stories in the Tract de Anima, c. 51. 97 Church, the writings of Tertullian would have sup- plied some less equivocal instances of their exercise. Gibbon 8 has animadverted on the evasions of Middleton respecting the clear traces of visions, to be found in the Apostolic Fathers. Yet it appears to me that Middleton might have admitted their existence, without any detriment to the main posi- tion of his Essay. His object was to prove, that, after the Apostolic age, no standing power of work- ing miracles existed in the Church — that there was no regular succession of favoured individuals upon whom God conferred supernatural powers ; which they could exercise for the benefit of the Church of Christ, whenever their judgment, guided by the in- fluence of the Holy Spirit, told them that it was expedient so to do. This position is perfectly com- patible with the belief that God still revealed him- self in dreams to pious members of the Church, for- their especial comfort and instruction. The distinc- tion between the two cases has been expressly pointed out by Middleton himself. When, however, we examine the visions recorded in Tertullian's writings, we shall feel great difficulty in believing that they were revelations from heaven. 9 He mentions a Christian female to whom visions were frequently 8 Chap. xv. note 71. 9 De Anima, c. 9. H 9S vouchsafed in the time of divine service. They related for the most part to points which had formed the subject of previous discussion. On one occa- sion, a question having arisen respecting the soul, it was exhibited to her in a corporeal state. He Hells another story of a female, who saw in a dream a linen cloth, on which was inscribed, with accom- panying expressions of reprobation, the name of an actor whom she had heard that very day at the theatre : Tertullian adds, that she did not survive the dream five days. 2 An unfortunate man, whose servants, on the occasion of some public rejoicing, had, without his knowledge, suspended garlands over his doors, was, for this involuntary offence, severely chastised in a vision : 3 and a female, who had somewhat too liberally displayed her person, was thus addressed by an angel in a dream, Cervices, quasi applauderet, verberans : " Elegantes, inquit, cervices, et merito nudse." It should be observed, that all these visions are introduced in confirmation of some opinion for which Tertullian is at the time contending. His enthusiastic temper readily dis- covered in them indications of a Divine Origin : the unprejudiced reader will probably come to a different conclusion. 1 De Spectaculis, c. 26. 2 De Idololatria, c. 15. 3 De Virginibus velandis, c. 17. 99 But though miraculous gifts might have ceased in the Church, the Almighty might still interpose for its protection, and for the advancement of its interests, by especial and visible manifestations of his power. An instance of such interposition is recorded in the writings of Tertullian, which is generally known by the name of the Miracle of the Thunder- ing Legion. He asserts in 4 the Apology, as well as in 5 the Address to Scapula, that Marcus Anto- ninus became a protector of the Christians ; because during his expedition into Germany, he together with his army was preserved from perishing with thirst, by a seasonable shower of rain, procured by the prayers of his Christian soldiers. In support of his assertion, he appeals to a Letter of the Emperor, in which the deliverance of the army was ascribed to this cause ; he does not, however, affirm that he had himself seen the letter. The story has been repeated by subsequent writers; and has received, as might be expected, considerable additions in the transmission. 6 Not only were the Roman 4 At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si literae M. Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur, c. 5. See Mosbeim de Reb. ante Constant. Saec. Sec. c. 17. Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanica expeditione, Chris- tianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis, imbres in siti ilia impetravit, c. 4. 6 Hist. Eccl. Eusebii, L. v. c. 5. Apollinarius, who was prior to Tertullian, appears to have mentioned the storm of thunder and lightning. h2 100 soldiers preserved by the seasonable shower ; but the army of the enemy was destroyed by a storm of thunder and lightning which accom- panied it. That during the German war the Roman army suffered severely from want of water, and was re- lieved from a situation of great peril by a seasonable shower of rain, is a fact which does not rest on the single authority of Tertullian. It is recorded by several profane writers, and confirmed by the indis- putable testimony of the Antonine Column. Nor was Tertullian singular in regarding the event as preternatural : the heathen historians did the same. But while Tertullian ascribes the deliverance of the Emperor to the prayers of his Christian soldiers, 7 Dion Cassius gives the credit of it to certain magical rites performed by an Egyptian, named Arnuphis; and on the Antonine column it is attributed to the immediate interposition of Jupiter Pluvius. This latter circumstance completely disproves Tertullian's statement respecting the existence of a letter, in which the Emperor ascribed his deliverance to the prayers of his Christian soldiers — a statement indeed neither reconcileable to his general character, nor to the harsh treatment experienced by the Chris- tians during his reign. 7 See the Epitome of Dion by Xiphilinus. Marcus Antoninus, p. 246. C. Ed. H. Steph. 1508. 101 Referring the reader to 8 Lardner for a full ac- count of all that has been said by learned men on the subject of this story, I shall content myself with remarking, that, as told by Tertullian, it contains nothing miraculous. The Roman army was reduced to great extremity — the Christian soldiers who were present put up prayers to God for deliverance — and a seasonable shower of rain relieved the army from its perilous situation. Tertullian indeed wishes his reader to infer, that the shower was the consequence of the prayers of the Christian soldiers ; that unless they had prayed, the shower would not have fallen. But this is to assume an acquaintance with the de- signs of Providence, which man can obtain only by immediate Revelation. The pious mind, persuaded that the course of this world is ordered by the Divine governance, naturally has recourse to prayer in the hour of danger : and after the danger is passed, it pours forth its gratitude to God for having so ordered events as to admit of a compliance with its petitions. But it presumes not to ascribe such efficacy to its prayers as would imply that God had been induced by them to alter the course of his government. To represent events, which are in themselves of a character strictly natural, a storm for instance, or an earthquake, as produced by an especial inter- position of divine power, exerted in compliance 8 Heathen Testimonies, Marcus Antoninus, Sect. 3. 102 with the prayers of men is, to speak the language, not of genuine piety, but of superstition. Yet such was the language of Tertullian's day. We find in his writings numerous instances of the same dispo- sition to ascribe events to the immediate interference of the Almighty. 9 The Christians in Africa had been deprived of their burial grounds ; Tertullian represents a total failure of the harvest, which occurred shortly after, as a punishment inflicted upon the Pagan inhabitants for this act of injustice. 1 He accounts in a similar manner for an extraordi- nary quantity of rain which had fallen in the year preceding that in which his Address to Scapula was written. He speaks of flames which appeared to hang by night over the walls of Carthage, and of an almost total extinction of the sun's light at Utica, and discovers in them infallible presages of the impending wrath of Heaven. To the same wrath he imputes the calamities which had befallen those Roman governors who had been particularly active in their persecution of the Christians. I shall tal^e this opportunity of offering a few 9 Sicut et sub Hilariano praeside, quum de areis sepulturarum nostrarum adclamassent, " Arece non sint," Arese ipsorum non fuerunt ; messes enim suas non egerunt. Our author plays upon the double meaning of the word Area, which signifies a threshing-floor, as well as an enclosure. Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 1 Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 103 remarks upon another fact, not of a miraculous nature, related by Tertullian. He says, in 2 the Apology, that the Emperor Tiberius, having received from Palestine an account of those supernatural events which proved the Divinity of Christ, proposed to the Senate that he should be received among the deities of Rome — that the Senate rejected the proposal — that Tiberius retained his opinion, and menaced all who brought accusations against the Christians. 3 In another passage Tertullian states 2 Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in seculum introivit, annuntiata sibi ex Syria. Palestina, quae illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad Senatum cum praerogativa suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus Chris- tianorum, c. 5. In this passage Pearson would read " quia non in se probaverat," for " quia non ipse probaverat," and interpret the sentence thus : The Senate rejected the proposal, because Ti- berius had not approved a similar proposal in his own case — had himself refused to be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning, even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes, " Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur, nisi a Senatu probatus," shews that ipse refers to Senatus : the Senate refused, because it had not itself approved the proposal ; and so the passage was translated in the Greek Version used by Eusebius. 3 Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua con- scientia Christianus, Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit. Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent seculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares, c. 21. Mr. Woodham doubts whether these words warrant the inference which I have drawn in the text. He understands Tertullian to reason thus : — " That the existence of the Caesars in their imperial character was absolutely necessary to the times (the status sacculi, &c.) ; that with such character Christian faith 104 that the account was sent to Tiberius by Pilate, who was in his conscience a Christian ; and adds an expression which implies that worldly considerations alone prevented Tiberius from believing in Christ. The story is repeated by 4 Eusebius, who appeals to Tertullian as his authority for it. 5 Lardner, after a detailed examination of the objections which have been made to its truth, pronounces it deserving regard. 6 Mosheim also seems to be of opinion that it ought not to be entirely rejected. Gibbon treats it as a mere fable ; but some of his arguments appear to me far from convincing. One is founded on a mis- representation of Tertullian's statement : 7 " We are required," says Gibbon, " to believe that Tiberius protected the Christians from the severity of the laws many years before such laws were enacted, or before the church had assumed any distinct name or was essentially incompatible, and that, therefore, a superintend- ing Providence ordered matters accordingly." I cannot, how- ever, but think, that there is a particular reference to the case of Tiberius. Tertullian had just said, that Pilate being "pro sua conscientid Christianus," had given an account of Christ's cruci- fixion, resurrection, and ascension to Tiberius, who was then Csesar. He adds, " Sed et Csesares credidissent super Christo." Though he speaks in the plural number, he seems to me to have the case of Tiberius especially in his eye, and to mean that, as Pilate believed, so Tiberius would have believed, if he had not felt that the Christian life was incompatible with the exercise of imperial power. I state, however, this opinion with diffidence. 4 Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c. 2. 5 Heathen Testimonies, c. 2. 6 Ecclesiastical History, Cent. I. c. 4. 7 Chap. xvi. p. 556. Ed. lto. 105 existence." Now Tertullian says not a word about any protection, from the severity of the laws, afforded by Tiberius to the Christians ; he merely says that Tiberius threatened all who accused them. This threat appears to me to have referred to the in- veterate hostility manifested by the Jews against Christ and his Disciples ; which had come to the emperor's knowledge through the account transmitted by Pilate. Tertullian could not intend to say that any laws against the Christians were in force during the reign of Tiberius ; since he has declared 8 more than once that Nero was the first emperor who enacted any such laws. I must, however, confess my own opinion to be, that the story is liable to just suspicion. It rests entirely on the authority of Ter- tullian. How happened it that so remarkable a fact, as a public proposal from the Emperor to the Senate to receive Christ among the Gods of Rome, escaped the notice of every other writer? Justin Martyr, who 9 on two different occasions appeals to what he calls the Acts of Pilate, in confirmation of the Gospel- narrative of our Saviour's sufferings and miracles, is silent respecting the proposal of Tiberius to the Senate. 6 Apology, cc. 5. 21. ad Nat. L. i. c. 7. Scorpiace, c 15. 9 Apol. I. pp. 76. C. 84. C. The Acts of Pilate here referred to were the daily transactions of his government, registered in a book, a copy of which was probably sent to Rome. 106 But to proceed with the information supplied by Tertullian's works respecting the causes which con- tributed to the rapid growth of Christianity, during the latter part of the second century. We have seen that they furnish no ground for ascribing the success of its teachers at that period to the exercise of miraculous powers. They enable us, however, to ascertain, that by the pious zeal and diligence of its professors, powerful engines had been set at work to promote the diffusion of the Gospel. Of these, 1 Mosheim has noticed two : the translation of the New Testament into different languages, and the composition of numerous Apologies for the Christian Faith. The writings of Tertullian, which contain quotations from nearly all the Books of the New Testament, 2 render it highly probable that a Latin translation existed in his day. By such a translation the history and doctrines of the Gospel would be 1 Century II. Part. I. c. i. 2 Semler indeed insinuates that the works, extant under Tertullian's name, contain the first specimens of a Latin trans- lation. " Itaque videmur hie ipsa primordia Latince Transla- tionis occupare et deprehendere." And again, " aut illud scivit (Tertullianus) tarn pauca esse adhuc Evangelii Latini exemplaria (nulla forte alia, quam hoc primum, suum ipsius) &c." Sect. 4. Yet he asserts that Tertullian, or whoever the author might be, never used a Greek MS. ; De eo enim satis jam certi sumus, etsi solent viri docti aliter statuere, hunc scriptorem oculis suis manibusque nunquam usurpasse Gicecum ullum codicem Evan- geliorum aut Epistolarum, &c. Ibid. 107 rendered accessible to a large portion of the subjects of the Roman empire, who had previously derived their notions of the New Religion only from report ; and that perhaps the report of enemies, anxious to misrepresent it. They were now enabled to judge for themselves, and to perceive how admirably all its precepts are adapted to promote the well-being of society, and to diffuse universal happiness. The favourable impression, produced upon the minds of men by the perusal of the Sacred Books, was doubt- less confirmed and increased by the numerous Apolo- gies for Christianity, to which Mosheim alludes. Among these the Apology of Tertullian has always held a distinguished place ; and there is perhaps no better mode of conveying to the mind of the reader an accurate notion of the general condition of the Christians in the second century — of the difficulties with which they had to contend, and of the principles on which they acted — than by laying before him a brief summary of its contents. It will be necessary, however, to offer by way of preface a few remarks respecting what may be called the Legal Position of the Christians at that period ; or the point of view in which they were regarded by the Roman laws. Mosheim 3 says, that "in the beginning of the second century there were no laws in force against the Christians; for the Senate had annulled the cruel 3 Century II. Part I. c. 2. 108 edicts of Nero, and Nerva had abrogated the sanguinary laws of his predecessor Domitian." ''Gib- bon also infers from Pliny's celebrated letter to Tra- jan, that, when the former accepted the government of Bithynia, " there were no general laws or decrees of the Senate in force against the Christians ; and that neither Trajan nor any of his virtuous prede- cessors, whose edicts were received into the civil and criminal jurisprudence, had publicly declared their intentions concerning the new Sect." If, however, we can attach any weight to the statements of Ter- tullian, the conclusions both of Gibbon and Mosheim are erroneous. In 5 the first Book ad Nationes, Tertullian expressly says, that, while all the other edicts of Nero had been repealed, that against the Christians alone remained in force. In the 6 Apology, after having stated that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who had persecuted the Chris- tians, he says, 7 as we have already seen, that Marcus Antoninus became their protector in consequence of the miraculous deliverance of his army in the German expedition. 8 " Not," he adds, " that the 4 Chap. xvi. p. 540. Ed. 4to. s Et tamen permansit, omnibus erasis, hoc solum institutum Neronianum, &c. c. 7. Compare the Apology, c. 4. Sed quoniam, quum ad omnia occurrit Veritas nostra, postremo legum obstruitur auctoritas adversus earn, &c. 6 c. 5. Tertullian says that Domitian's persecution was of short duration, and that the Emperor himself put a stop to it. 7 p. 99. 8 Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus pcenam dimovit, ita 109 emperor abrogated the punishment enacted against them ; but he indirectly did away its effect, by denouncing a heavier punishment against their ac- cusers. What then," our author proceeds, "are we to think of laws which none but the impious, the un- just, the vile, the cruel, the trifling, the insane enforce ? of which Trajan partly frustrated the effect by forbidding all enquiries to be made after Chris- tians ? which neither Adrian, though a searcher out of all new and curious doctrines, nor Vespasian, though the conqueror of the Jews, nor Pius, nor Verus, called into operation ? " The whole tenor of this passage manifestly assumes the existence of laws which, though generally allowed to slumber by the justice and humanity of the emperors, might yet at any moment be converted into instruments where- with to injure and oppress the Christians. It is evident also from 9 Pliny's letter and Trajan's answer, alio modopalam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore. Quales ergo leges istce, quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii, injusti, turpes, truces, vani, dementes ? quas Trajanusex parte frustratus est, vetando inquiri Christianos; quas nullus Hadrianus, quanquam curiositatum omnium explo- rator ; nullus Vespasianus, quanquam Judseorum debellator ; nullus Pius, nullus Verus impressit. Apol. c. 5. Quoties enim in Christianos desaevitis, partim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? c. 37. Quis denique de nobis alio nomine queritur? quod aliud negotium patitur Christianus, nisi suae sectae ? Ad Scapulam, c. 4. 9 Pliny's words are, Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani ; confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus : perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecunque no that the only offence laid to their charge by the informers was their religion ; and that, in the estima- tion both of the emperor and the proconsul, the mere profession of Christianity constituted a crime deserving punishment. But whether there were, or were not, any laws in force, expressly directed against the Christians, it is certain that their situation was most precarious. It appears indeed to have depended in a great measure on the temper and disposition of the governor of the province in which they lived. If he happened to be rapacious, or bigoted, or cruel, it was easy for him to gratify his favourite passion, by enforcing against the Christians the penalties of laws, originally enacted without any reference to them; such, for instance, as ' Trajan's edict against companies and associations, and the 2 law which forbade the introduction of any new Deity, whose worship had not been approved by the senate. 3 If on the contrary he was just and esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et inflexibilem obstina- tionem debere puniri. L. x. Ep. 97. Trajan answers, Conquirendi non sunt ; si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt. 1 See Pliny's Letter above cited, and the Apology, cc. 38, 39, 40, where our author complains of the injustice of classing the Christians among the illegal associations, illicitae factiones. See also the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13. Nisi forte in Senatus- consulta et in Principum mandata, coitionibus opposita, delin- quimus. 2 See the Apology, c. 5, quoted in note 2, p. 103. 3 In the Address to Scapula, c. 4, are recorded the names of several governors, who displayed great lenity in their treatment Ill humane, he discountenanced all informations against them, suggested to them the answers which they ought to return when brought before the tribunals, and availed himself of every pretext for setting them at liberty. Thus while in one part of the empire they were suffering the most dreadful persecution, in an- other they were at the very same moment enjoying a certain degree of ease and security. 4 For even the power of the governors was not always sufficient to ensure their safety, or to prevent them from fall- ing victims to the angry passions of the populace ; at all times difficult to be repressed, but rising to an ungovernable pitch of fury at the celebration of the public games and festivals. On these occasions the intimidated magistrates too often deemed it expedient to yield to the clamorous demands of the multitude ; and to gratify its sanguinary impatience by sus- of the Christians ; but the latter appear to have regarded the evasions, suggested by the kindness of their judges, with distrust, as the devices of Satan to shake their stedfastness and to betray them into a criminal compromise of their faith. See the Apo- logy, c. 27. Scorpiace, c. 11. 1 Quoties etiam, praeteritis vobis, suo jure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis ? Apology, c. 37. Nee ulli magis depostulatores Christianorum quam vulgus. c. 35. Neque enim statim et a populo eris tutus, si officia militaria redemeris. De Fuga in Persec. c. 14. Odisse debemus istos conventus et ccetus Ethnicorum, vel quod illic nomen Dei blasphematur, illic in nos quotidiani leones expostulantur, inde persecutiones decernuntur, inde tentationes emittuntur. De Spectaculis, c. 27. Ne non sint qui exclamant, Christiani ad bestias. De Exhort. Castitat. c. 12. 112 pending the tardy forms of law, and delivering the Christians to instant death. The Apology of Tertullian is, 5 as has been already observed, addressed to the governors of Proconsular Africa, and we learn 6 from the commencement that their attention and jealousy had been excited by the increasing number of the Christians; but that, instead of being induced to enquire into the real nature of a religion which attracted so many proselytes, they suffered themselves to be hurried away by their prejudices, and condemned it unheard. 7 So great indeed was their ignorance, that they mistook even the name of the new sect ; calling those who belonged to it, not Christiani, but Chrestiani. 8 Ter- tullian exposes with great power of argument and eloquence, the injustice of punishing Christians merely because they were Christians ; without enquiring whether their doctrines were in themselves deserving of hatred and punishment. 9 He complains that in their case alone all the established forms of law were set aside, and all the rules usually observed in the administration of justice violated. Other criminals were heard in their own defence, and allowed the assistance of counsel : nor was their own confession deemed sufficient to their condemnation. The Chris- 5 Chap I. p. 48. 6 c. 1. 7 c. 3. 8 c. 1. 9 c. 2. Compare ad Scapulam, c. 4. 113 tian, on the contrary, was simply asked whether he was a Christian ; and either his sentence was pro- nounced as soon as he had admitted the fact; or such was the strange infatuation of the judges, the torture was inflicted in order to compel him to retract his confession and deny the truth : whereas in all other cases torture was applied in order to extract the truth, and to compel the suspected party to confess his guilt. Tertullian dwells for some time upon the gross injustice of these proceedings ; as well as upon the inconsistency exhibited by Trajan in his letter to Pliny; in which, at the very moment that he forbade all search to be made after the Christians, he ordered them to be punished as malefactors when brought before the tribunals. The Apology furnishes many striking proofs of the unreasonableness and blindness of the hatred, which the enemies of the Gospel had conceived against its professors. 'The Christians were accused of the most heinous crimes ; of atheism, infanticide, of holding nocturnal meetings in which they aban- 1 cc. 1. 7, 8. Propter illam sceleratam in nos opinionem Gentilium. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 4. One of the op- probrious appellations applied to the Christians was " Tertium Genus," the precise meaning of which Tertullian does not appear himself to have understood. Ad Nationes, L. i. cc. 7, 8, 19. See also Scorpiace, c. 10. De Virgin, vel. c. 7. Clemens Alexan- drinus makes the Jews and Gentiles the first two races, Chris- tians, the third. Strom. L. vi. p. 761 — 4. I 114 doned themselves to the most shameful excesses. In vain did they challenge their opponents to make good these horrible charges. In vain did they urge the utter improbability that any body of men should be guilty of such atrocious, such unnatural acts ; especially of men, the fundamental article of whose belief was that they should hereafter be summoned before the judgment-seat of God, there to give an account of the deeds done in the flesh 2 . " You are determined," says Tertullian, "to close your eyes against the truth, and to persist in hating us without a cause. You are compelled to witness the salutary influence of Christianity, in the reformed lives and morals of those who embrace it ; but you quarrel with the effect, however beneficial, in consequence of your hatred of the cause from which it proceeds. Even virtue ceases in your estimation to be virtue, when found in a Christian : and you are content that your wives shall be unchaste, your children dis- obedient, and your slaves dishonest, if they are but careful to abstain from all communication with this detested sect." Tertullian 3 alludes to an ancient law, which pro- hibited even the emperor from introducing the worship of any new Deity, unless it had been pre- viously approved by the Senate. As the worship of 2 c. 3. :i cc. 5, G. See p. 103. 115 Christ had not received this preliminary sanction, the Christians by the profession of their religion, manifestly offended against the law ; and Tertullian speaks as if this was the principal ground of the accusations against them. It was not, however, their sole offence : they were charged, not only with introducing a new deity, but with abandoning the gods of their ancestors. Tertullian replies, that the accusation came with an ill grace from men, who were themselves in the daily habit of disregarding and violating the institutions of antiquity ; but he does not attempt to deny its truth. 4 On the con- trary, he boldly maintains that the Christians had done right in renouncing the worship of Gods, who who were in reality no gods ; but mortals to whom divine honours had been ascribed after death, and whose image and statues were the abode of evil spirits, lurking there in ambush to destroy the souls of men. The 5 absurdity and extravagance of the Heathen Mythology open to Tertullian a wide field for the exercise of his eloquence and wit : and while at one time he ironically apologises for the readiness with which the magistrates and people gave credit to the horrible reports circulated against the Christians, on the ground that they believed stories equally horrible respecting their own Deities ; at another he warmly 4 cc. 10, 11. 22, 23. 27. 5 cc. 12, 13, 14, 15. i2 116 inveighs against the gross inconsistency of imputing to a Christian as a crime, that which was not deemed derogatory from the character of a God. But 6 the prejudice and bigotry of the enemies of the Gospel induced them, not only to believe the most atrocious calumnies against its professors, but also to entertain the most erroneous and ridiculous notions respecting the objects of Christian worship. Not content with falling into the double error, first, of confounding the Christians with the Jews, and next of receiving as true the idle tales related by 7 Tacitus respecting the origin and fortunes of the Jewish people, they persisted in accusing the Chris- tians of worshipping the head of an ass : although, as our author justly observes, 8 the Roman historian had himself furnished the means of disproving his own statement ; by relating that, when Pompey visited the temple of Jerusalem and entered the Holy of Holies, he found there no visible represen- tation of the Deity. Since they could give credit to so palpable a falsehood, we cannot be surprised at their believing that the sun and the cross were objects of worship in the New Religion — a belief, to which the forms of Christian devotion might appear to an adversary to lend some countenance. In replying to these calumnies, 9 Tertullian takes the opportunity of 6 c. 16. 7 Hist. L. v. c. 4. 8 Hist. L. v. c. 9. 9 cc. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 117 stating, in spirited and eloquent language, the Chris- tian notions of the Deity ; and of insisting upon the genuineness and antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures, by which the knowledge of the one supreme God, of the creation of the world, and of the origin of man- kind, had been preserved and transmitted from age to age. l The superior antiquity of Moses and the Prophets to the poets and legislators of Greece is repeatedly urged by our author, as an irrefragable proof (weak as the argument may appear to us) of the superior claim of the Mosaic institutions to be received as a revelation from heaven. It has been remarked that the treatment of the primitive Christians formed a solitary exception to that system of universal toleration, which regulated the conduct of the Roman government towards the professors of other religions. 2 Gibbon appears to have assigned the true reason of this deviation from its usual policy, when he observes that while all other people professed a national religion, the Christians formed a sect. The ^Egyptian, though he deemed it his duty to worship the same birds and reptiles to which his ancestors had paid their adorations, made no attempt to induce the inhabitants of other countries to adopt his deities. In his estimation the different superstitions of the heathen world were not 1 c. 47. 2 Chap. xvi. p. 523. ed. 4to. 118 so much at variance that they could not exist together. He respected the faith of others, while he preferred his own. But Christianity was from its very nature a proselyting religion. The convert not only abandoned the faith of his ancestors, and thereby committed an unpardonable offence in the eyes of a Gentile ; but also claimed to himself the exclusive possession of the truth, and denounced as criminal every other mode of worship. When we consider this striking distinction between the character of Christianity, and of every other form of religion then existing, we shall feel less surprise that it was regarded by the ruling powers with peculiar feelings of jealousy and dislike, or that it was excepted from the general system of toleration. 3 In vain did Tertullian insist upon the right of private judgment in matters of faith; in vain expose the strange inconsistency of tolerating the absurd superstitions of iEgypt, and at the same time persecuting the professors of a religion, which inculcated the worship of one, pure, spiritual, omniscient, omnipotent God, — a God in every respect worthy to receive the adorations of intelligent beings. By thus asserting that the God of the Christians was the only true God, he unavoidably destroyed the effect of his appeal to the understanding, the justice, and the humanity of the Roman governors. 3 cc. 24. 28. ad Scap. c. 2. 119 Sometimes the Christians fell into an error not uncommon with very zealous advocates ; they urged arguments which were easily retorted upon them- selves, and were even converted into pretences for persecuting their religion. 4 We have seen that they were in the habit of accounting for events by the im- mediate interposition of Providence: of ascribing favourable events to their own prayers, and calamities to the Divine displeasure, excited by the cruelties inflicted upon them. 5 The Pagans, in answer, ap- pealed to the continually increasing power and glory of Rome, during the seven centuries which preceded the birth of Christ ; and contended that this long series of prosperity was to be attributed solely to that piety towards the gods, which had always formed a striking feature in the national character. G " But how," they asked, " are we to account for the calamities by which the empire has been visited, since the odious sect of Christians appeared ? How, but by their impiety and crimes, which have drawn down upon us the wrath of Heaven ? By tolerating their existence we have in fact become partakers of their guilt. Let us then hasten to repair our error ; and to appease the displeasure of the gods by utterly rooting out their enemies from the earth." The stated returns of the public games and festivals 4 p. 102. 5 cc. 25, 26. 8 c. 40. 120 were, 7 as has been already observed, the occasions on which the blind and inhuman zeal of the deluded populace displayed itself in all its ferocity. Every feeling of compassion was then extinguished; and the cry of " Christianos ad leonem !" resounded from every part of the crowded amphitheatre. Another 8 ground of accusation against the Chris- tians was, that they refused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the Emperor. Tertullian admits the fact ; but answers that their refusal arose, not from any feeling of disrespect or disaffection, but from the well-grounded conviction that the gods of the heathen were mere stocks and stones, and conse- quently incapable of affording the Emperor protection. " Far from being indifferent to his welfare, we put up daily petitions in his behalf, to the true, the living, the eternal God ; in whom kings reign, and through whose power they are powerful. To that God we pray, in full confidence that he will hear our prayers, and grant the Emperor a long life, a peaceful reign, and every public and private blessing." " Do not," Tertullian adds, " trust merely to my assertions : consult our sacred books : you will there find that we are expressly enjoined to pray for kings and those in authority." 7 p. 111. s c. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 121 As 9 the Christians cautiously abstained from every act which in the least approximated to idolatry, the seasons of public festivity were to them seasons of the most imminent danger. Their abhorrence of every species of excess, their refusal to join in ob- streperous or indecent expressions of joy, to illuminate their houses in the day-time, or to hang garlands over their doors, were construed by their adversaries into certain marks of disloyalty. Tertullian answers this charge by appealing to the uniform tenor of their conduct ; "a less equivocal proof," he adds, " of our affection towards our Sovereign, than those outward demonstrations of joy 'which have been displayed in our own time, by men who at the very moment were plotting his destruction. As our religion teaches us to disregard and despise the honours and riches of this world, we are not liable to be led astray by those feel- ings of avarice and ambition, which impel others to disturb the public tranquillity ; and if you would take the trouble of informing yourselves of what passes in our assemblies and at our love-feasts, far from finding reason to view them with jealousy as dangerous to the State, you would acknowledge that their neces- sary tendency is to increase our love towards God and towards our neighbour ; to make us better men and better subjects." 9 cc. 35, 36. 38, 39. Ad Martyres, c. 2. 1 Ad Scapulani, c. 2. 122 But 2 though the enemies of the Gospel might be compelled to allow that a Christian was a peaceable, they still accused him of being an unprofitable citizen. The charge, however, if we may judge from Ter- tullian's answer, resolved itself principally into this, that the Christians brought no offerings to the Temples, and contributed nothing towards defraying the expenses of the public games, or to the support of those trades which were more immediately con- nected with the pomps and ceremonies of idolatry. In his remarks upon this charge, Tertullian expressly affirms that the Christians in his day did not affect a life of solitude and abstraction ; but dwelt in the world, and laboured in their several callings and occupations, like other men. In like manner, they disclaimed all singularity of dress or diet; freely using the gifts of Providence, but careful not to abuse them. " They indeed," says Tertullian, " who minister to the vicious and criminal passions of man- kind—pimps, assassins, and fortune-tellers— may com- plain with truth that the Christians are unprofitable to them. But all who think that the best man is the most useful citizen, must admit the claim of the Christian to that character, whose religion teaches 2 cc. 42, 43, 44, 45. Compare de Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 11. At si necessitas amiticiarum officiorumque gentilium vos vocat, &c. : from which it appears, that the Christians did not think themselves called upon to interrupt their former friend- ships, much less to break off all intercourse with the heathen. 123 him that, not only his actions but his very thoughts must be pure ; and who regulates his conduct by a reference, not to the imperfect laws of man, the penalties of which he might hope to evade, but to the perfect law of that God, from whom nothing can be hid, and whose vengeance it is impossible to escape." Unable 3 either to fix any stain upon the morals of the Christians, or to substantiate the charges of irreligion and disloyalty against them, their enemies proceeded in the last place to undervalue Christianity itself, and to represent it as a mere species of philo- sophy. " The philosophers," they said, " inculcate innocence, justice, patience, sobriety, chastity ; and what do the Christians more?" "Be it so," is Ter- tullian's reply ; " why then do you deny to us alone the indulgence which you extend to every other sect? But look at the effects of Christianity, and you will be forced to confess that it is something more than a species of philosophy ; how otherwise can you account for the altered lives and morals of its professors — a change which philosophy has never yet produced in its votaries?" The 4 conclusion of the Apology points out to us 3 c. 46. 4 c. 50. In the Scorpiace, our author argues, as if sufferings, voluntarily endured in the defence of a religion, prove not 124 one cause of the rapid growth of Christianity, which has been overlooked by Mosheira — the admirable courage and constancy with which the Christians bore the torments inflicted upon them by their persecutors. " Proceed," says Tertullian to the provincial gover- nors, " proceed in your career of cruelty ; but do not suppose that you will thus accomplish your purpose of extinguishing the hated sect. We are like the grass, which grows the more luxuriantly, the oftener it is mown. The blood of Christians is the seed of Christianity. Your philosophers taught men to despise pain and death by words; but how few their converts compared with those of the Christians, who teach by example ? The very obstinacy with which you upbraid us is the great propagator of our doctrines. 5 For who can behold it, and not enquire into the nature of that faith which inspires such supernatural courage ? Who can enquire into that faith, and not embrace it? who can embrace it, and not desire himself to undergo the same sufferings in order that he may thus secure a participation in the fulness of the divine favour?" merely the sincerity of the sufferer's persuasion, but also the truth of the religion. Cseterum pati oportebat omnem Dei praedicatorem et cultorem qui ad idololatriam provocatus ne- gasset obsequium, secundum illius quoque rationis statum, qua et praesentibus tunc et posteris deinceps commendari veritatem oportebat, pro qua. fidem diceret passio ipsorum defensorum ejus, quia nemo voluisset occidi, nisi compos veritatis, c. 8. 5 Compare ad Scapulam, c. 5. 125 I cannot 6 quit this part of my subject without briefly noticing Gibbon's remarks on the Apologies published by the early Christians, in behalf of them- selves and their religion. He admits that they expose with ability the absurdities of Polytheism ; and describe with eloquence and force, the innocence and sufferings of their brethren. But when they at- tempt to demonstrate the divine origin of Chris- tianity, then in his opinion they entirely fail ; and the only feeling, which they excite in the mind of the reader, is regret that the cause was not defended by abler advocates. He particularly blames them for insisting more strongly upon the predictions which announced, 7 than upon the miracles which accom- panied the appearance of the Messiah. But in these remarks the Historian seems to me to proceed upon the erroneous supposition that the Apology of Tertullian, and other works of a similar nature, were designed to be regular expositions of the evidences of Christianity. s Such an idea never entered into 6 Chap. xv. near the end. 7 In the third book against Marcion, Tertullian assigns the reason why he considers the evidence of miracles, as not alone sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity. Christ himself, he says, warned his disciples that many would come in his name, shewing signs and wonders. {Matt. xxiv. 24.) It was, there- fore, necessary to the complete establishment of his pretensions, that he should not only work miracles, but should in all respects fulfil the predictions of the prophets respecting his character and office, c. 3. 8 Compare Mosheim de Reb. ante Constan. Saec. ii. c. 6, p. 228. 126 the writer's mind. His immediate business was to defend Christianity against the attacks of its enemies — to correct their misrepresentations, and to refute their calumnies — -to persuade them that it was not that combination of folly and crime which they supposed it to be — that in a word they were bound to examine, before they condemned it. The object, therefore, at which he principally aimed was, not to marshal its evidences, but to give a full and per- spicuous account of its doctrines and moral precepts. Yet when he explains the notion of the Supreme Being, entertained by the Christians, he adverts, though concisely, to the grounds on which their belief was founded. 9 He shews that the testimony, borne to the existence of an Almighty Creator of the Universe, by his visible works without, and by the voice of conscience within us, is confirmed by the Jewish Scriptures ; the claims of which to be received as a divine revelation he rests upon their superior antiquity, not only to the literature, but even to the gods of Greece, and upon the actual accom- plishment of many of the prophecies contained in them. When again he proceeds to explain those doctrines which are more peculiarly Christian, he 1 says that Christ was proved to be the Word of God, as well by the miserable state to which, agree- ably to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the Jew- ish nation was reduced in consequence of its rejec- 9 Apology, cc. 17, 18, 19, 20. ' c. 21. 127 tion of him, as by the miracles which he wrought during his residence upon earth. I know not what further evidence of the divine origin of Chris- tianity Tertullian could be expected to produce, in a work designed to explain what it was, not to prove whence it was derived. But had the latter been his professed object, are we competent to de- cide upon the train of reasoning which he ought to have pursued in order most readily to accomplish it ? Arguments, which appear to us the most forcible, might have been thrown away upon the persons whom he was addressing; and we may surely give him credit for knowing by what means he was most likely to produce conviction in their minds. He has frequent recourse to the argument ad hominem ; which, however lightly it may weigh in the estima- tion of the dispassionate and reflecting reader of the present day, was not without its effect in silencing the clamours of malice and of ignorance. They who think with 2 Daille, that the exquisite wisdom and transcendent beauty of the rule of life prescribed in the Gospel constitute the strongest and surest proof of its divine origin, will also think that Tertullian, by simply stating the doctrines of Christianity and ap- pealing to the Scriptures in confirmation of his 2 La sagesse exquise et l'inestimable beaute de la discipline raeme de Jesus Christ est, je l'avoue, le plus fort et le plus sur argument de sa verite. Quoted by Dr. Hey in his Lectures, Book i. end of c. 12. 128 statement, adopted the most efficacious mode of ex- tending its influence. We have seen that the persecutions inflicted on the Christians, far from retarding, contributed, in the opinion of Tertullian, to accelerate the progress of the Gospel. The Church was not in- sensible to the advantages which its cause derived from the intrepid constancy of its members ; but it was too well aware of the infirmity of human nature not to know, that even the sincerest convic- tion of the truth of Christianity might not always be sufficient to support the convert in the hour of clanger. In order, therefore, to excite his courage, the sufferings of martyrdom were invested with peculiar privileges and honours. It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the original signification of the word Martyr is " a Witness ;" and though in later times the appel- lation has been generally confined to those who proved the sincerity of their faith by the sacrifice of their lives, in the time of Tertullian 3 it was used with greater latitude, and comprehended all whom the profession of Christianity had exposed to any severe hardship, such as imprisonment, or loss of property — those who are now usually distinguished by the name of 4 Confessors. To this lax use of 3 Thus in the tract de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 3. Si etiam Martyr lapsus de regula fuerit. 4 Tertullian sometimes applies the term Confessor to one who 129 the term martyr must be chiefly ascribed the erro- neous persuasion which has been so carefully cherished by the Church of Rome, respecting the number of martyrs, strictly so called ; for though it may have been greater than 5 Dodwell was willing to allow, it is certain that his opinion approaches much nearer to the truth than that of his opponents. We shall, however, form a very inadequate idea of the sufferings endured by the primitive Christians, if we restrict them to the punishments inflicted by the magistrates, or to the outrages committed by a blind and infuriate populace. Many, who escaped the sword and the wild beasts, were destined to encoun- ter trials of the severest kind, though their suffer- ings attracted not the public attention. When we consider the species of authority exercised by heads was imprisoned on account of his religion. Et quum in car- cere fratrem vult visitari, Confessoris imperat curam. Scorpiace, c. 11. s Tertullian, we believe, mentions only five Martyrs by name : St. Peter, who was crucified, and St. Paul, who was beheaded at Rome during Nero's persecution ; De Praescriptione Haereti- corum, c. 36. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 5. Scorpiace, cap. ult. Perpetua, of whose martyrdom an account is still extant under the title of Passio Perpetuae ac Felicitatis ; De Anima, c. 55. Rutilius, who, having for some time avoided persecution by flight, and even, as he conceived, secured his safety by the pay- ment of a sum of money, was suddenly seized, and, after under- going severe torments, cast into the flames ; De Fuga, in Persecutione, c. 5. and Justin, adv. Valentianos, c. 5. Tertul- lian relates also that St. John the Evangelist was cnst into 130 of families in those days, and the hatred by which many were actuated against Christianity, we may frame to ourselves some notion of the condition of a wife, a child, or a slave who ventured to profess a belief in its doctrines. 6 This alone was deemed a sufficient cause for repudiating a wife, or disinherit- ing a son ; and Tertullian mentions 7 by name a governor of Cappadocia^ who avenged the conversion of his wife by persecuting all the Christians of the province. So heinous indeed was the offence that it 8 cancelled all obligations. He who committed it became at once an outcast from society, and was con- sidered to have forfeited his claim to the good offices of his nearest kinsman ; nor were instances wanting, 9 if Tertullian's expressions are to be literally under- a cauldron of boiling oil, and came out unhurt. De Prescript. Haeret. c. 30. 6 Uxorem jam pudicam maritus, jam non zelotypus, ejecit : filium jam subjectum pater, retro patiens, abdicavit . servum jam fidelem dominus, olim mitis, ab oculis relegavit : ut quisque hoc nomine emendatur, offendit. Apology, c. 3. 7 Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 8 In the first Tract ad Nationes, Tertullian says that informa- tions were frequently laid against the Christians by their slaves, c. 7. Quid ? quum domestici eos vobis prodant 1 omnes a nullis magis prodimur : quanto magis, si atrocitas tanta sit quae justitia indignationis omnem familiaritatis fidem rumpit ! 9 I speak doubtfully, because there is something in our author's mode of expressing himself which leads me to suspect, that no such instances had actually fallen within his own knowledge ; but that he inferred that they had occurred, because our Lord had declared that they would occur. Quum autem subjicit, Tradet autem frater fratrem, et pater filium in mortem, et insurgent 131 stood, in which a brother informed against a brother, and even a parent against a child. Yet amidst the trials and afflictions to which he was subjected, the convert was not entirely destitute even of earthly consolation. The affection and esteem of the Brethren in some degree compensated the loss of his former friends, the alienation of his kindred, and the contempt and insults of the world. We in the present day can form only a faint conception of the intimacy of that union which subsisted between the primitive Christians, and was cemented by a com- munity of danger, as well as of faith and hope. 10 The love which they bore to each other excited the astonishment, though it could not subdue the hosti- lity of their heathen persecutors. But they naturally regarded, with feelings of peculiar affection and respect, those members of the Church who were called to suffer in its cause. The Christian, when imprisoned on account of his religion, was supported filii in parentes et mortificabunt eos ; manifesto ini^uitatem istam in caeteros pronuntiavit, quam in Apostolis non invenimus. Nemo enim eorum aut fratrem aut patrem passus est traditorem, quod plerique jam nostri. Dehinc ad Apostolos revoeat : Et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen meum : Quanto magis nos, quos a parentibus quoque tradi oportet ! Scorpiace, c. 9. Sed et fratres nostros et patres et filios et socrus et nurus et domesticos nostros ibidem exhibere debebis, per quos traditio disposita est, c. 10, Justin Martyr, however, speaks of Christ's prediction as literally fulfilled : (cat yap a xaa"^pixiv ttclvtu, avutpovfieroi viro rwi' ui- tceiwv Trpoe~nrav fifiiv piWew yeviodat. Dial. p. 254. 10 Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant. Apology, c. 39. K 2 132 by the reflection, that his brethren anxiously watched over his fate, and that no exertion would be wanting on their part to mitigate its severity — Uhat he should be maintained during his confinement by their voluntary contributions — that 2 devout females would flock to his prison to kiss his chains, and 3 penitents to obtain through his intercession a speedier restoration to the communion of the Church. If he escaped with life, he knew that he should become the object of the most reverential regard — that he should be held up by the Church as an example to all its members, and possess 4 a prior claim to its dignities and honours. If he was destined to lose his life, he had been taught that martyrdom was a 5 second and more efficacious baptism — 6 that it washed away every stain— and that, while the souls of ordinary Christians passed the inter- val between their separation from the body and the general resurrection in a state of incomplete enjoy- 1 Apology, c. 39. Ad Martyres, cc. 1.2. De Jejuniis, c. 12. 2 Quis in carcerem ad osculanda vincula Martyris reptare patietur ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. 3 Quam pacem quidam in Ecclesia non habentes a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Ad Martyres, L. i. After Tertullian had seceded from the Church, he denied that it pos- sessed the power of pardoning crimes of a heinous nature : and ridiculed the notion that attention ought to be paid to the inter- cession of a martyr. De Pudicitia, c. 22. 4 Sed alium ex martyrii prcerogativa loci potitum indignatus, Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. See de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 11. 5 De Patientia, c. 13. Scorpiace, c. 6. sub fine. De Pudicitia, c. 9. sub fine, c. 22. De Baptismo, c. 16. 6 Apology, sub fine. Omnia enim huic operi delicta donantur. 133 merit, that of the martyr was 7 secure of immediate admission to the perfect happiness of Heaven. When such were the privileges conferred, both in this and in the next world, by suffering for the faith of Christ, it is not surprising that men of an ardent and enthusiastic temper should aspire to the crown of martyrdom, and eagerly encounter persecution. Nor can it be dissembled that 8 some of the early fathers, in their anxiety to confirm the faith of the convert, and to prevent him from apostatizing in the hour of trial, occasionally spoke a language calculated to encourage men to make that gratuitous sacrifice of life, to which the sober decision of reason must annex the name and guilt of suicide. It may be asked, perhaps, " what surer mark there can be of that love of God, in which consists the perfection of the Christian character, than an earnest desire to be removed from this world of vanity and sin, and to be admitted to the immediate perception of the Divine Presence? 9 When Tertullian says, that the Chris- 7 Nemo enim, peregrinatus a corpore, statim immoratur penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii prcerogativd, Paradiso scilicet, non inferis, deversurus. De Resur. Carnis, c. 43. Scorpiace, c. 12. Ad ipsum divinae sedis ascensum. De Patientia, c. 13. Denique cum omni saevitia vestra concertamus, etiam ultrd erumpentes, magisque damnari quam absoluti gaudemus. Ad Scapulam, c. 1. Absit enim ut indigne feramus ea nos pati quae optamus, c. 2. See also c. 5. In primis, quia nihil nostra refert in hoc aavo, nisi de eo quam celeriter excedere. Apology, c. 41. 134 tian's only concern respecting this life is, that he may as speedily as possible exchange it for another, in what does his language differ from that of St. Paul, who tells ' the Philippians that he has a desire to depart, and to be with Christ?" But this desire was tempered and controlled in the mind of the Apostle by a feeling of implicit resignation to the will of God. He must abide in the flesh so long as his ministry could be useful to the Philippians ; and it was not for him to determine for how long a period his use- fulness would continue. Though he was prepared — though he longed for the summons to depart, he did not venture to anticipate it ; and far from court- ing martyrdom, he employed all warrantable methods of preserving his life. Tertullian himself, 2 in the Apology, discriminates accurately between the case of a Christian who voluntarily denounces himself, and that of one who, when brought before the magistrate, professes his gladness that he is called to 1 c. 1. v. 23. Tertullian refers more than once to this very passage. Cupidi et ipsi iniquissimo isto saeculo eximi, et recipi ad Dominum, quod etiam Apostolo votum fuit. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 5. Ipso Apostolo festinante ad Dominum. De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 12. See also de Spectaculis, c. 28. 2 Ergo, inquitis, cur querimini quod vos insequamur, si pati vu'ltis, quum diligere deheatis per quos patimini quod vultis ? Plane volumus pati ; verum eo more, quo et bellum nemo quidem libens patitur, quum et trepidareet periclitari sitnecesse; tamen et prseliatur omnibus viribus, et vincens in prselio gaudet qui de prselio querebatur, quia et gloriam consequitur et praedam, c. 50. 135 suffer on account of his faith. He supposes a heathen to ask, " Why do you complain of being persecuted, when it is your own wish to suffer?" His answer is, " No doubt, we wish to suffer ; but in the same manner that a soldier wishes for the battle. He wishes to obtain the spoil and glory consequent upon victory, but would gladly avoid the danger to which he will be exposed, though he does not shrink from it. So we, though we endure your persecutions in the hope of finally obtaining the reward of our fidelity, would gladly avoid them could we do so consistently with our allegiance to Christ." While however we condemn that immoderate anxiety to obtain the honours of martyrdom, which appears to have been too prevalent among the primitive Christians, let us not involve in one indis- criminate censure, all who either became their own accusers before the magistrates, or refused to save themselves by flight, or by any other innocent means, from the certain death which awaited them. The moral character of the act must depend upon the motive by which it was dictated. The name of suicide is justly applied to that voluntary sacrifice of life, which originates in distrust of the goodness, or impatience of the visitations of God — in disgust at the world — or in a presumptuous desire to seize, before the appointed time, the rewards reserved in heaven for the faithful followers of Christ. But 136 who can fail to discern the clear distinction between these cases and the noble refusal of Socrates to save his life by escaping from prison ? a refusal dictated by a feeling of reverence for the laws of his country, and a conviction that he was bound to obey them even unto death. In like manner it may be pre- sumed, that when the primitive Christians voluntarily presented themselves before the tribunal of the ma- gistrate, they were frequently actuated by a more justifiable motive than the desire of securing the honours of martyrdom. They might hope to arrest the violence of an angry governor, by convincing him of the inutility of persecuting men who, far from dreading or avoiding any punishments which he could inflict, came forward to meet them. They might hope to excite a feeling, if not of compassion, at least of horror, in his mind, by shewing him that he must wade through a sea of blood in order to accomplish his purpose. Such is the construction put by 3 Lardner upon the conduct of the Asiatic Christians, who during a persecution presented themselves in a body before the tribunal of 4 Arrius Antoninus, the proconsul. He regards as an act of 3 Heathen Testimonies. Observations on Pliny's Letter. Sect. vii. 1 Learned men are not agreed respecting the individual of whom this story is told. Lardner supposes him to have been the maternal grandfather of Antoninus Pius, who was proconsul of Asia during the reign of Nerva or Trajan. Gibbon supposes him to have been Antoninus Pius himself, who was also pro- 137 well-timed, as well as generous, self-devotion, that which 5 Gibbon produces as an instance of the in- discreet ardour of the primitive Christians. His view is, in my opinion, confirmed by the context ; G for Tertullian introduces the story by observing that the Christians voluntarily presented themselves, in order to convince the governors that they were not afraid of death ; and afterwards calls upon Scapula, the Proconsul of Africa, whom he is addressing, to reflect how many thousands he would destroy, and what utter ruin he would bring upon Carthage, if he persisted in his cruel intentions. Whatever might be the motive which dictated the act, its effect certainly was to put an end to the persecution. Antoninus, after he had ordered a few to be led away to punish- ment, either influenced by compassion, or observing that the resolution of the survivors was unshaken, dismissed them with the exclamation, " Miserable men ! if you wish to die, have you not precipices or halters?" We find, as we might expect from the change which took place in Tertullian's opinions, some in- consul of Asia. Casaubon fixes upon an Arrius Antoninus, who was murdered during die reign of Commodus, JE\ii Lampridii Commodus, p. 870. 5 Chap. xvi. p. 552. Ed. 4to. 6 Ad Scapulam, c. 5. 138 consistency in his language respecting the conduct to be pursued by Christians in times of persecution. As he advanced in life his notions became continually more severe. We have 7 already observed that in the Tract de Patientia, he speaks as if it were allow- able for a Christian to consult his safety by flight. But in the Tract de Fuga. in Persecutione — which was written after his secession from the Church, and is described, perhaps too harshly, by Gibbon, as a compound of the wildest fanaticism and most inco- herent declamation — he denounces flight in time of persecution as an impious attempt to resist the divine will. 8 " Persecutions," he argues, " proceed from God, for the purpose of proving the faith of Christians : 9 the attempt, therefore, to avoid them is both foolish and wicked ; foolish, because we cannot escape the destiny assigned us by God ; wicked, because by fleeing from persecution, we appear to set ourselves in opposition to his will, and to accuse him of cruelty. 1 Our Saviour, it is true, said to his disciples, ' When they persecute you in one city, flee to another.' But this injunction applied only to their particular circumstances : had they been cut off in 7 See the passage quoted in chap. i. note 4, p. 46. Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 3. Etiam in persecutionibus melius est ex permissu fugere de oppido in oppidum, quam comprehensum et distortum negare. Atqui isti beatiores, qui valent beati testimo- nii confessione non excidere. " c. 1—5. 9 c. 4. ' e. (>. Matt. x. 23. 139 the very outset of their ministry, the Gospel could not have been diffused throughout the world. " The same reason will account for the conduct of Christ, in withdrawing himself from the fury of the Jews. His bitter agony in the garden, which is urged in defence of flight in time of persecution, was designed to refute by anticipation the heretical notion that he had neither a human body nor soul : and his prayer to God — ' Let this cup pass from me' — will not justify us in endeavouring to flee from danger, since he immediately subjoined, ' Not my will, but thine be done.'" Allusion 3 has already been made to a passage in the Tract which we are now considering, where Ter- tullian speaks of the immense revenue which might be collected, if each Christian was allowed to pur- chase the free exercise of his religion for a sum of money. 4 This measure indeed had not been resorted to as a source of revenue to the state ; but it had suggested itself to the avarice of the provincial governors as an excellent expedient for replenishing their private coffers ; and we find that not only individuals, but whole Churches were in the habit of purchasing exemption from persecution. 5 Tertullian, as might be expected, condemns this practice in the - c. 8. 3 note 4. p. S6. 4 c. 13. 5 c. 11. ad fin. 140 strongest terms. " Christians," he says, " who have been redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, may not redeem their lives with money. If such a practice was to become universal, no instance of martyrdom could occur. God would no longer be glorified by the sufferings of his faithful servants, and thus one end of the Christian dispensation would be defeated." Two of Tertullian's Treatises relate expressly to the subject of martyrdom. One of them entitled ad Martyres, is a brief address to certain Christians who had been cast into prison on account of their reli- gion ; pointing out to them various topics of con- solation, and exhorting them to courage and con- stancy under their sufferings. It might be supposed, that the duty of preparation for the cruel fate which awaited them would have left them neither time nor inclination to engage in disputes with each other 6 . They appear, however, to have disagreed in prison ; and part of Tertullian's address is taken up in warn- ing them not to allow the enemy of their salvation to gain a triumph by their dissensions. Their dis- putes appear from our author's expressions to have been of a personal character. Our Reformers in Queen Mary's days, when confined in prison, and expecting to be brought to the stake, wrote and 6 C. 1. 141 dispersed Tracts against each other on the doctrine of Predestination. With respect to the other Tract, entitled Scorpiace, we have already observed that it was directed against the Gnostics and Valentinians, who denied that a Christian was under any obligation to encounter martyrdom 7 . " God," they said, " cannot desire the death of the innocent ; nor can Christ who died for man, wish man to die in turn for him." The aim, therefore of our author, is to shew, that it is the bounden duty of Christians to endure the severest sufferings, rather than do any act which can be con- strued into a participation in idolatry. 8 The heinous- ness of that sin in the sight of God is proved by the numerous denunciations in the Old Testament against it ; and by the severe punishments inflicted on the Israelites for adopting the rites of their idolatrous neighbours. 9 But when God forbids us to commit idolatry, he evidently forbids us to shrink from any danger to which we may be exposed by our refusal to commit it ; to shrink, for instance, from martyrdom, if we should be called to so severe a trial of our faith. 1 This conclusion our author supports by references to the example of Daniel, and the three Jews who were thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchadnezzar, for 7 c. 1. See chap. 1. p. 54. 8 cc. 2, 3. 9 c. 4. This notion is carried to the utmost pitch of extrava- gance, in the Tract do Idololatria, c. 22. ' c. 8. 142 refusing to bow down to the golden image. 2 He appears, however, to have been aware that these references would have little weight with the Gnostics and Marcionites, who denied that the God of the Old Testament was the supreme God. 3 He con- tends, therefore, that, when God calls men to suffer for the Gospel, far from deserving, as the Valen- tinians insinuated, on that account to be censured as cruel, he affords a striking proof of his goodness, by enabling us to vanquish in turn the enemy of our salvation by whom Adam was vanquished. From the Old Testament Tertullian proceeds to the New, and 4 argues, that one principal object of our Saviour's discourses to his disciples was to con- firm their faith, and prepare them cheerfully to en- counter the persecutions which awaited them. The interpretation which the Apostles put upon the words of Christ is, he adds, manifest both from their writings and their conduct. 5 The former are full of allusions to the dangers and difficulties to which the professors of the Gospel would be exposed, and of exhortations to support them with constancy ; 6 and with respect to the latter, the violent deaths of many of the first Disciples sufficiently proved that they did not think themselves at liberty to shrink from martyrdom. 2 c. 5. 3 c. G. 4 c. 9—12. 5 cc. 12, 13, 14. ° c. 15. 143 Some of the evasions, suggested by the Valen- tinians for the purpose of enabling the convert at once to save his life and satisfy his conscience, afford amusing instances of the deception which men continually practise on themselves. 7 "Our Saviour's words," they argued, " are, He who denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father. Christ does not say, He who denies that he is a Christian ; this, therefore, may be denied without incurring the penalty of exclusion from heaven." The heathen magistrates appear to have been aware of this equivo- cation : for after the party accused had denied that he was a Christian, they compelled him also to deny and blaspheme Christ. 8 The Valentinians also con- tended, that as St. Paul enjoins Christians to be sub- ject to the higher powers, without limiting the injunc- tion, he meant that they were to obey the magis- trate, even when commanded to abjure Christianity. 9 Another of their fancies was, that, when Christ directed his followers to confess Him before men, he alluded to a confession to be made, not before the race of men existing upon earth — the vile work of the Demiurge — but before those to whom the name of men really belongs, the Valentinian Powers and iEons. It must, however, be admitted that Ter- tullian occasionally displays no less dexterity than his opponents, in wresting Scripture to his own purpose. 7 c. 9. Matt. x. 33. 8 c. 14. Rom. xiii. 1. 9 c. 10. 144 1 Thus he says, that the fear, which, according to St. John, is cast out by perfect love, is the fear of persecution. Though we attempt not to justify the language used by many of the Fathers on the subject of martyrdom, we cannot forbear observing, that a refe- rence to the circumstances of the times will probably induce us to moderate our censure of them for using it. They lived when the profession of Christianity was attended with the greatest danger — when the Christian was liable at any moment to be dragged by the malice or avarice of his neighbours before the tribunal of the magistrates : and to be offered the dreadful alternative of renouncing his faith, or dying a cruel and ignominious death. They knew how greatly the cause of the Gospel was either promoted or injured by the behaviour of its professors under this severe trial. They resorted, therefore, to every argument which was in their opinion calculated to prepare the mind of the convert for the arduous conflict ; and to enable him to subdue the natural apprehension of pain and death. But unhappily, instead of adhering closely to the example 2 of the Apostles, and instructing their brethren to encoun- ter persecution, not merely with firmness, as the 1 c. 12. 1 John'iv. 18. The same interpretation is repeated in the Tract tie Fuga in Persecutione, c. 9. 2 1 Peter iv. 12. 145 lot to which they were especially called by their profession, but with cheerfulness and joy, since they thereby became partakers in their Blessed Master's sufferings — instead of confining themselves to these sound and reasonable topics of exhortation, they represented martyrdom as an object to be ambitiously sought ; forgetting that, although resignation to the will of God, and a patient enduring of the afflictions with which He is pleased to visit us, are the surest signs of a genuine piety, to go as it were in quest of suffering, and to court persecution, is in reality to tempt Him, and bespeaks an impatient and pre- sumptuous temper, most foreign from the Christian character. We 3 have seen that Tertullian complains of the total disregard of the established forms of law mani- fested by the heathen magistrates in their proceedings against the Christians. They appear, also, in the punishments which they inflicted, to have been more intent upon gratifying their own ferocity, or that of an exasperated populace, than upon complying with the edicts of the Emperor. 4 From a passage in the 3 p. 113. 4 Pro tanta innocentia, pro tanta probitate, pro justitia, pro pudicitia, pro fide, pro veritate, pro Deo vivo (f. vivi) cremamur, quod nee sacrilegi, nee hostes publici, verum nee tot majestatis rei pati solent. Nam et nunc a Praeside Legionis et a Praeside Mauritaniaa vexatur hoc nomen, sed gladio tenus, sicut et a primordio mandatum est animadverti in hujusmodi, c. 4. Com- L 146 Address to Scapula, we may conclude that death by the sword was the punishment appointed in the case of the Christians : but Tertullian says that in many instances they had been burned — " a severity of punishment," he adds, " to which even criminals con- victed of sacrilege or treason are not doomed." Nor were the governors content with inflicting bodily sufferings on their unhappy victims. Those more re- fined and ingenious torments which 5 Gibbon supposes to have existed only in the inventions of the monks of succeeding ages, were, if we may believe Tertul- lian, actually resorted to in his day. 6 The Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in ab- staining from things strangled and from blood ; when, therefore, they were exhausted by long fasting, food containing blood was offered to them in the hope that they might be seduced into an act of disobe- dience. 7 Tertullian states also that attempts were frequently made to overcome the chastity of the female martyrs ; and that, instead of being exposed pare ad Nationes, L. i. c. 18. Incendiali tunica. And ad Martyres, c. 5. In tunica ardente. 5 Chap. xvi. p. 544. Ed. 4to. 6 Apology, c. 9. De Monogamia, c. 5. Et libertas ciborum et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit. See also de Pudicitia, c. 12. 7 Nam et proxime ad Lenonem damnando Christianum, potius quam ad Leonem, confessi estis labem pudicitiae apud nos atroci- orem ornni poena et omni morte reputari. Apology, sub fine. See also de Pudicitia, c. 1. 147 to the wild beasts, they were consigned to the keep- ers of the public stews, to become the victims either of seduction, or of brutal violence. I shall proceed to notice some other facts mention- ed by Tertullian ; which, though they do not relate immediately to the history of his own times, are yet worthy of observation. 8 In the Tract against the Jews, he says that Christ suffered in the reign of Tiberius Csesar, in the Consulship of Rubellius Geminus and Fusius Geminus, in the month of March, at the time of the Passover, on the eighth of the calends of April, on the first day of unleavened bread. 9 He had previously said that Augustus survived the birth of Christ fifteen years ; and that Christ suffered in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, being then about thirty years of age. It is allowed that the consul- ship of the Gemini corresponded to the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius ; and as we know from St. Luke's Gospel that our Saviour began to preach in that year, those writers who contend that his ministry lasted only for a single year, refer to Tertullian as 8 c. 8. sub fine. Compare c. 10. sub fine. 9 Post enim Augustum, qui supervixit post nativitatem Christi, anni 15 efficiuntur : cui successit Tiberius Caesar, et imperium habuit annis 22, mensibus 7, diebus 20. Hujus quin- todecimo anno imperii passus est Christus, annos habens quasi 30 quum pateretur, c. 8. Tertullian affirms also, that Christ was born in the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus, of which he dates the commencement from the death of Cleo- patra. L 2 148 maintaining' that opinion. To these passages, how- ever, has been opposed another, ' from the first Book against Marcion, in which it is said that Christ was revealed in the twelfth year of Tiberius. The correct inference, therefore, appears to be, that Tertullian believed our Saviour's ministry to have continued for three years, but mistook the year in which he was revealed for the year in which he suf- fered. As it forms no part of my plan to discuss the difficulties attending the chronology of our Saviour's life I shall content myself with referring the reader to 2 Mr. Benson's work on that subject. Tertullian 3 more than once speaks of a census 1 c. 15. At nunc quale est ut Dominus a 12 Tiberii Caesaris revelatus sit ? In a subsequent chapter Tertullian speaks as if the ministry of Christ had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ; but he then appears to be stating the opinion of Marcion. Anno 15 Tiberii, Christus Iesus de ccelo manare dig- natus est, Spiritus Salutaris, c. 19. So in L. iv. c. 7. Anno quintodecimo principals Tiberiani, proponit (Marcion) eum de- scendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de coelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. 2 c. vii. Sect. i. p. 274. 3 Cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo ? de censu denique Augusti, quern testem fidelissimum Dominica? nativitatis Romana Archiva custodiunt? ad Marcionem, L. iv. c. 7, We must bear in mind that Tertullian is arguing with an heretic, who affirmed that Christ was not born at all, but descen- ded upon earth a perfect man. Again, c. 19. Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc (f. tunc) in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum. And c. 36. Vel de recentibus Augustianis cen- sibus adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. See also de Carne 49 taken during the reign of Augustus ; the documents relating to which were preserved in the Roman archives, and, according to him, afforded incon- testable evidence of our Lord's nativity. Pie states, however, that this census was taken by Sentius Saturninus ; and consequently appears to contradict the account given by St. Luke, who ascribes it to Cyrenius. In this, as in the former case, I shall not attempt to examine the solutions of the difficulty, which have been proposed by different learned men ; but shall refer the reader to 4 Lardner. One circum- stance, however, seems worthy of observation, 5 Ter- tullian uniformly appeals to the census as establish- ing the descent of Christ from David through Mary; whose genealogy he also supposes to be given 6 in St. Matthew's Gospel. 7 In the Apology, Tertullian Christi, c. 2. Molestos semper Caesaris census. In the Treatise de Pallio, c. 1. Sentius Saturninus is mentioned as having presided at the ceremonies which attended the admission of Carthage among the Colonies of Rome. 4 Credibility of the Gospel History. Objections against Luke ii. 1, 2. considered. 5 Ex stirpe autem Jesse deputatum, per Mariam scilicet inde censendum. Fuit enim de patria Bethlehem, et de domo David, sicut apud Romanos in censu descripta est Maria, ex qua nascitur Christus. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. Compare adv. Marc. L. hi. cc. 17. 20. L. iv. c. 1. c. 36. Qui vult videre Iesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. See also L. v. c. 1, and c. 8. where there is a very fanciful application of Isaiah xi. 1. Compare de Carne Christi, c. 21. 6 De Carne Christi, c. 22. 7 Eodem momento dies, medium orbem signante sole, sub- 350 states that the miraculous darkness at our Lord's crucifixion was denied by those who did not know that it had been predicted, and therefore could not account for it ; " yet," he adds, " it is mentioned in your, i. e. the Roman archives." 8 Gibbon thinks, that instead of archivis vestris, we should adopt the reading of the Codex Fuldensis, arcanis vestris ; and understand the reference to be to the Sibylline Verses, which relate the prodigy exactly in the words of the Gospel. It is certain that 9 Tertullian speaks of the Sibyl as a true prophetess ; but we ' have just seen that he occasionally appeals to documents in the Roman archives in confirmation of his statements, and I observe that Semler retains the reading archivis. I will conclude my remarks on the external His- tory of the Church, as illustrated by the writings of Tertullian, with briefly adverting to the few notices which can be collected from them, respecting the ducta est. Deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque super Christo prsedictum non scierunt ; ratione non deprehensa, nega- verunt. Et tamen eum mundi casum relatum in archivis vestris. c. 21. 8 Chap. xv. note 1 94. 9 Ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 12. sub fine. The verses there quoted may be found in the Apology of Athenagoras. c. 26. De Pallio, c. 2. See Salmasius in loco. 1 See note 3, p. 148 of this Chapter. 151 condition of the Jews in his time. 2 He describes them as dispersed throughout the world; having neither God nor a fellow-mortal for their king ; not allowed to set foot upon their native land ; reduced in a word to a state of the lowest degradation ; com- pelled to purchase by the payment of 3 a tax per- mission publicly to exercise their worship. APPENDIX to CHAPTER II. By the kindness of the Rev. Samuel Hey, Rector of Steeple Ashton, and of Dr. Richard Hey, of Hertingford-Bury, I have been put in possession of twelve Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, read by their brother — the Rev. Dr. John Hey, late Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge 2 Dispersi, palabundi, et coeli et soli sui extorres vagantur per orbem, sine homine, sine Deo rege, quibus nee advenarum jure terram patriam saltern vestigio salutare conceditur. Apology, c. 21. Compare adv. Judaeos, c. 2. Unde Israel in novissimo tempore dignosci haberet, quando secundum sua merita in sanc- tam civitatem ingredi prohiberetur. See also c. 13, and de Pudicitia, c. 8. Ecclesiastical writers sometimes speak as if Adrian's prohibition applied only to the precincts of Jerusalem or iElia ; at others, as if it extended to the whole territory of Judaea. See Gibbon, c. xv. note 19. and the note of Valesius ad Eusebii Eccl. Hist. L. iv. c. 6. Justin Martyr, Apology I. p. 84. B. 3 Sed et Judaei palam lectitant ; vectigalis libertas. Apol. c. 18. 152 — in the Chapel of Sidney College, in the years 1768 and 1769. Two of them relate to the miracles of the Primitive Church ; and I willingly take this opportunity of confirming my own opinion on this interesting subject, by that of one of the most acute, most impartial, and most judicious Divines of mo- dern times. The reader, in perusing the following extracts, should bear in mind, that at the time when Dr. Hey wrote, the controversy excited by Dr. Mid- dleton's Essay was still fresh in the recollections of men. After some preliminary remarks, Dr. Hey observes : " the authors on both sides of this question, concern- ing the reality of the miraculous powers in the Primitive Church, seem to have looked too far before them ; and to have argued the point with too much regard to the consequences which were likely to follow from its being determined in this manner or in that. Those who defend the pretensions of the Fathers, do it through fear, lest, if they should aj>pear indefen- sible, the cause of Christianity should suffer by the condemnation of its early propagators. Those who accuse the Fathers of superstition, weakness, or false- hood, consider what indelible disgrace they shall bring upon Popery by shewing the impurity of the sources from which all its distinguishing doctrines have taken their rise. But why, in searching after the truth, should we give the least attention to any con- 153 sequences whatsoever f We know with certainty before hand, that error of every kind, if it is not an evil in itself, is always productive of evil in some degree or other ; and that to distinguish truth from falsehood, is the likeliest method we can take to make our conduct acceptable to God and beneficial to man. Nothing can be more groundless than the fears which some men indulge, lest the credit of Christianity should suffer along with the reputation of several of its professors ; or more weak than con- sidering that a sufficient reason for defending the veracity of the Fathers at all events. There are some miracles recorded in Ecclesiastical History, which are too childish and ridiculous for any one to believe ; and there are some indisputable records of the vices of the Christians, and more particularly of the Clergy: so that, if Christianity can suffer by such objections (for which there is no kind of foun- dation in reason) it has already suffered, even in the estimation of those who think the objections of weight. All agree (at least all Protestants) that there have been pious frauds and forged miracles, as w r ell as that the sacred order have been in some ages extremely vicious. The only difference then is in the degree of this charge, or rather about the cen- tury with regard to which it ought to take place ; but what difference can such a circumstance as that make in respect of the divine origin of Christianity ? We may, therefore, without fear or scruple, enter 154 upon the discussion which I have been proposing, and probe every apparent wound with resolution and accuracy. But as all reasoning on subjects of this nature must have its foundation in/acfo(forwe can no more argue upon points of history without ascertaining facts, than upon points of philosophy without ex- periments), the first part of our business is to collect from Ecclesiastical writers narratives of those miracles wrought or pretended to be wrought, in the Chris- tian Church, which seem to be most worthy of our attention and most likely to afford our judgment ground for a determination. Previous, however, to such enumeration, it will be proper to mention a circumstance of importance, viz. that for fifty years after the ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made any pretensions to the possession of miraculous powers. We have already spoken in a former Lecture, of those Fathers who are called the Apostolic, of Ignatius, Poly carp, Barna- bas, 4 Hernias ; now it is an historical truth not to be omitted, that not one of those pious men, though they were the principal governors of the Church, and the immediate successors of the Apostles in that government (as well as their companions and friends), 4 Hernias had visions. Note of Dr. Hey. 155 ever speaks of himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary powers of nature : they all endeavour to in- culcate the morality and religion of the Gospel, but that merely as men, possessed indeed of the sense and meaning of the sacred writers, but entirely void of their extraordinary power. This fact, though not wholly uncontroverted, is very nearly so ; some am- biguous expressions concerning the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit have been, not without great violence, extended to signify an extraordinary com- munication with the Deity — but no one has so much as pretended that such communication was ever meant to answer any further end, than that of strengthening the weakness of human nature against the terrors of persecution. I only affirm, however, that none of the Apostolic Fathers speaks of himself as endued with a power of working miracles ; we must not absolutely say that no miracles have ever been said to be wrought about the time they lived ; because there is a very celebrated letter extant from the Church of Smyrna, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which is said to have been attended with circumstances sufficiently miraculous. This account I shall beg leave to repeat from an eminent writer." Having given an extract from this letter, as well as from the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Dr. Hey proceeds : " These miracles are mentioned 156 because they are said to have been performed con- cerning those two Apostolic Fathers, who never ventured to assume the power of performing any themselves." After briefly noticing the miracle of the thundering legion, of which he observes that "there seems sufficient reason for being cautious about ranking it amongst the genuine miracles per- formed in favour of the Christian religion," he adds the following remarks : " Though the Apostolic Fathers stand clear of all imputations of vanity or falsehood on the score of claiming miraculous powers, yet those whom we mentioned next in order, when we considered the subject of studying the writings of the Fathers, declare openly that such were in their time indisputably exercised in the Church. I mean Justin Martyr, Irenams, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch. and Tertullian. We might add Origen, and indeed every other writer after them till the Reformation ; and there is no effort of the divine power so great which they do not boast of having exerted. Of all sorts of miracles ever performed, one would expect men to be the most cautious of assuming the power of raising the dead: and yet Irenseus says that this was frequently done on necessary occasions : and that men so raised lived amongst them many years. Irenseus only affirms this in general, without mentioning any particular instance, and it is some- what strange that no instance was ever produced in the three first centuries, insomuch that the heathens 157 grave no credit to the affirmations of the Fathers upon this head. 5 'Tantum enim,' says Irenseus, * absnnt ab eo ut mortuum ipsi excitent, ut ne qui- dem credant hoc in totum posse fieri.' There is not, however, the same want of instances with regard to the other branches of miracles said to have been performed in the Church, namely, seeing visions, prophesying, healing diseases, curing dsemoniacs, and some others." Dr. Hey passes in the second of the two Lectures to what he terms the later miracles of the Church ; those which are said to have been wrought in the interval between the establishment of Christianity by the civil power, and the time at which he wrote : and having remarked that many of them were proved to be impostures, he supposes with respect to others, the question to be asked — "whether those should not be credited which have been strongly attested, and their falsity never proved?" 5 The whole passage is as follows : Tantum autem absunt ab eo ut mortuum excitent, quemadmodum Dominus excitavit, et Apostoli per orationem, et in fraternitate saepissime propter aliquid necessarium, ea quae est in quoque loco Ecclesia universa postnl ante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversus est Spiritus mortui et donatus est homo orationibus sanctorum, ut ne quidem credant hoc in totum posse fieri. L. ii. c. 56. Again, c. 57. Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multis. Instead of the Heathens, Dr. Hey should have said the Heretics, for of them Irenaeus is speaking. 158 " In answer to this," he proceeds, " we may observe, in the first place, that to any one who has been conversant in history, and has seen the credulity of some, and the pious frauds of others, the want of regard to conscience in promoting the views of a party, whether civil or religious, with the many actual violations of truth which have been fully ex- posed, it is absolutely impossible to believe the com- mon run of miraculous stories ; no evidence can equal the prior probability which we have of their falsehood. Then there are many relations of preter- natural events which no one believes (or perhaps a very trifling party), though they have been attested with all possible formality and exactness. The Abbe Paris is mentioned by every one on this subject : lie only died in 1735; the variety of miracles which were said to have been performed at his tomb is truly surprising in an improved age : but not less so the strength, the precision, the regularity of the at- testations of them, taken before magistrates of the greatest gravity and authority. Mons. de Montgeron, a person of eminent rank in Paris, published a select number of them in a pompous volume in quarto, which he dedicated to the King, and presented to him in person ; being induced to the publication of them, as he declares, by the incontestable evidence of the facts : by which he himself, from a libertine and professed Deist, became a sincere convert to the Christian faith. And yet no one now believes these 159 facts ; the Jesuit party never owned their belief of them, for the Abbe was a Jansenist, and the miracles were to support the interests of the Jansenists : though the Jesuits profess to believe the miracles of the Fathers which we have been relating, and which are not near so well attested as those of the Abbe Paris. If then some of the ecclesiastical miracles are to be disbelieved, and the later which we are to disbelieve are better attested than the early, in what century shall we draw the line between the credible and incredible ? it is a difficult matter ; and the difficulty cannot but affect the general credit of Church miracles, if joined to other collateral proofs of the fallibility of their evidence. There is another remarkable instance, in which the greatest number of witnesses, and the firmest temporary opinion concerning the truth of the facts, have not been able to perpetuate an error ; and that is the affair of witchcraft. No miraculous fact in the Church has ever been better proved, if so well, as the supernatural operations of witches. All the nations of Christendom have so far taken their powers for granted, as to provide legal remedies against them, — nay, even capital punishments for their supposed crimes. At this time there subsist, in this Univer- sity one, if not several foundations for annual 1 160 sermons, to be preached against them. It is shock- ing to think of* the number of poor wretches who have suffered cruel deaths on account of this super- stition : and yet there does not now seem to remain the least trace of it amongst liberal people or indeed 6 in any rank whatsoever. If we consider how an incredulous person, during its existence, would be blamed for opposing the united sense of all Christian nations, — the testimony of numbers of impartial people, — the purport of the wisest laws ; we shall at least contract a candid indulgence towards those who are unable to believe the relations of St. Jerome. In short, as Dr. Middleton says, ' the incredibility of the thing prevailed, and was found at last too strong for human testimony 7 .' Far different from those we have been speaking of are the miracles of the Gospel ; rational, bene- volent, seasonable, of extensive use, disinterested, free from superstition and moroseness, promoting good morals, called out by the greatness of the occasion in a series, coincident with the purposes of God manifested in prior revelations of his will. 8 Nor c We are afraid that Dr. Hey here over-rates the intelligence of the people of this country. 7 Dr. Middleton does not seem to fall far short of Mr. Hume on Miracles. Note of Dr. Hey. 8 A miracle to me can only be what I judge is done with, and could not be done without, divine power : I am liable to be de- ceived both as to what is done, and what can be done : every 161 would even these have justly gained the assent of mankind, had the internal evidence of the Gospel plainly contradicted the external, — had the precepts which it promulgated been evidently unworthy of the Deity, and productive of the misery of human nature, instead of meriting the angelic eulogium which they received when the heavenly choir sang, ' Glory to God, — peace on earth, — and good-will towards men.' " miracle therefore must be scrutinized by every man ; and the nature and tendency of it called in to assist the judgment as to the fact, and the powers of man, &c. under the laws of nature. Note by Dr. Hey, written in 1783. M CHAPTER III. ON THE STATE OF LETTERS AND PHILOSOPHY. Mosheim commences his internal history of the Church in each century with an account of the state of letters and philosophy. In the second century his observations principally relate to the new system of philosophy: or, to speak more accurately, to that mixture of Platonism and Christianity which was in- troduced by Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria. On this subject the writings of Tertullian afford no in- formation. Not that he was unacquainted with the tenets of the different sects — his works on the con- trary shew that he had studied them with diligence and success : nor that he entertained that mortal en- mity to philosophy and letters which Mosheim im- putes to the Montanists in general — ' for he appears 1 Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de Veritate sapiebat, Deos negans, &c. Apology, c. 46. Taceo de Philosophis, quos, super- bia severitatis et duritia discipline ab omni timore securos, non- 163 even to have thought that the philosophers, who opposed the polytheism of their countrymen, were in some measure inspired by the spirit of truth : — 2 but he clearly saw, and has, in his controversial writings against the heretics, pointed out the pernicious con- sequences to the interests of Christianity, which had resulted from the attempt to explain its doctrines by a reference to the tenets of the philosophers. 3 " They indeed by a lucky chance might sometimes stumble upon the truth, as men groping in the dark may accidentally hit upon the right path: but the Christian, who enjoys the benefit of a revelation from heaven, is inexcusable, if he commits himself to such blind and treacherous guidance." Although, however, the writings of Tertullian nullus etiam afflatus Veritatis adversus Deos erigit. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 10. De Anima, c. 2. 2 Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academiae et Ecclesiae ? quid Haereticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quserendum. Viderint qui Stoicum, et Platonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Iesum, nee inquisitione post Evangelium. De Praascriptione Haeretic. c. 7. He traces the origin of all the heresies by which the peace of the Church was disturbed to the heathen philosophy: Ipsae denique haereses a Philosophia subornantur. Ibid. Cum Philosophis — Patriarchis, ut ita dixerim, Haereticorum. De Anima, c. 3. See also c. 18, and the Apology, c. 47. 3 De Anima, c. 2. Nonnunquam et in tenebris aditus quidam et exitus deprehenduntur caeca felicitate. M 2 164 afford us no assistance in filling up the outline sketched by Mosheim of the state of learning and philosophy in the second century, an examination of his own philosophical or metaphysical notions will, we trust, supply some curious and not uninteresting infor- mation. We will begin, therefore, with the Treatise de Testimonio Animse: the object of which is to prove that the soul of man bears a natural testimony to the truth of the representation, given in Scripture, of the Divine nature and attributes. 4 In a short exordium, Tertullian points out the inconsistency and perverseness of the heathen, who usually paid a blind deference to the decisions of the Philosophers ; but renounced their authority at the very time when they approached most nearly to the truth — when their doctrines most closely resembled those of Christianity. He then proceeds to address the soul ; enumerating at' the same time the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting its origin. 5 " Stand forth," he says, " O soul, whether, as the majority of 4 Compare the Apology, c. 46. 5 Consiste in medio, Anima, seu divina et seterna res es, secundum plures philosophos, eo magis non mentiens ; seu minime divina, quoniam quidem mortalis, ut Epicuro soli videtur, eo magis mentiri non debens ; seu de ccelo exciperis seu de terra conciperis ; seu numeris, seu atomis concinnaris ; seu cum corpore incipis, seu post corpus induceris ; unde unde et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale, sensus et scientiae capa- cissimum, c. 1. In c. 4. are briefly enumerated the opinions of the different philosophers respecting the state of the soul after death. 165 philosophers affirm, thou art divine and immortal, and therefore incapable of falsehood ; or whether, according to the solitary opinion of Epicurus, thou art not divine, because mortal, and therefore under a stricter obligation to speak the truth ; whether thou art brought down from heaven, or taken up from the earth; whether thou art formed from numbers or from atoms; whether thine existence commenced with that of the body, or thou wast sub- sequently introduced into the body : whatever thine origin, and in whatever manner thou makest man a rational animal, capable of sense and knowledge — stand forth." — "I do not, however," he adds, "address myself to the soul in an artificial state, such as it becomes after it has been tutored in the schools of philosophy ; but to the soul in its natural state, pos- sessing only that knowledge which it has either within itself, or learns immediately from its Creator." The 6 testimony which, according to Tertullian, the soul bears to the unity of God, consists in excla- mations like the following, which burst forth in- voluntarily from the mouths even of Pagans, in com- mon conversation : " God grant that it may be so" — " If God will." " How happens it," asks our author, still addressing the soul, "that instead of c. 6. 166 naming any one of the numerous Deities who are the objects of heathen worship, you use the word 7 Deus : and thus unconsciously bear testimony to the exis- tence of one supreme God?" In like manner the soul evinces its knowledge of the attributes of God, of his power and goodness, by exclaiming, " God bless you ; God is good ; I commend you to God ; God sees all things ; God will repay :" as it 8 evinces its knowledge of the author of evil, by the execra- tions which it pronounces against daemons. 9 By 7 In the third volume of his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, recently published at Cambridge in the United States, Mr. Andrews Norton has, in a very ingenious and learned note, entered into an examination of the uses of the words Qtug and Deus by Heathen writers. He refers particularly to the Treatise de Testimonio Animae, and to the appeal made by Ter- tullian to the popular use of the word Deus in the singular number, as showing a natural consciousness in men of the one God. He observes that Tertullian, and the other Fathers who made this appeal, scarcely believed that the commonalty among the heathens, when they used such expressions as Quod Deus dederit, Quod Deus voluerit, had in their thoughts a distinct con- ception of the one God, but regarded those expressions as an instinctive recognition, not well understood by those who uttered them, of a truth originally stamped upon the soul. Tertul- lian 's argument may therefore be thus stated. " In this recog- nition of a Divine Power by which events are ordered, and which is not referred by you to any one of the gods which you ordinarily worship, there is evidence of that conception of the Divinity which belongs to the nature of the soul." This appears to be a correct account of Tertullian's reasoning. 8 c. 3. 9 c. 4. 167 the fear also of death, by its innate desire of fame, and by involuntary expressions of feeling respecting the dead, it declares its consciousness that it shall exist in another state, and its anticipation of a future judgment. " Such * is the testimony which the soul bears to the unity and attributes of God, and to the reality of a future state of retribution. Such the language which it speaks, not in Greece only, or at Rome, but in every age and in every clime. Common to all nations, this language must have been derived from a common source; must have been dictated by nature, or rather by the God of nature ; by Hini who created the soul. But you will say, perhaps, that these ex- clamations, which burst, as it were, involuntarily from the lips, are not the result of a consciousness in the soul of its Divine Author, impressed upon it by himself; but are merely habitual modes of speech, used in common conversation, almost without mean- ing, and transmitted either by written or oral tradi- tion. Be it so. Whence then were they derived by the man who first used them ? The notion must have been conceived in the soul, before it was de- livered to the tongue, or committed to writing. To account for the general use of these expressions, by saying that they have been handed down by written tradition, is in fact to trace them to God 1 cc. 5, 8. 168 himself: for the earliest writings in the world are the Jewish Scriptures, of which the authors were divinely inspired. It matters little whether we say that this consciousness was impressed immediately by God upon the soul, or that the soul acquired it through the medium of his revealed Word." The confirmation which the natural testimony of the soul affords to the truth of Christianity was evi- dently 2 a favourite topic with Tertullian. He urges the same argument in the 3 Apology : and Milner, in 2 Compare De Anima, c. 41. De Came Christi, c. 12. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 3. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 10. 3 c. 17. I insert the whole chapter as highly deserving the reader's attention. Quod colimus Deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, corporum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum majestatis suae, unde et Graeci nomen mundo Kucrfxov accommodaverunt. Invisibilis est, etsi videatur; incomprehensibilis, etsi per gratiam reprae- sentetur ; inaestimabilis, etsi humanis sensibus aestimetur ; ideo verus et tantus est. Caeterum quod videri communiter, quod comprehendi, quod sestimari potest, minus est et oculis quibus occupatur, et manibus quibus contaminatur, et sensi- bus quibus invenitur. Quod vero immensum est, soli sibi no turn est ; hoc est quod Deum aestimari facit, dum aesti- mari non capit. Ita eum vis magnitudinis et notum homini- bus objicit et ignotum. Et haec est summa delicti nolentium recognoscere quern ignorare non possunt. Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus oblectamur, etiam quibus exterremur — vultis ex animae ipsius testimonio comprobemus ? quae licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidinibus et con- cupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exancillata, quum tamen 169 his History of the Church, though little disposed to think highly of our author, admits that he " scarce remembers a finer observation made by any author in favour both of the natural voice of conscience, and of the patriarchal tradition of true religion ; for both may fairly be supposed concerned." In the short preface to the Tract of which we have been speaking, Tertullian assigns the cause of his frequent recurrence to this mode of reasoning. To press the enemies of the Gospel with arguments drawn from profane literature was, he says, useless ; though they allowed the premises, they were always ready with some pretext for evading the legitimate conclusion. To bring forward arguments founded on Scripture was still more unavailing; they did not admit its authority. How then were they to be convinced, or at least silenced ? 4 By an appeal to the testimony borne to the existence of one supreme God, by the natural voice of Conscience and by the resipiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et sanitatem suam potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine, quia pro- prio Dei veri. Deus magnus, Deus bonus, et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem quoque contestatur ilium. Deus videt, et Deo commendo, et Deus rnihi reddet. O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae ! Denique pronuntians haec, non ad Capitolium, sed ad ccelum respicit. Novit enim sedem Dei vivi ; ab illo et inde descendit. The following are selected from numerous passages in which Tertullian appeals to this testimony. Tractandum et hie de revelationis qualitate, an digne cognitus sit (Deus), ut constet 170 works of Creation. To this testimony, therefore, Tertullian appeals : and in thus appealing, far from thinking that he could be accused of pursuing a course derogatory to the honour, or injurious to the interests of the Gospel, he conceived that he was offering the strongest evidence in confirmation of its truth; by shewing that the revelation, which God has been pleased to make of himself, in his visible works and in the soul of man, is in perfect harmony with that contained in his written word. But though approved, as we have seen, by Milner, Tertullian's reasoning will be far, we suspect, from commanding universal assent in the present day. Since the publication of Dr. Ellis's work, entitled an vere ; et ita credatur esse, quern digne constiterit revelatum. Digna enim Deo probabunt Deum. Nos definimus Deum primo natura cognoscendum, dehinc doctrina recognoscendum. Natura, ex operibus ; doctrina, ex praedicationibus. Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 18. Compare L. ii. c. 3. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 20. Denique ante legem Moysi scriptam in lapideis tabulis, legem fuisse contendo non scriptam, quae naturaliter intelligebatur et a Patribus custodiebatur. Nam unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia praecedebat ? Adv. Judaeos, c. 2. De Virginibus Vel. cc. 1. 16. Nos unum Deum colimus, quern omnes naturaliter nostis ; ad cujus fulgura et tonitrua contremis- citis : ad cujus beneficia gaudetis. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. Si enim anima, aut divina aut a Deo data est, sine dubio datorem suum novit. De Testim. Animae, c. 2. Quum etiam ignorantes Dominum nulla exceptio tueatur a poena, quia Deum in aperto constitutum, et vel ex ipsis ccelestibus bonis comprehensibilem ignorari non licet, quanto cognitum despici periculosum est ! De Pcenitentia, c. 5. De Spectaculis, c. 2. De Corona Militis, c. 6. Ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 5. 171 "The Knowledge of Divine things from Revelation," it has become the fashion with many to treat, not merely as vain and idle, but even as presumptuous and almost impious, every attempt to prove the ex- istence and attributes of God from the visible works of Creation, or from the internal constitution of man. " Unless," we are told, " the idea of a God had in the first instance been communicated to the mind ; unless God had himself taught it to our first parents, and it had thus been transmitted through succeeding generations ; no contemplation of the works of creation — no induction from the phenomena of the natural and moral world, could ever have enabled mankind to discover even his existence. But as soon as we are taught that there is a Creator necessarily existent and of infinite perfection, our understandings readily admit the idea of such a Being; and we find in the natural world innumerable testimonies to the truth of the doctrine." Now we are ready to grant, that man never did by reasoning a posteriori discover the existence of God ; or 5 in Warburton's words, that " all religious knowledge of the Deity and of man's relation to him was revealed, and had descended traditionally down (though broken and disjointed in so long a passage) 5 Doctrine of Grace, Book iii. c. 2. Warburton is speaking in the person of an opponent of Natural Religion. 172 from the first man." Still this concession does not, in our estimation, affect the only important part of the question ; which is not, whether man ever did, without 'previous intimation of a Supreme Being, reason from the works of Creation to the existence of a Creator; but whether, if he had so reasoned, he would have reasoned correctly. When, however, it is affirmed that man not only never did, but never could so have reasoned, we must be permitted to examine the arguments by which the assertion is supported. Why then could not man discover the existence of God from the con- templation of the works of creation, &c. ? " Because, it is said, between matter and spirit, things visible and invisible, time and eternity, beings finite and beings infinite, objects of sense and objects of faith, the connexion is not perceptible to human observation." And we are, therefore, to conclude that, unless we had been taught that there is a spiritual, invisible, eternal, infinite Being, we never could have arrived at the knowledge of that Being. Yet the same writers contend that the fact is no sooner proposed, than it commands the assent of the understanding. What then are the grounds on which that assent is given ? The mere statement cannot alone be suffi- cient to produce conviction. The truth is, that the understanding assents, because the fact proposed agrees with our previous observations — with the 173 previous deductions of reason. Reason tells us that there are in the nature of man faculties for the ex- istence of which we cannot account by any modification of matter known to us — thought, memory, invention, judgment. Reason tells us that no bounds can be set to time or space — hence we are led to admit the existence of a spiritual, eternal, infinite Being. The reasoning is equally valid, whether we apply it in confirmation of a fact which has been revealed to us, or without any previous revelation infer that fact from it. The latter is doubtless by far the more difficult operation : but we are now speaking only of its possibility or impossibility. The 6 same series of proofs by which we establish a known truth, might surely have conducted us to the knowledge of that truth. Let us suppose a sceptic to ask why we be- lieve the existence of God : what must be our re- ply ? According to the writers whose opinions we are now considering : " This truth was originally made known by revelation." But if the sceptic pro- ceeded to deny, as he probably would, the authority 6 To borrow an illustration from science. For how long a period were the ablest mathematicians employed in endeavour- ing to effect the passage from finite to infinite, or from discrete to continuous, in geometry ? The discovery was at length made, and therefore was at all times possible. 174 of the revelation, by what arguments must we en- deavour to convince him ? The answer is, " We must necessarily refer him to those testimonies, which the natural and moral phenomena of the world abun- dantly supply, of a Creator all-wise, powerful, good." It is admitted then by the very answer that those testimonies are sufficient to prove to the sceptic the existence of God ; and is not this in fact to give up the point in dispute ? Perhaps, however, there may be some who will foresee this inevitable consequence of referring the sceptic to testimonies drawn from the natural and moral world ; and will answer, " We can prove the authority of the revelation by historical investigation. We possess certain records, the genuineness of which we have ascertained ; these declare that at a certain time a revelation was made from Heaven ; and that the person who was sent to make it, attested the truth of his mission by miracles." Perhaps the sceptic will reply, that no human testimony can establish the credit of a miracle. How is this objec- tion to be answered but by a reference to the natural world ? by shewing that what we call the course of nature, from which a miracle is said to be a devia- tion, is in fact only a system appointed by the God of nature ; and consequently liable to be sus- pended or altered according to his pleasure? Or 175 perhaps the sceptic may say, that pretensions to mi- raculous powers have abounded in all ages ; and that, as such pretensions have in the majority of instances been shewn to be false, we may reasonably conclude that they were so in all. To meet this objection, we must refer to the criteria of miracles, which are all deductions of human reason; and shew that the purposes, for which the miraculous powers are said to have been exerted, were conso- nant to just conceptions of the Divine Nature and Attributes: and those conceptions derived from sources extraneous and independant of the Revela- tion itself. For we must not, in the first instance, say, that we obtain the knowledge of the nature and attributes of God from a revelation, and then prove the truth of that revelation by a reference to the knowledge so obtained. But is not this, it will be asked, to constitute human reason the judge of the Divine dispensa- tions? Is it not to say that man, blind and ignorant man, can certainly determine what ought and what ought not to proceed from God ? By no means. It is only to compare one set of facts with another; to compare the conceptions of the Divine nature, which we derive from the perusal of the Bible, with those which we derive from the contemplation of the phenomena of the natural and moral world. If 1 176 the written word and the visible world both proceed from the same Author, they cannot but agree in the testimony which they bear to his character and attributes. Men, it is true, have not unfrequently been in- duced by the love of paradox, by the desire of ob- taining a reputation for superior talent and acute- ness, or by other motives of a similar description, to assert the all-sufficiency of human reason, and to deny the necessity of a revelation. Hence many good and pious Christians have run into the opposite extreme, and been disposed to regard all, who have recourse to reason and the light of nature in the in- vestigation of religious truth, as little better than infidels, puffed up with a presumptuous conceit of their own knowledge, and sitting in judgment on the fitness of the Divine procedure. Yet what just ground is there for these heavy accusations ? Is not reason the gift of God ? Does not the light of nature emanate from the Author of nature ? from Him who is the fountain of light ? In what then consists the presumption of endeavouring to trace the Divine character and operations, by means of that light which God has himself supplied ? The knowledge of divine things, which we acquire by the proper exer- cise of our various faculties on the phenomena of the visible world, is as strictly the gift of God, as 177 that which we derive from the perusal of his revealed word. Warburton, in the 2d and 3d Chapters of the third Book of the Doctrine of Grace, has pointed out, with his usual acuteness, the causes in which the existing disposition to undervalue and condemn the argument a posteriori originated. In their endea- vours to defend our holy religion, divines, instead of taking their stand upon the firm basis of truth, have been too apt to shift their ground, and think opinions right in proportion as they were further removed from those of the adversary with whom they were immediately contending. Hence they have con- tinually run into extremes ; sometimes exalting hu- man reason above all due bounds ; at other times as unjustly depreciating it. In the seventeenth century, fanaticism was the error against which the clergy had principally to contend ; and in order to place themselves at the greatest possible distance from it, they took every opportunity of launching forth into the praises of human reason, and asserting its suffi- ciency to the discovery of divine truth ; till the Gospel at length came to be spoken of as a mere republication of the religion of nature. The infidel was not slow in availing himself of the advantage which such unguarded expressions afforded him ; and began to deny the necessity of revelation, under the pretence that natural religion was sufficient for N 178 every purpose. Our divines again took the alarm ; and, instead of endeavouring to mark out the precise bounds of reason and revelation, saw no better mode of extricating themselves from the difficulty, than by running into the opposite ex- treme, and decrying natural religion with as much vehemence as their predecessors had extolled it. — To return to Tertullian. We have seen his opinion respecting the tes- timony, borne by the soul of man, to the unity and attributes of God, and to a future state. Let us now examine his sentiments respecting the soul itself, which are detailed in the 7 Treatise de Anima. After the body or flesh 8 of Adam had been formed out of the Must of the earth, God breathed into his nostrils the ' breath of life, 7 We have seen that our author wrote a distinct Treatise on the Origin of the Soul, de Censu Animse, against Hermo- genes, who contended that it was formed out of matter. Chap. i. p. GO. 8 c. 3. See, concerning the creation of man, de Resurrectione Carnis, cc. 5. 7. 9 Tertullian supposes the earth out of which man was made, to have heen in a humid state, having been lately covered with water. De Baptismo, c. 3. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 24. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 29. Qui tunc de limo formari habebat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. De limo caro in Adam. De Anima, c. 27. For a definition of the body, see de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 35. 1 This breath Tertullian sometimes calls the substance of God. A rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus (homo), sed etiam 179 and man became a living soul. Man, therefore, is composed of two parts, aap£, and xpv^rj, Caro and 2 Anima, flesh and soul ; and the term soul, according to Tertullian, includes both the vital and intellectual principles, the latter of which was afterwards dis- tinguished by the name vovq, Animus or Mens. He ex substantia ipsius animatus. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Compare adv. Marc. L. ii. cc. 5, 6. Quoquo tamen, inquis, modo sub- stantia Creatoris delicti capax invenitur, quum afflatus Dei, id est, anima, in homine deliquit. c. 9. The objection here stated was urged, not only by the Marcionites, but also by Hermogenes. See de Anima, c. 11. Tertullian sometimes uses the word Spiritus to designate the Soul. See de Baptismo, cc. 4, 5. De Pcenitentia, c. 3. Siquidem et caro et Spiritus Dei res ; alia manu ejus expressa ; alia afflatu ejus consummata. De Spectaculis, c. 2. Et tamen et corpore et spiritu desciit a suo institutore. In another passage in the same Tract, c. 13, Spiritus and Anima are joined together, and appear to be synonymous, unless the former means the breath. Quae non intestinis transiguntur, sed in ipso Spiritu et Anima digeruntur. See also c. 17. sub fine, and de Anima, cc. 10, 11. Tertullian uses the expression, Spiritus animalis. De Anima, c. 53. But generally Tertullian uses the word Spiritus to designate the Holy Spirit ; the communication of whose in- fluence constitutes the Spiritual Man, TrvevfiaTUcdg, in contra- distinction from the animal man, fax 1 ™^ Q ui non tantum animae erant, verum et spiritus, c. 26. See c. 35. In c. 41. we find the Spirit clearly distinguished from the soul. Sequitur animam nubentem Spiritui caro, ut dotale mancipium, et jam non animae famula, sed Spiritus. Using the word Spiritus in this sense, he calls the soul suffectura Spiritus (Quia suffectura est quodammodo Spiritus Anima. Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 28.) the substance on which the Spirit acts, or its instrument ; and in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40. he says, that the inward man is renewed per suggestum Spiritus. See also de Monogamia, c. 1. N 2 180 describes 3 vovg or Animus, as co-existent and con- substantial with the soul, yet distinct from it, as a minister or deputy is from his principal ; being the instrument by which the soul acts, apprehends, moves. For that the pre-eminence, principalitas, is in the soul, Anima, not in the mind, Animus, is evi- dent from the language of common life. We 4 say that a rich man feeds so many souls, not so many minds ; that a dying man breathes out his soul, not his mind ; that Christ came to save the souls, not the minds of men. "The 5 Scriptures then," Tertullian proceeds, " prove, in opposition to Plato, that the soul has a beginning. They prove also, in opposition to the same philosopher, that the soul is corporeal." 6 On 3 Proinde et animum, sive mens est, vovq apud Graecos, non aliud quid intelligimus, quam suggestum animae ingenitum et insitum et nativitus proprium, quo agit, quo sapit, quern secum habens ex semetipsa se commoveat in semetipsa. c. 12. Again, in the same chapter, near the end. Nos autem animum ita dici- mus animae concretum, non ut substantia alium, sed ut substantias officium. Again in c. 18. Putabis quidem abesse animum ab anima, siquando animo ita afficimur, ut nesciamus nos vidisse quid vel audisse, quia alibi fuerit animus : adeo contendam, immo ipsam animam nee vidisse nee audisse, quia alibi fuerit cum sua vi, id est, animo. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40. Porro Apostolus interiorem hominem non tarn animam, quam mentem atque animum intelligi mavult, id est, non substantiam ipsam, sed substantia? saporem. 4 c. 13. 5 c. 4. 8 c. 5. Tertullian also ascribes a body to the Spirit. Licet enim et animae corpus sit aliquod, suae qualitatis, sicut et spiritiis. 181 this last point great difference of opinion existed ; some philosophers maintaining, with Cleanthes, that, as there could he no mutual action of things cor- poreal and things incorporeal upon each other, and as the soul and body certainly do act upon each other, the soul must be corporeal. 7 Plato, on the contrary, contended, that every body must be either animate, animated by a soul, in which case it will be set in motion by some internal action ; or inanimate, not animated by a soul, in which case it will be set in motion by some external action ; but the soul falls under neither of these classes, being that which sets the body in motion. To this Tertullian replies, that undoubtedly the soul can neither be called animate nor inanimate ; still it is a body, though sui generis. It is itself set in motion by external action ; when, for instance, it is under the influence of prophetic inspiration ; and it sets bodies in motion, which it could not do if it were not a body. Plato further argued that the modes, in which we arrive at Adv. Marc. L. v. c. 15. See also c. 10. Et si habet aliquod proprium corpus anima vel spiritus, ut possit videri corpus animale animam significare, et corpus spiritale spiritum : and adv. Praxeam, c. 7. Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. He remarks in general, Omne, quod est, corpus est sui generis ; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. De Came Christi, c. 11. Nisi fallor enim, omnis res aut corporalis aut incorporalis sit necesse est ; ut concedam interim esse aliquid incorporale de substantiis duntaxat, quum ipsa substantia corpus sitrei cujusque. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 35. c « 6. 182 the knowledge of the qualities of things corporeal and things incorporeal, are perfectly distinct. The knowledge of the former is obtained through the bodily senses, sight, touch, &c. ; of the latter, of benevolence for instance, or malevolence, through the intellectual senses : the soul, therefore, is incorporeal. Tertullian denies the correctness of this distinction ; and contends, on the contrary, that, as the soul is advertised of the existence of things incorporeal, of sounds, colours, smells through the medium of the corporeal senses, the fair inference rather is, that the soul is corporeal. " Still it must be allowed that the soul and body have each its peculiar suste- nance : the latter is supported by meat and drink : the former by wisdom and learning." Here Tertul- lian appeals to 8 medical authority ; and contends that corporeal aliment is necessary also to the well- being of the soul, which would sink without it. Study does not feed, it only adorns the soul : not to mention, he adds, that the Stoics affirmed the arts and sciences to be corporeal. 9 His last argument 8 Soranus, the physician, whom Tertullian quotes by name, appears to have been a materialist, and to have maintained the mortality of the soul. c. 7. Compare de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 17. There is, however, some variation in Tertullian's language on this subject. In the Apology, c. 48. he speaks as if the soul could not suffer when separated from the body : Ideoque repraesentabuntur et corpora, quia neque pati quicquam potest anima sola sine stabili materia, id est, carne. See also de Testimonio Animae, c. 4. 183 Is drawn from the Scriptures, which speak of the torments endured by the soul of the rich man, when in a state of separation from the body — in that inter- mediate state in which the soul remains until the general resurrection. But if the soul can suffer, it must be corporeal ; were it not corporeal, it would not have that whereby it could suffer. ' Nor let it be argued that the soul is incorporeal, because it is invisible ; all bodies have not the same properties ; that of invisibility is peculiar to the soul. But though invisible to the eye of sense, it is visible to the eye of the spirit ; for 2 St. John, when in the Spirit, beheld the souls of the martyrs. The speci- mens already produced will give the reader a suffi- ciently accurate idea of the arguments, by which the parties in this dispute supported their respective opi- nions ; we will, therefore, proceed at once to state Tertullian's conclusion. 3 He ascribes to the soul 4 a peculiar character or constitution, boundary, length, breadth, height, and figure. This conclusion he confirms by the testimony of a Christian female, who was favoured with a vision, in which the soul was exhibited to her in a corporeal shape, and appeared a spirit ; not however an empty illusion, but capable of being grasped by the hand, soft, and transparent, and of an sethereal colour, and in form agreeing c. 8. 2 Apoc. vi. 9. c. 9. ' The Latin word is "habitum." 184 exactly with the human form. For when God breathed into Adam the breath of life, that breath, being diffused through every part and member of his body, produced an interior man corresponding in all respects to the exterior. Having shewn that the soul is corporeal, 5 our author proceeds to maintain that it is simple and un- compounded ; in opposition to certain philosophers, who distinguished between the soul and the spirit, Anima and Spiritus, and made the latter a different substance from the former ; the soul being accord- ing to them the vital principle, the principle by which men live — the spirit, that by which they breathe. Anatomists, they said, inform us that moths, and ants, and gnats, have no organs of respi- ration ; they have the vital without the breathing principle ; those principles are consequently distinct. 6 But Tertullian will not allow that we can thus reason from an insect to an human being. In the nature of man, life and breath are inseparable. The distinction, therefore, between Anima and Spiritus, 5 c. 10, n. 6 In c. 19, Tertullian distinguishes between the Vital Principle in man, and in all other created things. Denique arbores vivere, nee tamen sapere, secundum Aristotelem, et si quis alius substantiam animalem in universa communicat, quae apud nos in homine privata res est, non modo ut Dei opus quod et caetera, sed ut Dei flatus quod heec sola, quam dicimus cum omni instructu suo nasci. 185 is only a distinction of words, similar to that between Lux and Dies, the light and the day. The spirit or breath is an act or operation of the soul : the soul breathes. 7 We must not, however, be led astray by the mere sound of words, and confound the spirit, which from the very birth of man is inseparably united to his soul, with the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the devil, which, though they act upon the soul, are extraneous to it. The 8 simplicity of the soul necessarily implies that it is indivisible. When, therefore, the philoso- phers talk of the parts of the soul, they speak inac- curately : they should say powers, or faculties, or operations, as of moving, acting, thinking, seeing, hearing, &c. Because different parts of the body are, as it were, allotted to the different senses, we must not suppose that the case is the same with the soul : on the contrary, the soul pervades the whole frame ; as in the hydraulic organ of Archimedes one breath pervades the whole machine, and produces a variety of sounds. 9 With respect to the seat of the 7 Erunt enim et aliae Spiritus species, ut ex Deo, ut ex Diabolo, c. 10. Compare c. 18. Ob hsec ergo praestruximus neque animum aliud quid esse, quam animae suggestum et structum : neque spiritum extraneum quid quam quod et ipsa per flatum. Caeterum accessioni deputandum, quod aut Deus postea, aut Diabolus adspiraret. 8 c. 14. 9 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 15, from which it appears that some placed the ^ytfiovLKov in the brain, or in the space between 186 soul, the part of the body in which the principle of vitality and sensation peculiarly resides, to rj-yj^ovj/cov, principale, Tertullian places it in the heart ; grounding his opinion upon those passages of Scripture, in which man is said to think, to believe, to sin, &c. with the heart. While, however, Tertullian denies that the soul is divisible into parts, he 1 admits Plato's distinction respecting its rational and irrational qualities; though he explains the distinction in a different manner. The soul of Adam, as created by God and in its original and natural state, was rational. The irrational qualities were infused by the devil, when he seduced our first parents into transgression. Plato applied the terms Ov^ukov and iTriOv^riKov to the irrational qualities of the soul ; but, says Tertul- lian, there is a rational, as well as irrational, indigna- tion and desire ; indignation at sin, and desire of good. The 2 credit due to the testimony of the senses was a question on which great diversity of opinion the eye-brows. The ancient anatomists appear to have instituted experiments for the purpose of ascertaining the seat of the soul, by removing those parts of the body in which it has been usually supposed to reside. Their conclusion was, that nothing certain could be pronounced upon the subject; since choose what part you will as the seat of the soul, animals or insects may be found, in which the vital principle remains, after that part is removed. 1 c. 16. 2 c 17. 187 existed among the philosophers 3 . The Platonists con- tended that no credit can be given to them, because in many instances their testimony is at variance with fact. Thus a straight oar immersed in the water ap- pears bent — a parallel row of trees appears to converge to a point — the sky in the horizon appears to be united to the sea. The state of natural philosophy in Tertullian's days did not enable him to give a correct explanation of these appearances ; yet he seems to reason correctly, when he says that, as causes can be assigned why the appearances should be such as they are, they constitute no ground for rejecting the testimony of the senses. To persons suffering from a redundancy of gall all things taste bitter ; but the true conclusion is, that the body is diseased, not that the sense of taste is fallacious. Tertullian, however, does not rely solely upon reasoning : he points out the fatal consequences to the Gospel, which will follow from admitting the notion of the Platonists. If we cannot trust to the testimony of the senses, what grounds have we for believing that Christ either lived, or wrought miracles, or died, or rose again ? Closely Connected with this notion respecting the 3 In the Tract de Corona, c. 5. Tertullian calls the senses the instruments of the soul, by which it sees, hears, &c. Compare the first Tusculan, c. 20. or 46. " c. 18. 188 fallacy of the senses was the notion that the soul, so long as it is united to the body, cannot attain to the 5 knowledge of the truth ; but must be involved in the maze of opinion and error. The business, there- fore, of the wise man is to abstract the mind from the senses, and to raise it to the contemplation of those invisible, incorporeal, divine, eternal ideas, which are the patterns of the visible objects around us. Doubtless, answers Tertullian, the distinction between things corporeal and things spiritual, things visible and things invisible, is just; and the soul arrives at the knowledge of them through different channels ; being conversant with the one by means of the senses, with the other by means of the mind or intellect. But the knowledge obtained through the latter source is not more certain than that ob- tained through the former. In 6 opposition to those who affirmed that the soul of the infant is 7 destitute of intellect, which they supposed to be subsequently introduced — Tertullian contends, that all the faculties of the soul are co- existent with it; though they are afterwards more or less perfectly developed in different individuals, 5 The distinction between Scientia and Opinio must be familiar to all who are acquainted with Cicero's Philosophical Writings. 6 cc. 19, 20, 21. 7 In other words, that the infant possesses the vital, but not the intellectual, principle. 189 According to the different circumstances of birth, health, education, condition of life. But observing the great variety of intellectual and moral characters in the world, we are apt to conclude that it arises from some difference in the original constitution of the soul ; whereas that is always the same, though it is afterwards modified by external cir- cumstances. This remark is particularly directed against the 9 Valentinian notion that different seeds, material, animal, or spiritual, are introduced into the souls of men after their birth ; whence arise the diversities of character discernible among them. One necessary inference from this notion is, that the character of the individual is immutably determined by the nature of the seed infused into his soul : whether good or bad, it must always remain so. Our author, on the contrary, argues, that the character of God alone is immutable, because He alone is self-existent : the character of a created being must be liable to change, and will depend upon the use which he makes of the freedom of his will — a freedom which he derives from nature. Tertullian, however, was far from intending to assert the suffi- ciency of man to form within himself by the mere exercise of his free-will a holy temper and disposition; 1 he expressly states that the freedom of the will is 8 Compare cc. 24 and 38. ° Compare c. 11. 1 Hsec erit vis Divinse Gratiae, potentior utique natura, habens in nobis subjacentem sibi liberam arbitrii potestatem, quod 190 subject to the influence of Divine Grace. The fol- lowing may be taken as a correct representation of his meaning. The character of man is not irrevoca- bly fixed, as the Valentinians affirm, by any qualities infused into his soul subsequently to his birth. The diversities of character observable in different in- dividuals, and in the same individual at different times, must be referred to the operation of external circumstances, and to the different degrees in which Divine Grace influences the determinations of the will. Tertullian 2 now recapitulates all that he has said on the subject of the soul ; and affirms that it derives its origin from the breath of God — that it is 3 im- mortal ; corporeal ; that it has a figure ; is simple in avTelovaiov dicitur, quae quum sit et ipsa naturalis atque muta- bilis, quoquo vertitur, natura convertitur. Inesse autem nobis to aWdovawv naturaliter, jam Marcioni ostendimus et Hermo- geni, c. 21. 2 c. 22. Definimus Animam, Dei flatu natam, immortalem, corporalem, effigiatam, substantia simplicem, de suo sapientem, varie procedentem, liberam arbitrii, accidentiis obnoxiam, per ingenia mutabilem, rationalem, dominatricem, divinatricem, ex una redundantem. Tertullian considers the soul to be the source of sensation and perception. Opinor sensualis est animae na- tura. Adeo nihil animate sine sensu, nihil sensuale sine ani- ma. Et ut propius dixerim, animae anima sensus est. Igitur quum omnibus anima sentire praestat, &c. De Carne Christi, c. 12. 3 Immortal in its own nature. Compare de Res. Carnis, cc. 18, 34, 35. 191 substance ; possessing within itself the principle of intelligence ; operating in different ways (or through different channels) ; endued with free-will ; affected by external circumstances, and thus producing that infinite variety of talent and disposition observable among mankind ; rational ; designed to rule the whole man ; possessing 4 an insight into futurity. Moreover, the souls of all the inhabitants of the earth are derived from one common source, the soul of Adam. This 5 last point he proceeds to establish by first refuting Plato's notions respecting the origin and pre- existence of the soul. — According to him, Plato said that the souls of men are continually passing to and fro between heaven and earth ; that they originally existed in heaven with God, and were there conver- sant with those eternal ideas of which the visible things below are only the images. Hence during their residence on earth they do not acquire any new knowledge ; but merely recal to their recollection what they knew in heaven, and forgot in their passage from heaven to earth. Plato further argued, that the heavenly powers, c the progeny of God, who were entrusted by him with the creation of man, 4 Tertullian here speaks of a natural insight into futurity ; not of the spirit of prophecy, which is derived from the grace of God. See cc. 24, 41. s c. 23. 6 Genimina Dei. 192 and received for that purpose an immortal soul, 7 froze around it a mortal body. 8 In refuting these notions, Tertullian argues principally upon the in- consistency of Plato ; who, at the same time that he makes the soul self-existent, and places it almost on an equality with the Deity, yet supposes it capable of forgetting what passed in a previous state. 9 He alludes also to another philosophical notion, that the soul is introduced into the foetus after its birth ; being inhaled as it were when the infant first draws breath, and exhaled when man dies. l This notion he conceives to be sufficiently refuted by the experi- ence of every pregnant woman. 2 His own opinion is, that the soul and body are conceived together ; the womb of the mother being impregnated at the same time by their respective seeds, which, though different in kind, are from the first inseparably united. I must omit the arguments by which he 7 Mortale ei circumgelaverint corpus. Plato's words are, dv-qTiiv (jLJ^ia avrol TrepuropvEvaai'. In Timaso, torn. iii. p. 69. ed. Serr. 8 c. 24. 9 c. 25. Perinde animam, extraneam alias et extorrem uteri, prima, aspiratione nascentis infantis adduci, sicut exspiratione novissima educi. 1 Respondete, matres, vosque praegnantes, vosque puerperae ; steriles et masculi taceant ; vestrae naturae Veritas quaaritur, vestrae passionis fides convenitur, an aliquam in foetu sentiatis vivacitatem alienam de vestro ? de quo palpitent ilia, micent latera, tota ventris ambitio pulsetur, ubique ponderis regio mute- tur 1 &c. c. 25. 2 c. 27. 193 supports this opinion. They are of such a nature that he feels himself obliged to apologize for them, by saying that, as the business of a controversialist is to establish his point, he is sometimes under the necessity of sacrificing modesty to truth. The con- clusion is, that when God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the seeds of the body and soul were inseparably united together in him ; and have been derived, in the same state of union, from him to his posterity. Thus Tertullian establishes his position, that the souls of all mankind are derived from one common source, the soul of Adam. Quitting 3 Plato, Tertullian now passes to the Pythagorean doctrine of the Metempsychosis. I will mention one of his arguments against this doctrine, on account of the information which it supplies respecting the height to which cultivation and civilization were then carried. 4 " If the doctrine of the Metempsychosis," he says, "is true, the num- bers of mankind must always remain the same ; there can be no increase of population ; whereas we know the fact to be otherwise. So great is the in- crease, that, although we are continually sending out colonies, and penetrating into new regions, we cannot dispose of the excess. Every country is now acces- a c. 28. 4 c. 30. 194 sible to the traveller and the merchant. Pleasant farms now smile, where formerly were dreary and dangerous wastes — cultivated fields now occupy the place of forests — flocks and herds have expelled the wild beasts — sands are sown — rocks are planted — marshes are drained — and where once was a single cottage, is now a populous city. We no longer speak with horror of the savage interior of the islands, or of the dangers of their rocky coasts ; every where are houses, and inhabitants, and government, and civilized life. Still our population continually in- creases, and occasions fresh grounds of complaint: our numbers are burthensome to the world, which cannot furnish us with the means of subsistence : such is our state that we no longer look upon pes- tilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes, as positive evils, but as remedies provided by Providence against a greater calamity — as the only means of pruning the redundant luxuriance of the human race." Professor Malthus himself could not have lamented more feelingly the miseries resulting from an excess of population ; or have pointed out with greater acuteness the natural checks to that excess. I shall omit 5 Tertullian's other arguments against the doctrine of the Metempsychosis, as well as his 5 He occupies eight chapters from c. 28 to c. 3G in the dis- cussion of this doctrine, and in proving that Simon Magus and Carpocrates founded some of their heretical notions upon it. 195 observations respecting 6 the difference of the sexes in the human species ; 7 the state of the foetus in the womb ; 8 the growth of the soul to maturity ; and 9 the corruption of human nature : to his remarks, however, on the last of these topics I shall hereafter have occasion to refer. The next subject of which he treats is ' sleep. Having stated the opinions of the different philosophers, he prefers that of the Stoics, who defined sleep — 2 a temporary suspension of the activity of the senses. 3 Sleep he conceives to be necessary only to the body ; the soul, being immortal, neither requires nor even admits a state of rest. In sleep therefore, 4 when the body is at rest, the soul, which never rests, being unable to use the members of the body, uses its own ; and the dreamer seems to go through all the operations necessary to the performance of certain acts, though, nothing is performed. 5 Tertullian admits that there are well authenticated accounts of persons who never dreamed in the course of their lives. 6 Suetonius says that fi c. 36. 7 c. 37. 8 c. 38. 9 cc. 39, 40, 41. 1 cc. 42, 43. 2 Resolutionem sensualis vigoris. 3 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 18. Arctius dicam, ne in som- nura quidem cadit Anima cum corpore, ne turn quidem sternitur cum carne. Etenim agitatur in somnis et jactitatur ; quiesceret autem si jaceret. 1 c. 45. We have seen in what sense Tertullian ascribes members to the soul. 5 c. 44. 6 In Nerone, c. 46. o 2 196 this was the case with Nero : and 7 Theopompus, with Thrasymedes. Our author mentions also the story of 8 Hermotimus ; of whom it was recorded that when he slept, his sonl entirely abandoned and wandered away from his body : in this state (his wife having revealed the secret) his body was seized by his enemies, who burned it ; and his soul, return- ing too late, found itself deprived of its habitation. 9 Tertullian does not attempt to reconcile these phe- nomena with his theory of the perpetual activity of the soul ; but says that we must receive any solution of them, rather than admit that the soul can be separated from the body, except by death : — or that the soul can sink into a state of absolute rest, which would imply its mortality. ! We have seen that Tertullian applies the word ecstasis — which he interprets 2 Excessus sensus amentia? instar — to the state of the prophet's mind, when under the influ- ence of inspiration. He applies the same term to the state of the soul when dreaming ; 3 and evidently 7 See Plutarch, tie Defectu Oraculorum, c. 50. 8 See Pliny, Hist. Nat. L. vii. c. 52. Plutarch, de Daemonio Socratis, c. 22. calls him Hermodorus. 9 He says that the effect of fasting upon himself was, not to make him sleep without dreaming (such an admission would have been fatal to his theory) : but to make him so dream that he was not conscious of having dreamed. Jejuniis autem nescio an ego solus plurimum ita somniem, ut me somniasse non sentiam, c. 48 : — a subtle distinction. 1 Chap. 1. p. 6. note 4. 2 c. 45. ' J c. 46. 197 supposes that the knowledge of future events was frequently communicated to it in dreams. 4 Some dreams, he adds, proceed from God ; others from daemons ; others are suggested by intense application of the mind to a particular subject ; others again are so utterly wild and extravagant, that they can scarcely be related, much less accounted for or in- terpreted : these last are to be ascribed peculiarly to the ecstatic influence. From 5 sleep, the image of death, Tertullian passes to death itself; which he defines the separation of the soul from the body. 6 " When we say," he con- tinues, " that death is natural to man, we speak with reference, not to his original nature as given him by his Maker ; but to his actual nature as polluted by sin. Had Adam continued in his state of innocence, this separation of the soul from the body would never have taken place. Sin introduced death, which even in its mildest form is a violence done to our nature ; for how can the intimate union between the body and soul be dissolved without violence?" 7 After this separation from the body, the souls of the mass of mankind descend to the parts below the earth ; there to remain until the day of judg- ment. The souls of the martyrs alone pass not through 4 c. 47. 5 cc. 50,51. 6 c. 52. 7 c. 55. 198 this middle state, but are transferred immediately to heaven. Tertullian 8 proceeds to enquire whether the soul, after it has once passed into the lower parts of the earth, can leave them and revisit these upper regions. This question he determines in the negative ; arguing principally from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But the daemons, who are continually labouring to seduce us into error, though they cannot call up the soul after death, yet can practise illusions upon the senses, and by presenting themselves under human forms, persuade men that they are the ghosts of persons deceased. Thus Saul was per- suaded that he saw and conversed with Samuel. In like manner, Tertullian refers to the agency of da> mons the deceptions practised by the dealers in magic ; who generally affected to call up the spirits of such persons as had come to an untimely end : taking advantage of the popular superstition, that the souls of men, cut off by a violent death, hover about the earth until the period has elapsed to which, had they not been so cut off, their lives would have been extended. But 9 in what state, it may be asked, does the 8 cc. 56, 57. 9 c. 58. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 17. and the 40th of King Edward's Articles. Qui animas defunctorum praedicant 199 soul remain during its abode in the lower parts of the earth ? Does it sleep ? " We have seen," answers Tertullian, " that sleep is an affection of the body, not of the soul. When united to the body, the soul does not sleep ; much less, when separate from the body. No : the righteous judgments of God begin to take effect in this intermediate state. The souls of the good receive a foretaste of the happiness, and the souls of the wicked of the misery, which will be assigned them as their everlasting portion, at the day of final retribution." Such are Tertullian's speculations upon the origin, nature, and destiny of the soul. Should the ex- amination of them have appeared somewhat minute and tedious, it must be remembered that the only mode of putting the reader in possession of the state of philosophy in any age is to exhibit to him the questions which formed the subjects of discussion, and the manner in which they were discussed. The result of the examination must, we think, be deemed favourable to our author's character for talent and ingenuity. Many of the questions proposed may appear trifling — many of his arguments weak and inconclusive ; the questions, however, are not more usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extremo die cum illis excitandas, ab Ortbodoxa, Fide, quae nobis in Sacris Literis traditur, prorsus dissentiunt. 200 trifling, nor the arguments more inconclusive, than those which occur in the writings of the most cele- brated philosophers of antiquity. It would be the extreme of absurdity to compare the writings of Plato and Tertullian, as compositions; but if they are considered as specimens of philosophical inves- tigation, of reasoning and argument, he who professes to admire Plato will hardly escape the charge of inconsistency, if he thinks meanly or speaks con- temptuously of Tertullian. In further illustration of our author's philosophical opinions, we shall proceed briefly to state his notions respecting the nature of angels and daemons. ' He asserts, in the first place, that there are spiritual sub- stances, or material spirits : this is not denied even by the philosophers. 2 These spiritual, or angelic substances were originally created to be the ministers of the Divine will ; but some were betrayed into transgression. Smitten with the beauty of the 1 Apology, c. 22. Atque adeo dicimus esse substantias quas- dam Spiritales ; nee nomen novum est. Sciunt daemones Phi- losophy Socrate ipso ad daemonii arbitrium expectante . . . daemones sciunt Poetae ; et jam vulgus indoctum in usum male- dicti frequentat .... Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit. See also adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 8. Sed adflatus Dei gene- rosior Spiritu Material!, quo Angeli constiterunt. Apology, c. 46. Quum secundum Deos Philosophi Daemones deputent. De Anima, c. 1. 2 Nos officia divina Angelos credimus. De Anima, c. 37. Apology, c. 22. De Idololatria, c. 4. 201 3 daughters of men, they descended from heaven, 4 and imparted many branches of knowledge, revealed to themselves, but hitherto hidden from mankind : — the properties of metals — the virtues of herbs — the powers of enchantment — and the arts of divination and astrology. Out of complaisance also to their earthly brides, they communicated the arts which administer to female vanity : — of polishing and setting precious stones — of dyeing wool — of preparing cosmetics. From 5 these corrupt angels sprang daemons; a still more corrupt race of spirits, whose actuating principle is hostility against man, and whose sole object is to accomplish his destruction. This they attempt in various ways ; but as they are invisible to the eye, their mischievous activity is known only by its effects. They nip the fruit in the bud ; they blight the corn ; and, as through the tenuity and sub- tlety of their substance they can operate on the soul 3 In proof of the alleged intercourse between the angels and the daughters of men, Tertullian appeals to Genesis vi. 2. de Virgin, vel. c. 7. and to the apocryphal book of Enoch. De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 3. 4 De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 2. L. ii. cc. 4, 10. De Idololatria, c. 9. Apology, c. 35. Ista quae a Deo non sunt, auctore naturae, sic a Diabolo esse intelliguntur, ab interpolatore naturae. De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 8. 5 Apology, c. 22. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 2. 202 as well as the body, while they inflict diseases on the one, they agitate the other with furious passions and ungovernable lust. 6 By the same property of their substance they cause men to dream. 7 But their fa- vourite employment is, to draw men off, from the worship of the true God, to idolatry. 8 For this purpose they lurk within the statues of deceased mortals ; 9 practising illusions upon weak minds, and seducing them into a belief in the divinity of an idol. 1 In their attempts to deceive mankind, they derive great assistance from the rapidity with which they transport themselves from one part of the globe to another. They are thus enabled to know and to declare what is passing in the most distant countries; so that they gain the credit of being the authors of events of which they are only the reporters. It was this peculiarity in the nature of daemons which enabled them to communicate to the Pythian priest- 6 De Anima, cc. 47, 49. Apology, c. 23. 7 Apology, cc. 23. 27. Compare de Idololatria, cc. 3, 4, 15. 8 De Spectaculis, cc. 10, 12, 13, 23, where Tertullian ascribes the invention of the games and scenic exhibitions to the daemons. Apol. I. c. 21. 9 The illusions practised by the professors of magic were, according to our author, peculiarly the work of daemons ; when for instance the object of the incantation was to raise a dead man from the grave, a daemon presented himself under the figure of the deceased. De Anima, c. 57, where the miracles performed by Pharaoh's magicians are mentioned. See p. 212. 1 Apology, c. 22. 203 ess what Croesus was at that very moment doing in Lydia. In like manner, as they are continually passing to and fro through the region of the air, they can foretel the changes of the weather; and thus procure for the idol the reputation of possessing an insight into futurity. When by their delusions they have induced men to offer sacrifice, 2 they hover about the victim; snuffing up with delight the savoury steam, which is their proper food. The daemons employed other artifices in order to effect the destruction of man. 3 As during their abode in heaven they were enabled to obtain some insight into the nature of the divine dispensations, they endeavoured to pre-occupy the minds of men, and to prevent them from embracing Christianity; by 2 Haec enim daemoniorum pabula sunt. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. 3 Apology, c. 22. Dispositiones etiam Dei, et tunc Prophetis concionantibus exceperunt et nunc lectionibus resonantibus car- punt, c. 21. Sciebant qui penes vos fabulas ad destructionem veritatis istius cemulas praeministraverunt. c. 47. Omnia adversus veritatem de ipsa veritate constructa sunt, operantibus eemula- tionem istam Spiritibus erroris. Ab his adulteria hujusmodi salutaris discipline subornata ; ab his quaedam etiam fabula? immissae, quae de similitudine fidem infirmarent veritatis, vel earn sibi potius evincerent : ut quis ideo non putet Christianis credendum, quia nee Poetis nee Philosophis : vel ideo magis Poetis et Philosophis existimet credendum, quia non Christianis, &c. See also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 40. and some very fanciful instances in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 23. See also de Anima, c. 2. Quando et pseudoprophetarum memi- nerimus, &c. 204 inventing fables bearing some resemblance to the truths which were to become the objects of faith under the Gospel. Thus they invented the tales of the tribunal of Minos and Rhadamanthus in the infernal regions; of the river Pyriphlegethon, and the Elysian Fields ; in order that when the doctrines of a future judgment, and of the eternal happiness and misery prepared for the good and wicked in an- other life, should be revealed, the common people might think the former equally credible, the philoso- pher equally incredible, with the latter. As the purpose for which the angels were created was 4 to execute the commands of God, they who retain their original purity still 5 occupy themselves in observing the course of human affairs and fulfil- ling the duties allotted them : — thus, one angel is especially appointed to preside 6 over prayer; another 7 over baptism ; another 8 to watch over men in their dying moments, and as it were to call away their * See n. 2, p. 200. The word Angel, as Tertullian remarks, is descriptive, not of a nature, but an office. Angelus, id est, nuntius; officii, non naturae vocabulo. De Came Christi, c. 14. 5 De Spectaculis, c. 27. Dubitas enim illo momento, quo in Diaboli Ecclesia fueris, omnes Angelos prospicere de ccelo, et singulos denotare, &c. ? 6 Angelo adhuc Orationis astante. De Oratione, c. 12. 7 Angelus Baptismi Arbiter. De Baptismo, c. 6. 8 De ipsius statim Angeli facie, Evocatoris aniniarum, Mercurii Poetarum. De Anima, c. 53, sub fine. 205 souls ; 9 another to execute the righteous judgments of God upon wicked men. Tertullian states also, on the authority of Scripture, that it is a part of their office to appear occasionally to men ; in which case, according to him, they assume, not only the human form, ] but the human body itself; by a peculiar privilege of their nature, which enables them to create it out of nothing. It is worthy of observation that Tertullian, while he assigns to each angel a particular office or department — as prayer, baptism — uses a different language with respect to daemons; 2 assisrnino; to each individual his attendant daemon : thus he accounts for the story of the 3 Daemon of Socrates. I will conclude this chapter by a few remarks on Gibbon's representation of the opinions entertained by the primitive Christians respecting daemons. " It was," 4 he says, " the universal sentiment both of the 9 Et judex te tradat Angelo Executionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet infernum. De Anima, c. 35. 1 Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 9. De Carne Christi, cc. 3, 6. Igitur quum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare, hoc esse proprium Angelicas potestatis ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. 2 Nam et suggessimus nullum pene hominem carere dsemonio. De Anima, c. 57. J Apology, c. 46. Sane Socrates facilius diverso Spiritu age- batur ; si quidem aiunt dsemonium illi a puero adhaesisse, pessi- mum revera paedagogum. De Anima, c. 1. See also cc. 25, 39. 4 Chap. xv. p. 463. Ed. 4to. 206 Church and of heretics, that the daemons were the authors, the patrons, and the objects of idolatry." That Tertullian ascribed to them the two former characters is manifest from the foregoing statement of his opinions. They were the authors of idolatry ; because every evil deed, every evil thought of man is the result of their corrupt suggestions ; and it was consequently by their instigation that he was first drawn aside from his allegiance to the one true God, and induced to offer his adorations to the creature instead of the Creator. They were the patrons ; because they promoted its cause by practising illu- sions upon the senses of mankind, and thus confirm- ing their belief in the divinity of the idol. But they were not, at least in Tertullian's estimation, the objects. 5 He expressly says, that the objects of idolatry were dead men ; who were conceived to be gods, on account of some useful invention by which they had contributed to the comfort and well-being of man in his present life. 6 The daemons were 5 Quando etiam error orbis propterea Deos praesumpserit, quos homines interdum confitetur, quoniam aliquid ab unoquo- que prospectum videtur utilitatibus et commodis vitae. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 11. See also the Apology, cc. 10, 11. De Idololatria, c. 15. 6 See de Corona, c. 10, where Tertullian is exposing the absurdity of placing crowns on the heads of Idols : Sed vacat totum, et est ipsum quoque opus mortuum, quantum in idolis ; vivum plane quantum in daemoniis, ad quae pertinet superstitio. To crown an Idol, the ostensible object of worship, is useless ; since it can have no enjoyment of the fragrance or beauty of the 207 content to lead man into error and to feed upon the savoury steam arising from the sacrifices ; without attempting to propose themselves as the immediate objects of worship. flowers. The daemons alone (who lurk within the idols) profit by these superstitious practices. CHAPTER IV. ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. Following Mosheim's arrangement, we now pro- ceed to enquire, what information can be derived from the writings of Tertullian, respecting the government and discipline of the Church in his day. The edict of l Trajan, already alluded to, proves the extreme jealousy with which all associations were regarded by the Roman Emperors. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the intimate union which subsisted between the professors of Christianity rendered them objects of suspicion and distrust. One point, at which Tertullian aims in his Apology, is to convince the Governors, whom he is addressing, of the injustice of their suspicions, by explaining the nature and purposes of the Christian assemblies. 2 " We form," he says, " a body ; being joined toge- ther by a community of religion, of discipline, and 1 See chap. II. p. 110. note 1. 2 c. 39. 209 of hope. In our assemblies, we meet to offer up our united supplications to God — to read the Scrip- tures — to deliver exhortations — to pronounce cen- sures, cutting oft", from communion in prayer and in every holy exercise, those who have been guilty of any flagrant offence. The older members, men of tried piety and prudence, preside ; having obtained the dignity, not by purchase, but by acknowledged merit. If any collection is made at our meetings, it is perfectly voluntary : each contributes according to his ability, either monthly, or as often as he pleases. These contributions we regard as a sacred deposit ; not to be spent in feasting and gluttony, but in maintaining or burying the poor, and relieving the distress of the orphan, the aged, or the shipwrecked mariner. A portion is also appropriated to the use of those who are suffering in the cause of religion : who are condemned to the mines, or banished to the islands, or confined in prison." In this brief account of the Christian assem- blies, 3 Tertullian appears to speak of the President- 3 Tertullian's words are, President probati quique Senior es, honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti : — which Bingham translates, The Bishops and Presbyters, who preside over us, are advanced to that honour only by public testimony, L. iv. c. 3. Sect. 4. He assigns no reason for thus translating the words probati quique Seniores. I am far from intending to say that the Presidents were not Bishops and Presbyters ; on the contrary, the following passage in the first Tract ad Uxorem, P 210 ship, as conferred solely in consideration of superior age and piety. It has, therefore, been inferred, either that the distinction between the Clergy and the Laity was not then generally acknowledged in the Church ; or at least that its validity was not recognised by our author. Attempts have been made to support the latter inference by an appeal to other passages of his works ; the full force of which can only be perceived, by viewing them in connexion with the subjects of which he is treating. We 4 have already noticed, and shall again have occasion to notice, Tertullian's sentiments respecting a second marriage. They who maintained its law- fulness, alleged the 5 passages in the Epistles to c. 7. when compared with 1 Tim. iii. 2. and Titus i. 6. appears to limit the Presidency to them. Quantum detrahant fidei, quantum obstrepant sanctitati nuptiae secundse, disciplina Ecclesise et praescriptio Apostoli declarat, quum digamos non sinit prae- sidere. Compare also de Idololatria, c. 7. with de Corona, c. 3. de Jejuniis, c. 17. with 1 Tim. v. 17. But Bingham ought surely to have explained why he affixed a sense to the words so different from their literal meaning ; especially as in another place, L. ii. c. 19. Sect. 19, he speaks of certain Seniores Ecclesiae, who were not of the Clergy, yet had some concern in the care of the Church. 4 Chap. I. p. 18. 5 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Titus i. 6. Bishops and Priests who contracted a second marriage, were sometimes degraded. Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. De Exhort. Castit. c. 7. Compare de Monogamia, c. 11. Our author however complains that there was great laxity of discipline on 211 Timothy and Titus, in which St. Paul enjoins that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, shall be ^iaq ywaiKog avSpEe, — that is, according to the interpretation generally received in Tertullian's time, men who had been only once married. They contended, therefore, that, as this restriction applied only to the Clergy, Laymen were at liberty to contract a second marriage. To evade this inference, Tertullian has recourse to the following argument 6 : — "Do not," this point. Quot enim et digami president apud vos, insultantes utique Apostolo ? De Monogamia, c. 12. 6 De Exhort. Cast. c. 7, referred to Chap. I. p. 8. note 6. I now give the whole passage. Vani erimus, si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum est, Regnim quoque nos et Sacer- dotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter Ordinem et Plebem constituit Ecclesiae autoritas, et honor per Ordinis con- sessum sanctificatus. — (I conceive the allusion to be to the higher seats occupied by the Clergy, apart from the Laity, in the places of religious assembly. In the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 11, Tertullian makes a distinction between Christians majoris et minoris loci ; apparently meaning the Clergy by the former, and the Laity by the latter. So in the Tract de Baptismo, c. 17. Sed quanto magis Laicis disciplina verecundiae et modestiae in- cumbit, quum ea major ibus competant.) — Adeo ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici ; unusquisque enim sua fide vivit, nee est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Quoniam non auditores lecjis justificabuntur a Deo, sed factor es, secundum quod et Apostolus dicit. Igitur si habes jus sacer- dotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disci- plinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis ? digamus offers? quanto magis Laico digamo capitale est agere pro sacerdote, quum ipsi sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur agere sacerdotem ? Sed necessitati, inquis, indulgetur. Nulla p2 212 he says, " suppose that what is forbidden to the Clergy is allowed to the Laity. All Christians are priests, agreeably to the words of St. John in the Book of Revelation — ' Christ has made us a king- dom and a priesthood to God and his Father.' The authority of the Church and its honour, which is sanctified by the sitting together of the Clergy, has established the distinction between the Clergy and Laity. In places where there are no Clergy, any single Christian may exercise the functions of the priesthood, 7 may celebrate the eucharist, and baptize. But ' where three, though Laymen, are gathered to- gether, there is a Church. Every one lives by his own faith, nor is there respect of persons with God ; since not t/ie hearers, but the doers of tlie law are justified by God, according to the Apostle. If, there- fore, you possess within yourself the right of the priesthood to be exercised in cases of necessity, you ought also to conform yourself to the rule of life prescribed to those who engage in the priesthood ; the rites of which you may be called to exercise. Do you, after contracting a second marriage, venture necessitas excusatur, quae potest non esse. Noli denique diga- raus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem administrandi quod non licet digamo. Omnes nos Deus ita vult dispositos esse, ut ubique Sacramentis ejus obeundis apti simus. Bennet, in his Rights of the Clergy, &c. has bestowed a whole chapter on this passage. 7 So the word offers must, I think, be translated in this passage. 213 to baptize or to celebrate the eucharist ? How much more heinous is it in a Layman who has contracted a second marriage, to exercise the functions of the priesthood, when a second marriage is deemed a suffi- cient ground for degrading a priest from his order ? But you will plead the necessity of the case as an apology for the act. The plea is invalid, because you were not placed under the necessity of marrying a second time. Do not marry again, and you will not run the hazard of being obliged to do that which a Digamist is not allowed to do. It is the will of God that we should at all times be in a fit state to administer his sacraments, if an occasion should arise." — We are very far from meaning to defend the soundness of Tertullian's argument in this passage. We quote it because it is one of the pas- sages which have been brought forward to prove that he did not recognise the distinction between the Clergy and Laity ; whereas a directly opposite infe- rence ought to be drawn. He limits the right of the Laity to exercise the ministerial functions to ex- traordinary cases ; to cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in ordinary cases, they would be guilty of an act of criminal presumption, 8 as he indirectly 8 Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tun unum omnes sumus : tunc omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Pairi fecit ; quum ad persequationem discipline sacer- dotalis provocanmr, deponimus infulas, et hnpares sumus. De Monogamia, c. 12. We may, however, infer from this passage 214 asserts in the Tract de Monogamia ; where he pur- sues the very same train of reasoning, in refutation of the same objection. That he recognised the dis- tinction between the Clergy and Laity, is further proved by the fact, that among other accusations which he urges against the Heretics, he states that they conferred 9 orders without making strict enquiry into the qualifications of the candidates; and that they not only allowed, but even enjoined the Laity to assume the sacerdotal office, and administer the ceremonies of religion. In shewing that the dis- tinction was recognised by Tertullian, we have incidentally shewn that it was generally recognised in the Church ; this indeed is implied in the very words Clerus and Ordo Ecclesiasticus, which fre- quently occur But what, it may be asked, is Tertullian's mean- ing, when he says that the distinction between the Clergy and the Laity is established by the authority of the Church ? Before we can answer this question, that in Tertullian's day the validity of the distinction was occa- sionally questioned. 9 Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes. Nunc neophytos conlocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas nostros. De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41. and in the same chapter, Nam et Laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt. In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 7, Tertullian complains that the artificers of idols were admitted into Orders : Adleguntur in Ordinem Ecclesiasticum Artifices Idolorum. 215 we must ascertain what was his notion of the Church; and for this purpose we will turn to the Tract de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, in which he takes a rapid survey of its origin and progress. 1 " Christ," he says, " during his residence on earth, declared the purposes of his mission, and the rule of faith and practice, either publicly to the people or privately to the disciples, of whom he attached twelve more immediately to his person, intending that they should be teachers of the Gentiles. One of them betrayed him ; but the remaining eleven he commanded to go and instruct all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These eleven, having added to their number a twelfth, in the room of him who had been cut off, and having received the promised effusion of the Holy Spirit, by which they were endowed with supernatural powers, first preached the Gospel and founded Churches in Judea : they then went forth to the Gentiles, preaching in like manner and founding Churches in every city. From these Churches others were propagated and continue to be propagated at the present day, which are all reckoned in the number of Apostolic Churches, inasmuch as they are the offspring of Apostolic 1 c. 20. Compare cc. 32, 36. Si hsec ita se habent, ut Veritas nobis adjudicetur quicunque in ea. regula. incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit. c. 37. 216 Churches. Moreover all these Churches constitute 2 one Church ; being joined together in the unity of faith and in the bond of peace." In conformity to this view of the origin of the Church, Tertullian never fails, when arguing upon any disputed point of doctrine or discipline, to appeal to the belief or practice of those Churches which had been actually founded by the Apostles ; on the ground that in them the faith taught and the institutions established by the Apostles were still preserved. When, there- fore, he says that the authority of the Church made the distinction between the Clergy and Laity, the expression in his view of the subject is manifestly equivalent to saying that the distinction may be traced to the Apostles, the founders of the Church. Thus he contends that 3 all virgins should be com- pelled to wear veils ; because such was the practice in those Churches which had been founded either by the Apostles or by Apostolic men ; and conse- quently the probable inference was that it was of 2 On the Unity of the Church, see c. 32. and de Virgin, vel. c. 2, Cum quibus scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen fraternitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Chris- tus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. Simul dixerim, una Ecclesia sumus. This Church Tertullian calls the house of God. De Pudicitia, c. 7. In it were preserved the authentic rule of faith and discipline, and the genuine Scriptures. De Prescript. Hsereticorum, cc. 21, 37, et passim. With respect to particular Churches, Tertullian admits by implication that they may fall into error, c. 27. 3 De Virginibus vel. c. 2. 217 Apostolic institution. It is true that, after his separation from the Church, he held a different language. He then began to contend, 4 as we have already seen, that wherever three, though Laymen, were gathered together, there was a Church : and in 5 the Tract de Pudicitia, he says that any number of individuals, who meet together under the influ- ence of the Spirit, constitute a Church ; which is not a number of Bishops, but is the Spirit itself acting through the instrumentality of a spiritual man (-rrvtv/JiaTiKog as opposed to xPvy^iKoq) — that is, of a man who believed in the revelations and prophecies of Montanus. At the same time that Tertullian bears testimony to the existence of a distinction between the Clergy * Chap. I. p. 44. 5 Nam et Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Illam Ecclesiam congregat, quam Dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint, Ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur, et ideo Ecclesia quidem delicta donabit : sed Ecclesia Spiritus per Spiritalem hominem ; non Ecclesia numerus Episcoporum, c. 21. Compare de Pcenitentia, c. 10. In uno et altera Ecclesia est ; Ecclesia vera Christus. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 14. Sit tibi in tribus Ecclesia. Pamelius, as we observe in Chapter I. p. 56. n. 3, supposes without sufficient grounds, that, in the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 21, by the three who were to constitute a Church, Tertullian meant Montanus and his two prophetesses. Again in the Tract de Baptismo, c. 6. Quo- niam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est. 218 and Laity, he bears testimony also to the existence of a distinction of orders among the Clergy. One of his charges against the Heretics is, that they neglected this distinction. 6 " With them," he says, " one man is a Bishop to-day, another to-morrow : he who is to-day a Deacon, will be to-morrow a Reader ; he who is a Priest to-day, will to-morrow be a Layman." In the 7 Tracts de Baptismo and 8 de Fuga in Persecntione, the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are enumerated together ; and in the former the superior authority of the Bishop is expressly asserted. The Episcopal office, according to Tertullian, was of Apostolic institution. In the 9 Tract de Praes- criptione Hsereticorum, he throws out the following challenge to the Heretics. " Let them shew," he says, " the origin of their Churches ; let them trace the succession of their Bishops, and thus connect the individual who first held the office, either with some Apostle, or some Apostolic man who always remained in communion with the Church. It is thus that the Apostolic Churches shew their origin. 6 Itaque alius hodie Episcopus, eras alius : hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector : hodie Presbyter, qui eras Laicus. De Pre- script. Hsereticorum, c. 41. 7 c. 17. 8 c. 11. See also de Preescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 3. 9 c. 32. See also the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 13. Hanc Episcopatui formam Apostoli providentius condiderunt. 219 That of Smyrna traces its Bishops in an unbroken line from Polycarp, who was placed there by St. John: 2 that of Rome from Clemens, who was placed there by St. Peter : and every other Church can point out the individual to whom the super- intendance of its doctrine and discipline was first committed by some one of the Apostles." The same statement is repeated 2 in the fourth Book against Marcion. But how clearly soever the distinction between the Bishops and the other orders of Clergy may 1 Ireneeus, L. iii. c. 3, says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, Anacletus the second, and Clemens the third ; and that the Church of Rome was founded jointly by St. Peter and St. Paul. Bingham reconciles this difference by supposing that Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived, and that Clemens was also ordained their successor by St. Peter. L. ii. c. 1. Sect. 4. Had the works of Irenaeus and Tertullian proceeded from Semler's Roman Club, this apparent contradiction would probably have been avoided. 2 c. 5. sub in. Among other statements contained in the passage is the following : Habemus et Ioannis alumnas Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Ioannem stabit Auctorem. Sic et caeterarum (Ecclesiarum) generositas recognoscitur. The words in Italics, Bingham has translated, " The Order of Bishops, when it is traced up to its original, will be found to have St. John for one of its authors." L. ii. c. 1. Sect. 3. We do not deny that this inference may be legitimately drawn from Tertullian's words. But by the expression Ordo Episcoporum, he did not meant the Order of Bishops, as distinct from Priests and Deacons, but the succession of Bishops in the Churches founded by St. John. 2*20 be asserted in the writings of Tertullian, they afford us little assistance in ascertaining wherein this distinction consisted. 3 In a passage to which we have just referred, the right of the Priests and Deacons to baptize is said to be derived entirely from the authority of the Bishop ; who is styled Summus Sacerdos, the Supreme Priest. 4 Bingham says that Tertullian commonly gives to Bishops the title of presidents or provosts of the Church; but the passages to which he refers, scarcely bear him out in the assertion. 5 One of them we have already considered. 6 In another, Tertullian says that the communicants received the eucharist only from the hands of the presidents ; and 7 in a third, that a digamist was not allowed to preside in the Church. But in neither case is it certain that Ter- tullian meant to speak exclusively of Bishops, since Priests might administer the sacraments; and he s says that he had himself known instances of Priests 3 See n. 7, p. 218. Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet jus sum- mus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus ; dehinc Presbyteri et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesiae honorem. De Baptismo, c. 17. 4 L. ii. c. 2. Sect. 5. b In note 3, p. 209. The passage is in the Apology, c. 39. 6 De Corona Militis, c. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum nee de aliorum manu quam de Prsesidentium sumimus. 7 Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7, also quoted in note 3, p. 209. Quum digamos non sinit prsesidere. 8 De Exhort. Castit. c. 7, quoted inn. 0. p. 211. Quum ipsi Sacerdoti Digamo facto auferatur agere Sacerdotem. 221 who had been degraded for digamy. The Bishops doubtless presided when they were present : but in their absence the office devolved upon one of the presbyters. 9 The regulation of the internal cecono- my of each particular Church was certainly vested in the hands of the Bishop. ' He appointed, for instance, days of fasting, whenever the circum- stances of the Church appeared to call for such marks of humiliation. In the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 17, we find an allusion to the practice of allotting a double portion to the Presidents in the Feasts of Charity, founded on a misapplication of 1 Tim. v. 17. Ad elogium guise tuse pertinet, quod duplex apud te Prsesidentibus honor binis partibus depu- tetur: quum Apostolus duplicem honorem dederit, ut et fratribus et prsepositis. The passages already alleged sufficiently prove that, in Tertullian's estimation, all 2 the Apostolic Churches were independent of each other, and equal in rank and authority. 3 He professes indeed a peculiar respect for the Church of Rome: not, 9 De Virginibus velandis, c. 9. 1 Bene autem quod et Episcopi universae plebi mandare jejunia assolent, non dico de industrial stipium conferendarum ut vestrae capturae est, sed interdum et ex aliqua solicitudinis Ec- clesiasticae causa. De Jejuniis, c. 13. 1 We have seen that in one sense our author called all ortho- dox Churches Apostolic. 3 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. 222 however, because it was founded by St. Peter, but because both that Apostle and St. Paul there sealed their testimony to the Gospel with their blood, and St. John was there thrown into the cauldron of burning oil. 4 From a passage in the Tract de Pudicitia, it appears that the words of our Saviour to St. Peter — "On this rock I will build my Church," and "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" — were not supposed at that time to refer exclusively to the Church of Rome; but generally to all the Churches of which St. Peter was the founder. Tertullian himself contends that they were spoken by our Saviour with a 4 c. 21. De tua nunc sententia quaero unde hoc jus Ecclesise usurpas. Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus : Super hanc petram, &c. idcirco prsesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et allegandi potestatem, id est, ad oranem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam, qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini inten- tionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem ? Super te, inquit, sedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et dabo tibi claves, non Ecclesicz ; et quaacunque solveris vel alligaveris, non quae solverint vel alligaverint. Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum : ipse clavem imbuit : vides quam — Viri Israelitce, auribus mandate quae dico : Iesum Naza- renum, virum a Deo vobis destinatum, et reliqua (Act. ii. 22). Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum coelestis regni, quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et alligantur quae non fuerint soluta secundum veram salutem, et Ananiam vinxit vinculo mortis, &c. Compare de Praescriptione Haeretico- rum, c. 22. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae Ecclesiae petram dictam, claves regni ccelorum consecutum, et solvendi et alligandi in coelis et in terris potestatem. De Mono- gamia, c. 8. 223 personal reference to St. Peter, in whom they were afterwards fulfilled. " For he it was who first put the key into the lock, when he preached the Gospel to the assembled Israelites on the day of Pentecost. He it was who opened to them the kingdom of heaven, by baptizing- them with the baptism of Christ ; and thereby loosing them from the sins by which they had been bound ; as he afterwards bound Ananias by inflicting upon him the punish- ment of death. He it was who, in the discussion at Jerusalem, first declared that the yoke of circum- cision ought not to be imposed on the necks of the Gentile brethren ; thereby loosing them from the observance of the ceremonial, and binding them to the observance of the moral law." — There is, how- ever, in the 5 Scorpiace a passage in which Tertullian appears at first sight to admit that Christ had transmitted the power of the keys through Peter to his Church. Nam etsi adhuc clausum pntas coelum, memento claves ejus hie Dominum Petro, et per eum Ecclesige reliquisse, quas hie unusquisque interrogatus atque confessus ferat secum. But the concluding words shew his meaning to have been, not that the power of the keys was transmitted to the Church as a Society ; but to each individual member who confessed, like St. Peter, that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God : or as he 10. 224 expresses himself in the 6 Tract de Pudicitia, to the spiritual Church of Montanus. For the Scor- piace was, as we have seen, written after he had recognised the divine inspiration of Montanus ; though probably before he actually seceded from the Church. In opposition to the opinion above expressed respecting the independence of the Christian Churches, a passage 7 has been quoted, from which it is inferred that even at that early period, the Bishop of Rome had assumed to himself the titles of Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum. 8 Allix indeed affirms that our author is speaking of an edict promulgated, not by the Roman Pontiff, but by the Bishop of Carthage. In the remarks prefixed to the opinions delivered by the Bishops at the council of Carthage on the subject of Heretical baptism, Cyprian asserts the perfect equality of all Bishops and uses the following remarkable expressions — " Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit." That this remark is aimed at some Bishop who had 6 See the passage quoted in note 5, p. 217- 7 Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremp- torium, Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum dicit — " Ego et mcechiae et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto." De Pudicitia, c. 1. 8 c. 8. 225 called himself Episcopus Episcoporam, cannot, we think, be doubted. The majority of writers apply it to Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; from whom Cyprian differed on the point in question. Allix, on the other hand, supposes that Cyprian, having Tertullian's words in his mind, alluded to the pretensions of his predecessor in the See of Carthage ; for the express purpose of disclaiming them. He infers also, from a passage in a 9 Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, that the controversy respecting the re-admission of adulterers to the communion of the Church was confined to Africa, and that the Roman Pontiff took no share in it. The statements of both parties in this question must be received with some degree of caution : for each writes with a view to a par- ticular object. The Romanists contend that, al- though Tertullian, then a Montanist, denied the supremacy of the Roman Pontiffs, his words prove that it was openly asserted by them in his day — an inference, which Allix was naturally anxious to controvert, since he maintained that the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome did not at that period extend beyond the limits of their own diocese. With respect to the titles then given to Bishops, 9 Ep. 55. Ed. Fell. Et quidem apud antecessors nostros quidam de Episcopis istic in Provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt, et in totum poenitentiee locum contra adulteria clauserunt. s Q 226 we may observe that ' Bingham has produced in- stances of the application of the title, Summi Pon- tifices, to ordinary Bishops. The word Papa occurs in the 2 Tract de Pudicitia, and being coupled . with the epithet benedictus, is generally supposed to mean a Bishop ; and accord- ing to the 3 Romanists, the Bishop of Rome. But whatever may be its meaning in this particular passage, it is certain that the 4 title of Papa was at that period given to Bishops in general. After Tertullian's secession from the Church, his respect for the episcopal office, or rather perhaps for the individuals who were in his day appointed to it, appears to have undergone a considerable diminution. 5 He insinuates that they were actuated by worldly motives; and ascribes to their anxiety to retain their power and emoluments a practice, which had been introduced into some Churches, of levying 1 L. ii. c. 3. Sect. 6. 2 Bonus Pastor et benedictus Papa concionaris, c. 13. 3 The Romanists cite the following words from the Tract de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30, in confirmation of their in- terpretation. Sub Episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti. 4 See Cyprian's works. Cler. Rom. ad Cler. Carthag. Epp. 8. 23. 31. 36. 5 Hanc Episcopatui formam Apostoli providentius condiderunt, ut regno suo securi frui possent sub obtentu procurandi : scilicet enim talem pacem Christus ad Patrem regrediens mandavit a militibus per Saturnalitia redimendam. De Fuga in Perse- cutione, c. 13. 227 contributions upon the members, for the purpose of bribing the governors and military to connive at the religious meetings of the Christians. Besides Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, Tertullian mentions an order of Readers, 6 Lectores, whose office it was to read the Scriptures to the people. He speaks also of an order of Widows ; and 7 com- plains that a Bishop, in direct violation of the discipline of the Church, had admitted a Virgin into that order. The third Book of the Apostolic Constitutions is entitled wipl yjipiov — and it is there directed, in conformity to the injunction of 8 St. Paul, that no Widow shall be appointed who has not attained the age of sixty : 9 she was moreover 6 Hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector. De Praescript. Haeret. c. 41. See Bingham, L. iii. e. 5. 7 Plane scio alicubi Virginem in Viduatu ab annis nondum viginti collocatam ; cui si quid refrigerii debuerat Episcopus, aliter utique salvo respectu disciplinae praestare potuisset. De Virginibus vel. c. 9. See also de Monogamia, c. 16. Habet Viduam utique, quam adsumat licebit ; and de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 12. Habe aliquam uxorem spiritalem, adsume de Viduis. 8 1 Tim. v. 3 to 11. Titus ii. 3. 9 So Tertullian ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7. Quum Viduam allegi in ordinem nisi univiram non concedit : and de Monogamia, c. 11. sub in. De Virginibus vel. c. 9. Ad quam sedem praeter annos sexaginta non tantum univirae, id est, nuptae, aliquando eliguntur, sed et matres et quidem educatrices filiorum : scilicet, ut experiments omnium affectuum structae facile norint caeteras et consilio et solatio juvare, et ut nihilominus ea decucurrerint, per quae fcemina probari potest. a 2 228 to have been only once married — a restriction also founded on St. Paul's injunctions. Widows who had brought up families appear to have been preferred ; because their experience in the different affections of the human heart rendered them fitter to give counsel and consolation to others, and because they had passed through all the trials by which female virtue can be proved. The duty of the Widows consisted in administering to the wants of the poor ; in attending upon the sick ; in instruct- ing the younger females of the community, in watching over their conduct and framing their morals. ' They were not allowed to perform any of the ministerial functions ; to speak in the Church, to teach, to baptize, &c. They were maintained out of the common stock, and had a higher place allotted them in the public assemblies. St. Paul appears to speak of Widow's in the strict sense of the word ; afterwards the name was given to females 2 who had led a life of celibacy, and generally to 1 Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesid loqui, (1 Cor. xiv. 34.) sed nee docere, nee tinguere, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. De Virgin, vel. c. 9. One of Tertullian's charges against the Heretics, is that they allowed their females to perform these various acts. De Praescriptione Haeretic. c. 41. Compare de Baptismo, c. 1. sub fine, c. 17- Females, however, might pro- phesy, agreeably to St. Paul's direction, 1 Cor. xi. 5. Caeterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit, quum mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. 2 Ignatius ad Smyrnaeos, sub fine. 229 the order of Deaconesses. According to 3 Ham- mond there were two sorts of x^P (a — tna ^ * s ' as he translates the word, lone women — Deaconesses, who were for the most part unmarried females; and Widows properly so called, who, being childless and helpless, were maintained by the Church ; he supposes St. Paul to speak of the latter. 4 Suicer on the contrary says, that the Deaconesses were originally Widows ; and that the admission of unmarried females was of a later date. The reader will find in 5 Bingham all the information which Ecclesiastical antiquity supplies on the subject. In addition to the notices which may be collected from the writings of Tertullian respecting the constitution of each particular Church and the distinction of orders in it, 6 we learn from them that Synods were in his time held in Greece, composed of deputies from all the Churches; who might be considered as representing the whole body of Chris- tians dispersed throughout Greece. These meetings 3 Note on 1 Tim. v. 3. ' Sub voce BictKoviaaa. 5 L. ii. c. 22. Aguntur praeterea per Grsecias ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis Ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna, veneratione celebratur. — Conventus autem illi, stationibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolentibus, et ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. De Jejuniis, c. 13. 230 were always preceded by solemn fasts, and opened with prayer. In them all 7 the more important questions which arose from time to time were discussed; and thus the unity of doctrine and discipline was preserved. Baronius supposes that Tertullian alludes to particular councils which were convened at that time by Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, for the purpose of condemning the Montanists; others suppose that he alludes to councils held by the Montanists themselves — a supposition which in my opinion is at variance with the whole context. He appears to me to speak without reference to any particular council, and to describe a general custom. As the converts from Heathenism, 8 to use Ter- tullian's expression, were not born, but became Christians, they went through a course of instruction in the principles and doctrines of the Gospel, and were subjected to a strict probation, before they were admitted to the rite of baptism. In this stage of their progress they were called Catechumens ; of whom, according to 9 Suicer, there were two classes— one called Audientes, who had only entered 7 For instance, it was determined in these councils what writings were and what were not, to be received as genuine parts of Scripture. De Pudicitia, c. 10. 8 Fiunt, non nascuntur, Christiani. Apology, c. 18. 9 Sub voce kutyixovijlevoi. 231 upon their course, and begun to hear the word of God — the other awaiTovvreg, or competentes, who had made such advances in Christian know- ledge and practice as to be qualified to appear at the font. Tertullian, however, appears either not to have known or to have neglected this distinction ; since he applies ' the names of Audientes and Auditores indifferently to all who had not partaken of the rite of baptism. When the Catechumens had given full proof of the ripeness of their know- ledge and of the stedfastness of their faith, they were baptized, admitted to the table of the Lord, and styled 2 Fideles. The importance, which Ter- tullian attached to this previous probation of the 1 An alius est Intinctis Christus, alius Audientibus ? And again, Itaque Audientes optare Intinctionem, non prsesumere oportet. De Poenitentia, c. 6. In the same chapter Tertullian speaks of the Auditorum tyrocinia, and applies the title of Novi- tioli to the Catechumens. In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 24, we find the following distinction. Hsec accedentibus ad fidem pro- ponenda, et ingredientibus in fidem inculcanda est ; and the following in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 1. Cognoscite, qui quum maxime ad Deum acceditis, recognoscite, qui jam accessisse vos testificati et confessi estis. In the Tract de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 14, our author distinguishes between Doctores and Qugerentes. Est utique frater aliquis doctor, gratia scientise donatus : est aliquis inter exercitatos conversatus ; aliquis tecum, curiosius tamen, quaerens. 2 Sometimes, however, the word Fideles included also the Catechumens. Thus in the Tract de Corona, c. 2. Neminem dico Fidelium coronam capite nosse alias, extra tempus tenta- tionis ejusmodi. Omnes ita observant a Catechumenis usque ad Confessores et Martyres, vel Negatores. 232 candidates for baptism, appears from the fact that he founds upon the neglect of it one of his charges against the Heretics. 3 " Among them," he says, " no distinction is made between the Catechumen and the faithful or confirmed Christian : the Cate- chumen is pronounced fit for baptism before he is instructed ; all come in indiscriminately ; all hear, all pray together." The teachers, who undertook to prepare the Catechumens for reception at the baptismal font, appear to have pursued the course pointed out by the Baptist, and by our blessed Lord. 4 They began by insisting on the necessity of repentance and amendment of life. Unfortunately the effect of their exhortations upon the minds of their hearers was frequently counteracted by 5 a fatal perversion of the doctrine of the Church respecting the effi- 3 Inprimis quis Catechumenus, quis Fidelis, incertum est : pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant. And again, Ante sunt perfecti Catechumeni quam edocti. De Prescript. Heretic, c. 41. 4 See the first five chapters of the Tract de Pcenitentia. 5 Tertullian in the following sentence explains the prevalent opinion, at the same time that he points out the qualifications necessary to render baptism efficacious. Neque ego renuo divinutn beneficium, id est, abolitionem delictorum, inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse ; sed ut eo pervenire contingat elaborandum est. Quis enim tibi, tarn infidae pcenitentiae viro, asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae commodabit ? De Pcenitentia, c. 6. 233 cacy of baptism. In every age the object of a large portion of those who call themselves Christians has been, to secure the benefits without fulfilling the conditions of the Christian covenant — to obtain the rewards of righteousness without sacrificing their present gratifications. When, therefore, the proselyte was told, that baptism conferred upon him who received it the remission of all his former sins, he persuaded himself that he might with safety defer the work of repentance ; and passed the time allotted for his probation, not in mortifying his lusts and acquiring a purity of heart and affections suitable to his Christian profession ; but in a more unrestrained enjoyment of those worldly and sensual pleasures, in which he knew that, after baptism, he could not indulge, without forfeiting his hopes of eternal happiness. So general had this licentious practice become, that Tertullian devotes a considerable portion of the c Tract de Poenitentia to the ex- posure of its folly and wickedness ; and the 7 historian of the Roman empire might there have found better arguments, than those which he has 6 See particularly c. 6, where Tertullian argues that baptism, in order to be effectual to the pardon of sin, pre-supposes a renunciation of all sinful habits on the part of him who is to receive it. Men are admitted to baptism because they have already repented and reformed their lives ; not in order that they may afterwards repent and reform. Non ideo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus. 7 Chap. xx. note G8. 234 extracted from Chrysostom, against the delay of baptism; though our author's attention was not immediately directed to that subject. While the teacher was endeavouring to impress upon the Catechumen the necessity of repentance and amendment of life, he would at the same time gradually unfold the great truths which constitute the objects of a Christian faith ; suiting his in- struction to the comprehension and previous acquire- ments of the proselyte, and proceeding from the simpler to the more sublime and mysterious doctrines of the Gospel. Of some the communication was postponed until the convert had been baptized, and numbered among the members of the Church. But after that rite was conferred, there was no further reserve ; and the whole counsel of God was declared alike to all the faithful. 8 In our account of Monta- nus, we stated that part of that knowledge, yvdxnc, which, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, had been communicated by the Apostles to a select few, and through them handed down to his own time by oral tradition, consisted of mystical interpreta- tions of Scripture. We find occasionally, in 9 Ter- 8 Chapter I. p. 31. 9 Thus in the Tract de Pallio, where he is speaking of the expulsion of our first parents from Paradise, and of the fig-leaves of which they made aprons; he adds, sed arcana ista, nee omnium nosse, c. 3, and in the Tract de Idololatria, speaking 235 tullian's works, expressions implying that he also admitted the existence of interpretations, the know- ledge of which was confined to those whom he terms the more worthy. But he condemns in the most pointed manner, the notion, that the Apostles had kept back any of the truths revealed to them, and had not imparted them alike to all Christians. 1 He applies to it the name of madness, and con- siders it as a pure invention of the Gnostics ; devised for the purpose of throwing an air of mysterious grandeur around their monstrous fictions, and supported by the grossest misrepresentations of Scripture. Having already delivered our opinion respecting the mischievous consequences which have arisen to the Church, from the countenance lent by the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus to the notion of a Disciplina Arcani — we shall now only express our regret that Protestant divines, in their eagerness to establish a favourite point, should sometimes have been induced to resort to it. of the brazen serpent set up by Moses in the wilderness, he says, Sive quae alia figurae istius expositio dignioribus revelata est, c. 5. 1 Sed ut diximus, eadem dementia est, quum confitentur quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse, nee diversa inter se praedi- casse ; non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse : quaedam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis demandasse. De Praescriptione Haeretic. c. 25. See also c. 26. 236 In - the passage already cited from the Apology, Tertullian states one purpose of the Christian assemblies to have been the maintenance of dis- cipline by pronouncing censures, according to the circumstances of the offence, against those who had erred either in practice or in doctrine. 3 We have seen that the proselyte, before he was admitted to the baptismal font, was subjected to a strict pro- bation. 4 In baptism he received the remission of all his former transgressions, and solemnly renounced all his former carnal desires and impure habits. If, however, through the weakness of human nature and the arts of his spiritual adversary, he was after- wards betrayed into sin, the door of mercy was not closed against him; he might still be restored to the favour of God and of the Church, by making a public confession of his guilt. It was not sufficient that the unhappy offender felt the deepest remorse, and that his peace of mind was destroyed by the remembrance of his transgression : — he was required to express his contrition by some public acts, which might at once satisfy the Church of his sincerity, 2 See p. 209. The sentence was pronounced by the President. Quomodo ut auferatur de medio illorum? Non utique ut extra Ecclesiam detur ; hoc enim non a Deo postularetur quod erat in Praesidentis officio. De Pudicitia, c. 14. 3 p. 230. 4 See the Tract de Pcenitentia, cc. 7, 9, 237 and deter others from similar transgressions. The name given to this public confession of guilt was Exomologesis ; and it consisted in various external marks of humiliation. 5 The penitent was clothed in the meanest apparel — he lay in sackcloth and ashes — he either fasted entirely, or lived upon bread and water — he passed whole days and nights in tears and lamentations — he embraced the knees of the presbyters as they entered the Church and entreated the brethren to intercede by their prayers in his behalf. In this state of degradation and exclusion from the communion of the faithful he remained a longer or a shorter period, according to the magnitude of his offence : when that period had expired, the 6 bishop publicly pronounced his abso- lution, by which he was restored to the favour of God and to the communion of the Church. Such is the account given by Tertullian of the Exomologesis, or public confession enjoined by the Church for sins committed after baptism. 7 Its benefits could be 5 Compare de Pudicitia, c. 5. sub fine. c. 13. Et tu qui- dem poenitentiam mcechi ad exorandam fraternitatem, &c. 6 See the passage quoted from the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 14. in n. 2, p. 236. and c. 18. sub fine. Salvailla pcenitentiae specie post Fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus et irremissibilibus a Deo solo. 7 Collocavit in vestibulo poenitentiam secundam, quae pul- santibus patefaciat ; sed jam semel, quia jam secundo ; sed amplius nunquam, quia proxime frustra. De Pcenitentia, c. 7. See also c. 9. 238 obtained only once : if the penitent relapsed, a place of repentance was no longer open to him. Although, however, he could not be reconciled to the Church in this world, we must not infer that Tertullian intended to exclude him from all hope of pardon in the next. 8 They indeed who, through false shame or an unwillingness to submit to the penance enjoined them, desperately refused to reconcile themselves to the Church by making a public confession, would be consigned to eternal misery. 9 But our author expressly distinguishes between remission of sins by the Church and by God ; and affirms that the sincere penitent, though he may not by his tears and lamentations obtain re-admission into the Church, may yet secure his reception into the kingdom of heaven. In ' our attempts to distinguish between the works composed by Tertullian before and after his adoption of the opinions of Montanus, we remarked that the Tract de Pcenitentia belonged to the former class; and that he 2 there spoke as if all 8 De Pcenitentia, cc. 10, 11, 12. 9 See de Pudicitia, c. 3. Et si pacem hie non metit, apud Dominum seminat. Tertullian reasons throughout the Tract on the supposition that the more heinous offences, majora delicta, can he pardoned by God alone. See cc. 11, 18, sub fine, 19. 1 See chap. I. p. 42. 2 See particularly the commencement of c. 8. But at other times Tertullian speaks as if idolaters, apostates, and murderers, 1 239 crimes, committed after baptism, might once, though only once, be pardoned upon repentance. But in the Tract de Pudicitia, which was written after he had seceded from the Church, we 3 find him drawing a distinction between greater and less offences — between those which could not, and those which could be pardoned by the Church. If, 4 for instance, a Christian had been excommunicated for were never re-admitted to the communion of the Church. De Pudicitia, cc. 5, 9, 12. sub fine. Hinc est quod neque Idolo- latrise neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur. Crimes against nature were also under the same irremissible sentence of ex- clusion. Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturae, non modo limine, verum omni Ecclesiae tecto submovemus ; quia non sunt delicta, sed monstra. c. 4. Et tamen ejusmodi neque congregant neque participant nobiscum, facto per delicta denuo vestri : quando in illis quidem misceamur, quos vestra vis atque saavitia ad negandum subigit. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 5. See Bingham, L. xviii. c. 4. L. xvi. c. 10. Sect. 2. 3 De Pudicitia, cc. 1, 2. Secundum hanc difFerentiam de- lictorum poenitentiae quoque conditio discriminatur. Alia erit, quae veniam consequi possit, in delicto scilicet remissibili ; alia quae consequi nullo modo potest, in delicto scilicet irremissibili. c. 18. sub fine. Haec ut principalia penes Dominum delicta. De Patientia, c. 5. 1 Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. Perit igitur et fidelis elapsus in spectaculum quadrigani furoris, et gladiatorii cruoris, et scenicae fceditatis, et xysticae vanitatis, in lusus, in convivia secularis solennitatis ; in officium, in ministerium alienae idololatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis ; in verbum ancipitis negationis aut blasphemiae impegit ; ob tale quid extra gregem datus est, vel et ipse forte ira, tumore, aemulatione, quod denique saepe fit dedignatione castigationis abrupit ; debet requiri atque revocari. De Pudicitia, c. 7. 240 being present at a chariot race, or a combat of gladiators, or a dramatic representation, or any gymnastic exercise ; for attending any secular game or entertainment, or working at any trade which ministered to the purposes of idolatry, or using any expression which might be construed into a denial of his faith or into blasphemy against Christ — or if from passion or impatience of censure he had him- self broken off his connexion with the Church — still his guilt was not of so deep a dye, but that he might upon his public confession, be again received into its communion. 5 In a subsequent passage he classes among the venial sins, being angry without a cause, and allowing the sun to go down upon our 5 Cui enim non accidit aut irasci inique et ultra solis occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia, aut necessitate mentiri ? in negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur ! ut si nulla sit venia istorum, nemini salus competat. Horum ergo erit venia per exoratorem Patris, Christum. Sunt autem et contraria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa, quae veniam non capiant, homicidium, idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et mcechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus, c. 19. In the fourth book against Marcion, the enumeration of the delicta majora is somewhat different. Quae septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrerent idololatria, blasphemia, homici- dio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude, c. 9. On other occa- sions Tertullian appears to overlook the distinction between greater and lesser offences. Quum — omne delictum voluntarium in Domino grande sit. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. In the Tract de Pcenitentia Tertullian distinguishes between voluntary sins, and accidental involuntary sins, and sins of ignorance, c. 3. 241 wrath — acts of violence — evil-speaking — rash swear- ing — non-performance of contracts — violations of truth ; and among the heinous sins, homicide, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adul- tery, and fornication. Of these he says that there is no remission ; and that even Christ will not inter- cede for those who commit them. Such were the severe notions of discipline entertained by Tertullian after he became a Montanist. In his Tract de Pudicitia, he applies them to adulterers and forni- cators in particular, and 6 even extends them to those who contract a second marriage ; branding 7 the orthodox, who recommended a milder course, with the name of \pvyjLico\, Animales — that is, men possessing indeed the Anima which God breathed into Adam, thereby constituting him a living soul, but strangers to the influence of that Spirit by which the disciples of the Paraclete were inspired. 6 Et ideo durissime nos, infamantes Paracletum discipline enormitate, Digamos foris sistimus, eundem limitem liminis moechis quoque et fornicatoribus figimus, jejunas pacis lachry- mas profusuris, nee amplius ab Ecclesia quam publicationem dedecoris relaturis. De Pudicitia, c. 1. sub fine. They did not allow a convert, who had been married before his con- version and lost his wife, to contract another marriage after his conversion. Dum nee secundas quidem post fidem nuptias permittitur nosse. 7 See Chap. I. p. 28, note 5. The Tract de Pudicitia was directed against an edict, published by a bishop, (probably of Rome,) and allowing adulterers and fornicators to be re-admitted to the communion of the Church upon repentance. See p. 224. R 242 We may take this opportunity of observing, that Tertullian's works contain no allusion to the practice of Auricular Confession. At the end of the chapter on the Government of the Church, Mosheim gives a short account of the Ecclesiastical Authors, who flourished during the century of which he is treating. The notices which the writings of Tertullian supply on this point are very few in number. 8 He alludes to the Shepherd of Hermas in a manner which shews that it was highly esteemed in the Church, and even deemed by some of authority ; for he supposes that a practice, which appears to have prevailed in his clay, of sitting down after the conclusion of the public prayers, owed its origin to a misinterpretation of a passage in that work. In his later writings, when he had adopted the rigid notions of Montanus respecting the perpetual exclusion of adulterers from the communion of the Church, 9 he speaks with great bitterness of the Shepherd of Hermas, as countenancing adultery ; and states that it had been pronounced apocryphal by every synod of the 8 De Oratione, c. 12. 9 Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola mcechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi ; si non ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha et falsa judicaretur : adultera et ipsa et inde patrona sociorum. De Pudicitia, c. 10. Again in c. 20. Illo Apocrypho Pastore mcechorum. 243 orthodox Churches. ' Yet the opinions expressed in the Treatise de Poenitentia, written before Ter- tullian became a Montanist, appear to bear some- thing more than an accidental resemblance to those contained in the Shepherd of Hermas. We 2 have seen that Tertullian mentions Clemens Romanus as having been placed in the see of Rome, by St. Peter ; and Polycarp in that of Smyrna, by St. John. In 3 speaking of the authors who had refuted the Valentinian heresy, he mentions Justin, 4 Miltiades, and Irenseus. To them he adds Proculus, supposed by some eminent critics to be the same as Proclus ; who is stated 5 by the author of the brief Enume- ration of Heretics, subjoined to Tertullian's Treatise de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, to have been the head of one of the two sects into which the Cata- phrygians or Montanists were divided. He appears to have made a distinction between the Holy Ghost and the Paraclete ; the former inspired the apostles ; the latter spoke in Montanus, and revealed through him more numerous and more sublime truths than 1 Compare de Poenitentia, cc. 7, 8, 9. with the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. iv. c. 3. 2 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 32. quoted in p. 218. 3 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. 4 See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 17. 5 c. 52. R2 244 Christ had delivered in the Gospel. Proclus did not, however, like JEschines, the head of the other division of the Cataphrygians, confound the Father and the Son. 6 Eusebius, and after him 7 Jerome and 8 Photius, mention a Proclus or Proculus, who was a leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, and held a disputation at Rome with Caius, a distinguished writer of that day. There is, therefore, no doubt, as 9 Lardner justly observes, that a Montanist of the name of Proculus or Proclus lived at the beginning of the third century; but whether he was the author mentioned by Tertullian has been doubted : the expression Proculus noster, which is applied to him, inclines me to think that he was. Ter- tullian 1 speaks of Tatian as one of the heretics who enjoined abstinence from food ; on the ground that the Creator of this world was a Being at variance with the supreme God, and that it was consequently sinful to partake of any enjoyments which this world affords. From the manner in which Tertullian 2 speaks G Eccl. Hist. L. vi. c. 20. 7 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Caius. 8 Bibliotheca, Cod. 48. 9 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 40. 1 De Jejuniis, c. 15. 2 De Anima, c. 55. Quomodo Perpetua, fortissima Martyr, sub die passionis in revelatione Paradisi, solos illic commartyres suos vidit ? 245 of the visions seen by the Martyr Perpetua, I infer that a written account of her martyrdom had been circulated among the Christians. 3 Some have supposed that Tertullian was himself the author of the account still extant of the passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. 3 Lardner, Credibility, c. 40. CHAPTER V. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. We now come to a more important and more extensive branch of our enquiries ; to the informa- tion which the writings of Tertullian supply re- specting the doctrine of the Church in his day. In treating this part of our subject, we do not think that we can adopt a better course, than to consider the different doctrines in the order in which they occur in the Articles of the Church of England. For the present, however, we shall pass over the first and second articles, which relate to the Trinity and to the person and offices of Christ; because a more convenient opportunity for considering them will present itself, when we come to the last of Mosheim's divisions — the heresies which disturbed the peace of the Church during the latter part of the second, and the earlier part of the third century. With respect to that portion of the first article which asserts the unity of God and describes his nature and attributes, the reader will find a 247 statement of Tertullian's faith ' in a passage already quoted from the seventeenth chapter of the Apology. Let us, therefore, proceed to the third article; the subject of which is Christ's descent into hell. In order to put the reader in possession of our author's opinion on this article, it is necessary to premise that he speaks of four different places of future happiness or misery — the Inferi, Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and Gehenna. The 2 Inferi he defines to be a deep and vast recess in the very heart and bowels of the earth. 3 He sometimes distinguishes between the Inferi and Abraham's Bosom ; 4 at others, includes under 1 See Chap. III. p. 168, n. 3. We have seen that Tertullian says that God, though a Spirit, is a body. Chap. III. p. 180. n. 6. The reader will find in the Appendix to the third volume of the work of Mr. Andrews Norton, already referred to, (p. 166, n. 7.) some remarks respecting the use of the word spiritus by the ancients deserving his attention. 2 Nobis Inferi, non nuda cavositas nee subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina creduntur ; sed in fossa terrae, et in alto vastitas, et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa profunditas. De Anima, c. 55. 3 Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. 4 Cseterum vester Christus pristinum statum Judaeis pollicetur ex restitutione terrae ; et post decursum vitas, apud Inferos, in sinu Abrahae, refrigerium. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. This passage applies to the peculiar notions of Marcion. See 248 the common name of Inferi both the place in which the souls of the wicked are kept in a state of torment until the day of judgment — and Abraham's Bosom, the receptacle prepared for the souls of the faithful, where they enjoy a foretaste of the happi- ness which will afterwards be their portion in heaven. ■ For neither can the full reward of the good be conferred, nor the full punishment of the wicked inflicted, until the soul is re-united to the body at the day of judgment. 6 There is, however, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe, some inconsistency in Tertullian's language respecting the purposes for which the soul is kept in a separate state apud Inferos. 7 The Bosom of Abraham, though not in heaven, was yet elevated far above the place in which the souls of the wicked were confined. n. 9. p. 182. Igitur si quid tormenti sive solatii anima praecer- pit in carcere seu diversorio Inferum, inigne, vel in sinu Abrahse. De Anima, c. 7. Nam et nunc animas torqueri foverique penes Inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc exules carnis, probabit Lazari exemplum. De Res. Carnis, c. 17. See also de Idololatria, c. 13. De Anima, c. 9. sub fine. 5 See de Res. Carnis, c. 17, quoted in the preceding note, where Tertullian says, that the soul suffers the punishment of evil thoughts and desires in the intermediate state. 6 See de Anima, c. 58, and de Res. Carnis, c. 42. Ne Infe- ros experiatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos. 7 Earn itaque regionem sinum dico Abrahse, etsi non cceles- tem, sublimiorem tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium prsebituram animabus justorum, donee consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. De Anima, c. 55. 249 Tertullian defines 8 Paradise to be a place of divine pleasantness, appointed for the reception of the spirits of the saints. 9 While the souls of the rest of mankind were detained apud Inferos, in the intermediate state just described, it was the peculiar privilege of the martyrs that their souls were at once transferred to Paradise ; for l St. John in the Apocalypse saw the souls of the martyrs, and of the martyrs only, under the Altar. 2 According to Marcion, they who lived under the Law were con- signed to the Inferi, there to receive their reward or punishment : while heaven was reserved to the followers of Christ. Gehenna 3 is, as Tertullian expresses himself, 8 Et si Paradisum nominemus, locum divinae amcenitatis recipiendis Sanctorum spiritibus destinatum, maceria quadam igneaa illius zonae a notitia orbis communis segregatum. Apo- logy, c. 47. Tertullian appears to identify it with the Para- dise in which Adam and Eve were placed. De Res. Carnis, c. 26. sub fine. 9 De Anima, c. 55. De Res. Carnis, c. 43. Nemo enim peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum nisi ex martyrii praerogativa, scilicet Paradiso, non Inferis dever- surus. 1 c. 6. v. 9. 2 Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit ; (Tertullian is speaking of the parable of Lazarus) scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti, sive refrigerii, apud Inferos determinat iis positam, qui Legi et Prophetis obedierint ; Christi vero et Dei sui ccelestem definit sinum et portum. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. 3 Gehennam si comminemur, quae est ignis arcani subterraneus ad pcenam thesaurus. Apology, c. 47. See de Pcenitentia, cc. 5, 12. De Res. Carnis, cc. 34, 35. 250 a treasure of secret fire beneath the earth, destined for the punishment of the wicked. These preliminary observations will enable us fully to comprehend Tertullian's notions respecting Christ's descent into hell. 4 We have seen that he defines death to be the separation of the soul from the body. 5 Christ really died : his soul was, there- fore, separated from his body ; and as the soul does not sleep, but remains in a state of perpetual activity — in the interval between Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, his soul descended to the general receptacle of departed souls, and there rendered the patriarchs and prophets capable of sharing in the 4 Chap. III. p. 197. 5 Quid est autem illud quod ad inferna transfertur post divortium corporis, quod detinetur illic, quod in diem judicii reservatur, ad quod et Christus moriendo descendit, puto, ad animas Patriarcharum ? De Anima, c. 7. Siquidem Christo in corde terrse triduum mortis legimus expunctum, id est, in recessu intimo, et interno, et in ipsa terra operto, et intra ipsam clauso, et inferioribus adhuc abyssis superstructo. Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secundum easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humance mortis apud Inferos functus, nee ante ascendit in sub- limiora ccelorum, quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic Patriarchas et Prophetas compotes sui faceret, &c. c. 55. He died according to the fashion of the death of man, in that his soul was separated from his body. Tertullian, therefore, agrees with Pearson respecting the first end of Christ's descent into hell. " I conceive that the end for which he did so was, that he might undergo the condition of a dead man, as well as living." p. 250. Ed. fol. 1683. 251 benefits which his mission was designed to commu- nicate. Pearson in his remarks upon the fifth article of the Creed, has correctly stated Tertullian's opinion ; but has not explained how it is to be deduced from the passage which he quotes, and in which there is no mention of the soul of Christ. That which Pearson proposes, as the second end of Christ's descent into hell, is stated by Tertullian in the form of an objection to his own opinions. 6 Sed in hoc, inquiunt, Christus Inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus. Pearson's words are — 7 " Secondly, by the descent of Christ into hell all those which believe in him are secured from descending thither ; he went into those regions of darkness, that our souls might never come into those torments which are there." Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's resurrec- tion, the subject of our fourth article, may be learned from the Treatise entitled de Carne Christi : which he wrote 8 in confutation of certain Heretics, who denied the reality of Christ's flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh. 9 They were appre- 6 De Anima, c. 55. 7 p. 251. 8 Praeterea et nos volumen prsemisimus de carne Christi, quo earn et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis vanitatem, et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprietatem. De Res. Carnis, c. 2. 3 De Carne Christi, c. 1. 252 hensive that, if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh ; and consequently the resurrection of the human body after death. ] Some, therefore, as Marcion, denied the reality both of Christ's birth and of his flesh : others, 2 as Apelles, denied the former, but admitted the latter ; 3 contending that, as the angels are recorded in Scripture to have assumed human flesh without being born after the fashion of men, so might Christ, who according to them received his body from the stars. 4 Others again assigned to Christ an animal flesh, caro animalis, or carnal soul, anima carnalis ; their notion was, that the soul, anima, being invisible, was rendered visible in the flesh, which was most intimately united to it or rather absorbed in it. 5 Others affirmed that Christ assumed the angelic substance ; 6 Valentinus assigned him a spiritual 1 De Came Christi, c. 1. 2 Ibid. 3 c. 6. Tertullian's answer is, that the angels did not come upon earth, like Christ, to suffer, be crucified, and die in the flesh ; there was consequently no necessity why they should go through the other stages of human being, or why they should be born after the fashion of men. 4 cc. 10, 11, 12, 13. The reader will perceive that the word animal is not here used in its ordinary sense, but means that which is animated by a soul. 5 Tertullian asks in reply, to what end did Christ assume the angelic substance, since he came not to effect the salvation of angels ? c. 14. 6 c. 15. 253 flesh; 7 others argued that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh, because it proceeded not from the seed of man ; and 8 Alexander, the Valentinian, seems to have denied its reality, on the ground that if it was human flesh, it must also be sinful flesh, whereas one object of Christ's mission was to abolish sinful flesh. Should the reader deem the opinions now enumerated so absurd and trifling as to be alto- 7 Tertullian's answer is, that on the same ground we must deny the reality of Adam's flesh, c. 16. sub fine. 8 I say seems, for I am not certain that I imderstand the objection. The words of Tertullian are, Insuper argumentandi libidine, ex forma ingenii haeretici, locum sibi fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmemus, idcirco Christum terreni census induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso carnem peccati. The orthodox, according to Alexander, affirmed that Christ put on flesh of earthly origin, in order that he might in his own person make void or abolish sinful flesh. If, therefore, Alexander contended, Christ abolished sinful flesh in himself, his flesh could no longer be human flesh. Tertullian answers, we do not say that Christ abolished sinful flesh, carnem peccati, but sin in the flesh, peccatum carnis : it was for this very end that Christ put on human flesh, in order to shew that he could overcome sin in the flesh ; to have overcome sin in any other than human flesh would have been nothing to the purpose. Tertullian, referring to St. Paul, says of Christ, Evacuavit peccatum in carne : alluding, as I suppose, to Rom. viii. 3. But the corre- sponding Greek in the printed editions is Karik-pive rrjv a/japTiav sv rij vapid. Had Tertullian a different reading in his Greek MSS. ? or did he confound Rom. viii. 3, with Rom. vi. 6. Iva KaTapyt]drj to auifia rrje afiapTiag ? Jerome translates the Greek Karapysu) by evacuo, c. 16. See adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 14. Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages in which Tertullian has damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in carne. De Res. Carnis, c. 46, De Pudicitia, c. 17. 254 gether undeserving of notice, he must bear in mind that from such an enumeration alone can we acquire an accurate idea of the state of religious controversy in any particular age. In opposition to these various heretical notions, our author shews that Christ was 9 born, lived, suffered, died, and was buried, in the flesh. Hence it follows that he also rose again in the flesh. " ' For the same substance which fell by the stroke of death and lay in the sepulchre, was also raised. 2 In that substance Christ now sits at the right hand of the 9 Tertullian contends that, if Christ's birth from the Virgin is once proved, the reality of his flesh follows as a necessary consequence ; it being impossible otherwise to assign any reasonable cause why he should be born. See cc. 2, 3, 4, 5. 20, 21, 22, 23. 1 Ipsum enim quod cecidit in morte, quod jacuit in sepultura, hoc et resurrexit, non tarn Christus in carne, quam caro in Christo. De Res. Carnis, c. 48. 2 De Carne Christi, c. 16. De Res. Carnis, c. 51. Quum illic adhuc sedeat Iesus ad dexteram Patris ; homo, etsi Deus ; Adam novissimus, etsi Sermo primarius ; caro et sanguis, etsi nostris puriora ; idem tamen et substantia et forma qua ascendit talis etiam descensurus, ut Angeli affirmant (Act. i. 11.) agnoscendus scilicet iis, qui ilium convulneraverunt. Hie, sequester Dei atque hominum appellatus, (1 Tim. ii. 5.) ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque deposi- tum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius. Quemad- modum enim nobis arrabonem Spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit in coelum pignus totius summae, illuc quandoque redigendas. We shall see what our author meant by flesh and blood of a purer kind than those of men, when we speak of the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis. 255 Father — being man, though God ; the last Adam, though the primary Word ; flesh and blood, though of a purer kind than those of men — and according to the declaration of the angels, he will descend at the day of judgment, in form and substance the same as he ascended ; since he must be recognised by those who pierced him. He who is called the Mediator between God and man, is entrusted with a deposit from each party. As he left with us the earnest of the Spirit, so he took from us the earnest of the flesh, and carried it with him into heaven, to assure us that both the flesh and the Spirit will then be collected into one sum." Towards 3 the end of the Treatise, Tertullian mentions various strange notions respecting the session of Christ at the right hand of God. Some Heretics supposed that his flesh sat there, devoid of all sensation, like an empty scabbard : others that his human soul sat there without the flesh : others his flesh and human soul, or in other words, his human nature alone. On account of the intimate connexion between the doctrine of the resurrection of the body and that 3 c. 24. Ut et illi erubescant, qui affirmant carnem in ccelis vacuam sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo sedere ; aut qui carnem et animam tantundem ; aut tantummodo animam ; carnem vero non jam. See Pearson, Article vi. p. 272. 256 of Christ's resurrection, we will take this oppor- tunity of giving a short account of Tertullian's Treatise de Resurrectione Carnis. The Heretics, against whom it is directed, were the same who maintained that the Demiurge, or God who created this world and gave the Mosaic dispensation, was op- posed to the Supreme God. 4 Hence they attached an idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness to all his works — among the rest, to the flesh or body of man ; affirming that it could not rise again, and that the soul alone was capable of inheriting immortality. 5 Tertullian, therefore, in the first place, endeavours to prove that God cannot deem 4 cc. 4, 5. The reader will find what appears to be more than an accidental resemblance between this treatise and the fragments of a tract on the same subject ascribed to Justin Martyr. See Grabe's Spicilegium, torn. ii. 5 See c. 9, where Tertullian sums up the arguments advanced in the preceding chapters. Igitur ut retexam, quain Deus manibus suis ad imaginem Dei struxit — quam de suo adflatu ad similitudinem suae vivacitatis animavit — quam incolatui, fructui, dominatui totius suae operationis praeposuit — quam sacramentis suis disciplinisque vestivit — cujus munditias amat — cujus castigationes probat — cujus passiones sibi adpreciat— haeccine non resurget, totiens Dei ? Tertullian's notion was, that when God said, "Let us make man in our image" he alluded to the form which Christ was to bear during his abode on earth. Quodcunque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus, quod et limus, et Sermo caro, quod et terra tunc. Sic enim praefatio Patris ad Filium, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostrum. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id utique quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit ilium, scilicet Christi. c. 6. Compare adv. Praxeam, c. 12. 1 257 that flesh beneath his notice, or unworthy to be raised again, " which he framed with his own hands in the image of God ; — which he afterwards ani- mated with his own breath, communicating to it that life, of which the principle is within himself; — which he appointed to inhabit, to enjoy, to rule over his whole creation ; — which he clothes with his sacraments and his discipline, loving its purity, approving its mortifications, and ascribing a value to its sufferings." Having thus removed the preliminary objections founded on the supposed worthlessness of the flesh, our author proceeds 6 to prove that the body will rise again ; and first asserts the power of God to rebuild the tabernacle of the flesh, in whatever manner it may be dissolved. If we suppose even that it is annihilated, He who created all things out of nothing can surely raise the dead body again from nothing. 7 Nor is there any absurdity in supposing that the members of the human body, which may have been destroyed by fire or devoured by birds or beasts, will nevertheless at the last day be re-united to it. Such a supposition, on the contrary, is countenanced by 8 Scripture. 6 g. 11. Compare the Apology, c. 48. 7 c. 32. Compare Pearson, Article XI. p. 374. 8 Tertullian's words are, Sed ne solummodo eorum corporum resurrectio videatur praedicari quae sepulchris demandantur, 258 9 Tertullian further contends that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is rendered credible by innumerable instances of a resurrection in the natural world. The passage has been translated and adopted by 1 Pearson, in his Exposition of the eleventh Article of the Creed. He does not indeed appear to have been aware that some of the instances alleged are nothing to the purpose — such as the changes of day and night, of summer and winter. If any inference is to be drawn from them, it would rather be in favour of an alternate dissolution and restoration of the same bodies. 2 Among other illustrations, the instance of the phoenix is brought forward, of which the early Fathers appear to have been fond. Having established the power of God to raise the dead body, 3 Tertullian next enquires whether any reasons exist which should induce him to exert that power. 4 As he intends to judge mankind, and to reward or punish them according to their conduct in habes scriptum ; then follows a passage which in Semler's Index is stated as a quotation from Revelation xx. 1 3 ; but, if our author had that passage in view, he has strangely altered it. 9 c. 12. Compare the Apology, c. 48. 1 p. 376. Tertullian was himself aware that the instances are not strictly applicable. See the commencement of c. 13. 2 c. 13. 3 cc. 14, 15. 4 Compare Apology, c. 48. Pearson, Article XI. p. 376. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 12. 259 this life, it is evident that the ends of justice will not be attained, unless men rise again with the same bodies which they had when living. The body co-operated with the soul in this world : it carried into effect the good or evil designs which the soul conceived : it ought, therefore, to be associated with the soul in its future glory or misery. 5 Tertullian further contends that the very term resurrection implies a resurrection of the body : for that alone can be raised which has fallen, and it is the body, not the soul, which falls by the stroke of death. The same inference may be drawn from the com- pound expression Resurrectio Mortuorum ; " for man," as 6 Pearson, who urges both this argument and the preceding, paraphrases the words, " man dieth not in reference to his soul, which is immortal, but his body." The arguments of the Heretics against the re- surrection of the body, were deduced either from general reasoning, or from passages of Scripture. Of the former description were the following. 7 "The body, you say, in the present life is the receptacle or instrument of the soul by which it is animated. It has itself neither will, nor sense, nor understanding. How then can it be a fit subject of s c. 18. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. cc. 9. 14. 6 Article XI. p. 382. 7 cc. 16, 17. S 2 260 reward or punishment ? or to what purpose will it be raised ? Why may not the soul exist in the next world, either wholly divested of a body, or clothed in an entirely different body?" 8 Tertullian replies that, although the principle of action is in the soul, it can effect nothing without the body. It thinks, wills, disposes : but in order to carry its designs into execution, it needs the assistance of the body, which is also the medium of sensation. The soul, it is true, might by means of its corporeal substance suffer the punishment due to sinful desires : but unless it shall hereafter be re-united to the body, sinful actions will remain unpunished. "If 9 then," the Heretics rejoined, "the body is to be raised, is it to be raised with all the infirmities and defects under which it laboured on earth ? Are the blind, the lame, the deformed, those especially who were so from their birth, to appear with the same imperfections at the day of judgment?" " No," replies Tertullian : " the Almighty does not his work by halves. He, who raises the dead to life, will raise the body in its perfect integrity. This is part of the change which the body will undergo at the resurrection. For though the dead will be raised in the flesh, yet they who attain to the 8 Compare adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 24, L. v. c. 10. 9 cc. 4. 57. 261 resurrection of happiness will pass into ' the angelic state and put on the vesture of immortality ; ac- cording to the declaration of St. Paul, that " this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality" — and again, that " our vile bodies will be changed that they may be fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ." 2 We must not, however, suppose that this change is incompatible with the identity of the body. Con- tinual changes take place in the substance of man from his birth to his death : his constitution, his bulk, his strength is perpetually changing; yet he remains the same man. So when after death he passes into a state of incorruption and immortality, as the mind, the memory, the conscience which he now has will not 3 be done away, so neither will his body. Otherwise he would suffer in a different body from that in which he sinned ; and the dis- pensations of God w 7 ould appear to be at variance with his justice, which evidently requires that the same soul should be re-united to the same body at the last day. 4 Nevertheless, in consequence of 1 Compare cc. 36. 42. and 55. 3 cc. 55, 56. Compare de Monogamia, c. 10, where Tertul- lian's reasoning proceeds on the supposition that we shall recognize our relations and friends in a future state. 3 The corresponding Latin word is aboleri, c. 56. * c. 57. Ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resurrectionem, eatenus passibilis qua ipsa, qua eadem; ea tamen impassibilis qua in hoc ipsum manumissa a Domino, ne ultra pati possit, &c. 262 this change, the flesh will no longer be subject to infirmities and sufferings, or the soul be disturbed by unruly passions and desires. " The 5 body, therefore," the Heretics replied, "after it is risen, will be subject to no sufferings, will be harassed by no wants; what then will be the use of those members which at present adminis- ter to its necessities? what offices will the mouth, the throat, the teeth, the stomach, the intestines have to perform, when man will no longer eat and drink ? " We have said, answers Tertullian, that the body will undergo a change ; and as man will then be free from the wants of this life, so will his members be released from many of their present duties. But it does not, therefore, follow that they will be wholly without use ; the mouth, for instance, will be employed in singing praises to God. Nor will the final retribution be complete, unless the whole man stands before the judgment-seat of God — unless man stands there with all his members perfect. When 6 the Heretics argued from Scripture, they sometimes said in general, that " the language of Scripture is frequently figurative, and ought to be 5 cc. 60, 61, 62, 63. c c. 19. 263 so considered in the present instance. 7 The resur- rection of which it speaks is a moral or spiritual resurrection — a resurrection of the soul from the grave of sin — from the death of ignorance to the light of truth and to the knowledge of God. Man, therefore, rises again, according to the meaning of Scripture, in baptism." Aware, however, that they might shock the feelings of those whom they wished to convert, by an abrupt and total denial of the resurrection, they practised a verbal deception, and affirmed that every man must rise again, not in the flesh generally, in came, but in this flesh, in hue came; tacitly referring to their moral resurrection, and meaning that man must in this life be initiated into their extravagant mysteries. Others again, in order to get rid of the resurrection of the flesh, interpreted the resurrection to mean the departure of the soul either from this world, which they called the habitation of the dead, that is, of those who know not God : or from the body, in which, as in a sepulchre, they conceived the soul to be 7 Pearson calls this a Socinian notion. Article XL p. 382. One of King Edward's Articles entitled, " Resurrectio mortuo- rum nondum est facta," is directed against it. Resurrectio mortuorum non adhuc facta est, quasi tantum ad animum pertineat, qui per Christi gratiam a morte peccatorum excitetur. The Article then proceeds, in exact conformity to our author's opinion, to state that the souls of men will be re-united to their bodies at the last day, in order to receive the final sentence of God. •264 detained. 8 These objections afford Tertullian an opportunity of making some pertinent observations upon the marks by which we must determine when the language of Scripture is to be figuratively understood. 9 In this case, he says, we cannot so understand it, because the whole Christian faith hinges upon the doctrine of a future state ; and surely God would not have made the Gospel rest upon a figure. l Christ moreover, in the prophecy in which he at once predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final consummation of all things, connected the resurrection with his second coming ; and we trace the same connexion 2 in many passages of St. Paul's Epistles, as well as in the Apocalypse. What then becomes of those figurative interpre- tations, according to which 3 the resurrection is already past ? 4 At least, Tertullian adds, the Heretics ought to be consistent with themselves, and not to put a figurative construction on all that is said of the body, while they interpret literally what- ever is said of the soul. Our author, however, is not content with proving the figurative interpre- tation to be inapplicable in the present instance: 8 c. 20. In c. 33, are some good remarks upon the mode of distinguishing between what is to be understood literally, and what to be regarded as mere illustration in our Saviour's Parables. c. 21. J c. 22. 2 cc. 23, 24, 25. 3 2 Tim. ii. 18. 4 c. 32. 265 5 he is determined to fight his adversaries with their own weapons, and produces passages of Scripture, equally or even more inapplicable, in which he finds the resurrection prefigured and typified. 6 He dwells particularly on the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel ; and urges it in proof of the resurrection of the body. 7 By the Heretics it was referred to the captivity of the Jews, and their subsequent restoration to their native land. 8 We learn inci- dentally from Tertullian's interpretation, that in his opinion the doctrine of the resurrection had been previously revealed to the Jews; and that the design of the vision was to confirm their wavering- belief. The passages of Scripture on which Tertullian rests his proof of the resurrection of the body are such as the following. 9 Christ said that he came to save what was lost. What then was lost ? The whole man, both soul and body. The body, there- fore, must be saved as well as the soul ; otherwise 5 cc. 26, 27, 28. See for instance the interpretation of Isaiah lviii. 8. in c. 27. c. 29. In speaking of this chapter of Ezekiel (xxxvii.) Tertullian falls into a chronological error : he supposes that Ezekiel prophesied before the Captivity, c. 31. 7 c. 30. Pearson appears to have thought that the Vision had no reference to the resurrection of the body. Article XI. p. 372. 8 c. 31. Compare c. 39. ° c. 34. Luke xix. 10. 266 the purpose of Christ's coming will not be accom- plished. ' Christ also, when he enjoined his hearers to fear Him only, who can destroy both soul and body in hell, evidently assumed the resurrection of the body ; as well as 2 in his answer to the question of the Sadducees respecting the woman who had been seven times married. Of the other arguments urged by Tertullian, I will mention only one, which possesses at least the merit of ingenuity. 3 The Athenians, he observes, would not have sneered at St. Paul for preaching the doctrine of the resur- rection, in case he had maintained a mere resurrec- tion of the soul ; since that was a doctrine with which they were sufficiently familiar. Both 4 parties appealed to the miracle performed by Christ in raising Lazarus. Tertullian contended that He performed it in order to confirm the faith of his disciples, by exhibiting the very mode in which the future resurrection would take place. The Heretics described it as a mere exercise of power, which could not have been rendered cognizable by the senses, had not the body of Lazarus been raised as well as the soul. " St Paul," 5 the Heretics further argued, " speaks 1 c. 35. Matt. x. 28. 2 c. 36. 3 c. 39. 4 cc. 38. 53. 5 cc. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 2 Cor. iv. 1G. 267 of an outward man that perishes, and of an inward man that is renewed from day to day; evidently alluding to the body and soul, and intimating that the latter alone will be saved." Tertullian answers that this passage is to be understood of what takes place, not in a future, but in the present life — of the afflictions to which the bodies of Christians are subjected in consequence of their profession of the Gospel, and of their daily advancement in faith and love through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In like manner when 6 St. Paul distinguished between the old and the new man, expressions which the Heretics also interpreted of the body and soul — he meant to speak of a difference, not of substance but of character. The old man was the Jew or Gentile, who walked in the lusts of the flesh : the new man the Christian, who being renewed in the spirit of his mind, led a life of purity and holiness. 7 So when the Apostle says that they who are in the flesh cannot please God, he condemns not the flesh, but the works of the flesh: for he shortly afterwards 8 adds, that they, who by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh, shall live. But 9 the passage on which the Heretics princi- 6 cc. 45, 46, 47. Eph. iv. 22. 7 Romans viii. 8. 8 Romans viii. 13. 9 c. 48. 1 Cor. xv. 50. Some in Tertullian's day appear to 268 pally relied, was the declaration of St. Paul, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. "Here," they said, "is no figure, but a plain and express assertion, that the body cannot be saved." To this objection Tertullian gives a variety of answers. He first states the circumstances which led the Apostle into that particular train of thought ; and shews very satisfactorily that, as St. Paul makes Christ's resurrection the foundation of our hope of a resurrection, the necessary inference is, that we shall rise as he did, that is, in the flesh. ' He then borrows a weapon from the armoury of his opponents, and says that the expression flesh and blood is figurative, and means carnal conversation : which certainly excludes man from the kingdom of heaven. 2 " But if," he proceeds, "the expression is understood literally, still it contains no direct denial of the resurrection of the body. We must distinguish between the resurrection of the body, and its ad- mission into the kingdom of heaven. The same body is raised in order that the whole man may stand before the judgment-seat of God ; but before he can be received into the kingdom of heaven, 3 he have interpreted the expression flesh and blood in this passage, as well as in Galatians i. 16. of Judaism, c. 50. 1 c. 49. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 10. 2 cc. 50, 51. 42. 3 Compare the Apology, c. 48, superinduti substantia propria seternitatis. The substance of the glorified body will be, •269 must be changed — must be made partaker of the vivifying influence of the Spirit, and put on the vesture of incorruption and immortality. Death is the separation of the soul from the body : the body crumbles in the dust : the soul passes to the Inferi, where it remains in a state of imperfect happiness or misery according to the deeds done in the flesh. At the day of judgment it will be re-united to the body, and man will then receive his final sentence : if of condemnation, he will suffer eternal punishment in hell ; if of justification, his body will be trans- formed and glorified, and he will thus be fitted to partake of the happiness of heaven. They who shall be alive on earth at the day of judgment will not die, but will at once undergo the change above described." " But 4 does not St. Paul say, ' that which thou according to Tertullian, the same as that of the angels. De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 2. sub fine. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 1. Ad Martyres, c. 3. De Res. Carnis, cc. 26. 36. De Anima, c. 56. Ad Angelica? plenitudinis mensuram tempe- ratum. Our Saviour's declaration, that in the resurrection men will be as the angels of God, appears to have given rise to this notion respecting the angelic substance. The change which will take place in the body of man is urged by Tertullian in answer to another Heretical argument, founded upon the difference between this world and the next : " whatever belongs to the latter is immortal, and cannot therefore be possessed by ' flesh and blood ' which are mortal," c. 59. 4 c. 52. 1 Cor. xv. 37. In interpreting St. Paul's words, There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds, our author understands men to mean 270 sowest, thou sowest not that body which shall be, but bare grain?' and does not this comparison necessarily imply that man will be raised in a different body from that in which he died ?" Ter- tullian answers, by no means : for though there may be a difference of appearance, the body remains in kind, in nature, in quality the same. If you sow a grain of wheat, barley does not come up ; or the converse. The Apostle's comparison leads to the inference that a change will take place in the body, but not such a change as will destroy its identity. The 5 Heretics grounded an argument upon another passage in the same chapter ; but in order to understand it we must turn to the original Greek. The words are, airu^rai \itvoi. rag ci^iapriaQ wq ayoiviu) fiaicpu). Jerome in agreement with the Hebrew reads, Vae qui trahitis iniquitatem in funiculis vanitatis. 1 De Idololatria, c. 15. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 10. 2 Scio Scripturam Enoch, quae hunc ordinem Angelis dedit, u 2 292 received into the Jewish canon ; but supposes that the Jews rejected it merely because they were unable to account for its having survived the deluge. He argues, therefore, that Noah might have re- ceived it from his great-grandfather Enoch, and handed it down to his posterity ; or if it was actually lost at the deluge, Noah might have restored it from immediate revelation, 3 as Ezra restored the whole Jewish Scripture. " Perhaps," he adds, " the Jews reject it because it contains a prediction of Christ's advent ; at any rate the reference to it made by the Apostle Jude ought to quiet all our doubts respecting its genuineness." For a more detailed account of this book we refer the reader to the dissertation, prefixed by 4 Dr. Laurence to his trans- lation of the book of Enoch the Prophet, from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian library. Such of our readers as are acquainted with the late Professor Porson's Letters to Archdeacon Tra- vis will remember the Archdeacon's interpretation of an expression used by Tertullian, when speaking non recipi a quibusdam, quia nee in armarium Judaicum admit- titur. De Cultu Foeminarum, L. i. c. 3. 3 We are not certain whether Tertullian borrowed this state- ment respecting the restoration of the Hebrew Scriptures from the Apocryphal Book of Esdras xiv. 21, or drew an inference from Nehemiah viii. 4 Late Lord Archbishop of Cashel. The work was published at Oxford in 1821. 293 of the Apostolic Churches. 5 " Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apo- stolorum suis locis president, apud quas ipsa; Authen- ticae Literal eorum recitantur, sonantes vocera et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque." By the words authentic^ Uteres the Archdeacon understood Tertul- lian to mean the autographs of the Apostles. If, however, we turn to the "Tract de Monogamia, we find our author, after he has given the Latin version of a passage, stating that it was differently read in Grceco authentico ; that is, in the original Greek as contradistinguished from a translation. In like manner he uses the expressions 7 originalia in- strumental Christi ; originate instrumentum Moysi ; meaning, of course, not an autograph either of Christ or Moses, but the Gospels and the Pentateuch as they were originally written. 8 Berriman, there- 5 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. 6 c. 11. The passage is 1 Cor. vii. 39. The MSS, now extant lend no countenance to Tertullian's assertion. Does not, however, the assertion prove that a Latin Version was actually extant in his time, in opposition to Semler's notion stated in Chap. II. n. 2. p. 106? SeeLardner, Credibility, c. 27. Sect. 19. The following passage in the Tract against Praxeas seem to remove all doubts on the subject. Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, Serrnonem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse, c. 5. 7 De Carne Christi, c. 2. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 19. 8 Tertullian says of Valentinus, de Ecclesia authenticce regulae abrupit, he separated himself from the Church which possessed the genuine rule of life. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. In another place he says of our Saviour, ipse authenticus Pontifex 294 fore, and others suppose that Tertullian by the words authenticce Uteres meant only the genuine unadul- terated Epistles. 9 Lardner conceives that our author intended to appeal, not to the Epistles which St. Paul addressed to the particular Churches men- tioned by Tertullian ; but to all the Scriptures of the New Testament, of which the Apostolic Churches were peculiarly the depositaries. But Lard- ner's argument is, in my opinion, founded on a misap- prehension of Tertullian's immediate object in the passage in question. He there appeals to the Apos- tolic Churches as bearing witness, not to the genuine- ness and integrity of the Scriptures, but to the true and uncorrupted doctrine of the Gospel. For this he tells us that we must look to those Churches which were founded by the Apostles, and were able to produce the authority of epistles addressed to them by the Apostles. The words Uteres authenticce may, there- fore, mean, epistles possessing authority. It is, however, of little consequence to which of the above meanings we give the preference; since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of stating the weight which Ter- tullian attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches. To infer from it that the very chairs in Dei Patris. He was the true, the original priest, of whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies. Adv. Mar- cionem, L. iv. c. 35. 9 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27- 295 which the Apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, &c. would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style '. Tertullian 2 expressly ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to Barnabas : he does not say that it was universally received in the Church, but that it was more generally received than the Shepherd of Her- mas. He 3 mentions also a work falsely ascribed to St. Paul, but composed by an Asiatic presbyter, who was impelled, as he himself confessed, to commit the pious fraud by admiration of the Apostle. The work appears to have been quoted in defence of 1 I did not mean, as a critic who has remarked upon this passage appears to have supposed, that the seats in which the Apostles sat, or their Autograph Epistles, might not remain in existence at the time when Tertullian wrote, but that it would betray ignorance of his manner of writing to suppose that he himself intended his expressions to be literally understood. 2 De Pudicitia, c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabas titulus ad Hebrseos : adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quern Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentia? tenore : aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem ? Et utique receptior apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabas illo apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Tertullian then proceeds to quote a passage from the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Lardner thinks it doubtful whether Tertullian's works contain any other allusion to the Epistle. 3 De Baptismo, c. 17, sub fine, Jerome, Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, under St. Luke. He appears to have sup- posed that the work in question was entitled the Travels of Paul and Thecla. 296 a custom which had crept in of allowing females to baptize. In speaking of the mode in which the canon of the New Testament was formed, 4 Lardner says, that it was not determined by the authority of councils. This may in one sense be true. Yet it appears from a passage in the Tract de Pudicitia, 5 referred to in a former Chapter, that in Tertullian's time one part of the business of councils was to decide what books were genuine, and what spurious ; for he appeals to the decisions of councils in support of his rejection of the Shepherd of Hermas. 6 We have seen that Tertullian appeals to the original Greek text of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. This fact appears to militate strongly against the theory of the author of a recent work entitled Palceoromaica, who asserts that the said Epistle, as well as the greater part of the New Testament, was originally written in Latin. When we contrast the acuteness which the anonymous author of that work occasionally, and the 4 History of the Apostles and Evangelists, c. 3. 5 Chap. iv. n. 6. p. 229. Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pas- toris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrmnento meruisset incidi : si non ab omni consilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, c. 10. n See n. 6. p. 293. 297 extensive reading which he always displays, with the extraordinary conclusions at which he arrives, we are strongly tempted to suspect that he is only playing with his readers ; and trying how far intrepid asser- tion will go towards inducing men to lend a favourable ear to the most startling paradoxes. To take a single instance from the Epistle just men- tioned. His solution of the celebrated difficulty respecting the power which, 7 according to St. Paul, a woman ought to have on her head, is — that 8 in the original Latin the word was habitus, which the ignorant translator rendered etymologically h£,ovola. In support of this fancy he quotes the following word from Tertullian's Treatise de Virginibus velan- dis, c. 3. " O sacrilegse manus, quse dicatum Deo habitum (the veil) detrahere potuerunt ! " — meaning his readers to infer that Tertullian found habitus in the verse in question ; but omitting to inform them that it is 9 twice quoted by Tertullian in this very Tract, and that in both instances the reading is potestas. That the omission proceeded, not from in- advertence, but design, is, we think, rendered certain by the still more extraordinary solution subjoined by 7 1 Cor. xi. 10. 8 Supplement to Palaeoromaica, p. 61. note 5. The author does not inform us how the word habitus came to be translated etymologically efrvaia ; does he mean that the translator con- founded t'stc and ktflva'ia. 1 9 cc. 7. 17. » 298 the author, that vestitus was the original reading ; which, when pronounced by a Jew, might easily be confounded with potestas. It is impossible that the author could be serious in throwing out either of these conjectures. We will mention one other argument of a more plausible character, alleged by the author in support of his theory. 1 The author contends that the very titles of the existing Greek gospels, to tvayy&iov Kara MarOaiov, Kara Aovicav, prove them to be trans- lations. The Version of the Septuagint was called Kara tovq ' Ej3So^urj/co VTa, that of Aquila Kara 'A/cuAai'. But why does he stop short in his inference ? If the argument proves any thing, it proves not merely that the existing Greek gospels were translations, but also that Matthew, Luke, &c. were the translators. The true answer however is, that the force of the preposition Kara depends entirely upon the word with which it is connected. The title to zvayytXiov Kara MarOaiov means " the glad tidings of salvation as delivered by St. Matthew :" or as paraphrased by Hammond, "That story of Christ which Matthew compiled and set down." For though the word tvay- ytXiov was employed at a very early period to signify 2 a 1 Supplement to Palseoromaica, p. 3. n. 2. 2 See de Res. Carnis, c. 33. De Carne Christi, c. 7. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c.l. L. iv. cc. 1.3. L. v. 1. Scorpiace, c. 2. 299 written book, yet it continued to be used in its pri- mitive meaning; as by Tertullian, when he calls 3 St. Matthew, fidelissimus Evangelii commentator, the most faithful expositor of the life and doctrine of Christ. We will take this opportunity of remarking, that our author, in speaking of the Scriptures, sometimes call them 4 Instrumentum, sometimes Testamentum ; but says on 5 one occasion that the latter term was in more general use. He calls them also 6 Digesta. Some 7 learned men have contended that the Epistle, which in our Bibles is inscribed to the Ephesians, should be entitled to the Laodiceans. Tertullian 8 in one place says that the Heretics 3 De Came Christi, c. 22. See also de Res. Carnis, c. 33. The word commentator is similarly used adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 2. 4 Vetus Instrumentum. Apology, c. 47. Ex instrumento divinarum Scripturarum. Adv. Judaeos, c. 1. See Adv. Marcionem, L. i. cc. 10. 19. de Monogamia, cc. 4. 7. The two words are joined together adv. Praxeam, c. 20. Instrumentum utriusque testamenti. 5 Alterum alterius instrumenti, vel (quod magis Usui est dicere) testamenti. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1. 6 Et inde sunt nostra digesta. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 2. Si quid in Sanctis offenderunt digestis. Apology, c. 47. 7 Lardner. History of the Apostles and Evangelists, c. 13. 8 Prsetereo hie et de alia, epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios perscriptam hahemus ; Haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 11. 300 alone gave it that title ; 9 in another, that Marcion had at one time manifested an intention to alter the title of the Epistle. Semler's inference is that some of the Epistles were without inscriptions, and received in consequence a variety of titles. There are in Tertullian, as well as in the other Fathers, quotations purporting to be taken from Scripture, but which cannot be found in our present copies'. Thus in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 20. Nam sicut scriptum est ecce homo et facta ejus, ita, 2 ex ore tuo justificaberis. The commentators have not been able to trace the former of the two quo- tations, and some suppose it to have been taken from the book of Enoch. Again in the Tract de Poenitentia, c. 4. Poenitere et salvum faciam te. 3 On three different occasions Tertullian quotes the words Dominus regnavit a ligno as a portion of the tenth verse of the 95th (or 96th) Psalm ; from which, according to Justin Martyr, the words corre- 9 Ecclesise quidem veritate, Epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos : sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 17- 1 In the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 5. Tertullian, referring to the Decalogue, places the prohibition of murder after that of adul- tery. The order in the Septuagint (Ed. Vat.) is ov fioixtu. 1 Chap. II. p. 116. 2 Alia jam consuetudo invaluit ; jejunantes, habita oratione cum fratribus, subtrahunt osculum pacis, quod est signaculum orationis. De Oratione, c. 14. Jam vero alicui fratrum ad osculum convenire. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. From the latter 385 usually saluted each other with the kiss of peace; excepting on Good Friday, which was observed as a solemn fast by every member of the Church. Ter- tullian censures the affectation of those who, at other seasons, refused the kiss of peace, on the ground that they had kept a fast. Having alluded to the Tract de Oratione, we will take this opportunity of mentioning that the greater part of it is occupied by 3 a Commentary on the Lord's Prayer. After some preliminary remarks on the injunctions to pray in secret and not to use long prayers, by which the Lord's prayer is introduced in the Gospel, Tertullian observes that this form, concise as it is, contains an epitome of the whole Christian doctrine. In commenting upon the differ- ent clauses, our author displays an extensive know- ledge of Scripture ; but for the most part little judgment in the application. 4 He concludes with stating, that although in our devotions we must on no account omit this prayer, yet we may add to it such petitions as are suitable to our particular cir- cumstances; 5 remembering always that, in order to render our prayers acceptable to God, we must quotation we might infer that the Christian mode of salutation was by a kiss. 3 There are also some remarks on the Lord's Prayer, in the fourth Book against Marcion, c. 26. 4 e. 9. 5 c 10. C C 386 approach him in a right frame of mind — with hearts free from anger and every other evil passion. In ad- dition to these remarks upon the spirit in which men ought to pray, 6 he offers some cautions against all extravagance of gesture in putting up our prayers to the throne of grace. Our gesture and coun- tenance ought to bespeak humility and modesty. He says also, that we should be careful not to pray in so loud a tone of voice as to disturb the devotions of those near us. It is not by reason of the strength of our lungs that our prayers reach the ear of the Almighty. In speaking of the Christian assemblies, 7 Mosheim gives the following account of the purposes for which 6 c. 13. In Sender's Edition, the Tract de Oratione contains nine additional Chapters, which were published by Muratori ; of these the first two relate to the question whether Virgins ought to wear veils in the Church, and are little else than an epitome of the Tract de Virginibus velandis ; the third to the practice of kneeling in the act of prayer; the fourth to the place, the fifth to the hour of prayer ; the sixth to the propriety of not allowing a Christian brother to quit the house without joining in prayer ; the seventh to the custom of saying Halleluiah at the conclusion of our prayers ; in the eighth, prayer is stated to be the spiritual sacrifice, by which the ancient sacrifices were superseded ; the ninth relates to the efficacy of prayer. From the style and tone of these additional chapters, I should infer that they were not written by Tertullian. — I have allowed this note to stand ; though I now consider the inference at its close to have been hastily drawn, and concur in the general opinion that these Chapters came from the pen of Tertullian. 7 Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 8. 387 they were held. "During the sacred meetings of the Christians, prayers were repeated; the Holy Scriptures were publicly read ; select discourses upon the duties of Christians were addressed to the people ; hymns were sung ; and a portion of the obla- tions, presented by the faithful, was employed in the celebration of the Lord's Supper and the feast of charity." We need scarcely remind the reader that this account is merely an epitome of 8 a passage in the Apology ; which was given in the Chapter on the Government of the Church. There is, however, in the Apology, an expression which has been urged by those who object to the use of set forms of prayer, in confirmation of their opinion. Tertullian, 9 speaking of the primitive Christians, says, " that they prayed for the emperor without a prompter, because they prayed from the heart." From the words " without a prompter" it has been inferred that their prayers were on all occasions ex- temporaneous effusions. But the context clearly shews, that Tertullian merely intended to contrast the cordial sincerity of their prayers for the safety and prosperity of the emperors, with the forced and hollow exclamations of the heathen populace ; who required to be bribed with largesses, and even to be 8 c. 39. in Chap. IV. p. 208. 9 c. 30. Denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus. See Bingham, Book xiii. c. 5. sect. ,5. c c 2 388 prompted, before they would cry out in the accus- tomed form, ' " De nostris annis tibi Jupiter augeat annos." From incidental notices scattered over Tertullian's works we collect, that 2 Sunday, or the Lord's Day, was regarded by the primitive Christians as a day of rejoicing ; and that to fast upon it was deemed unlawful. The word Sabbatum is always used to designate, not the first, but the seventh day of the week ; which appears in Tertullian's time to have been also kept as a clay of rejoicing. Even 3 the Montanists — anxious as they were to introduce a more rigorous discipline in the observance of fasts — when they kept their two weeks of Xerophagise, did not fast on the Saturday and Sunday. The 4 Saturday before Easter day was, however, an excep- 1 Compare c. 35. 2 Tertullian uses both names ; that of Sunday, when address- ing the heathens. Apology, c. 16. ./Eque si diem Solis laetitia? indulgemus, &c. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 13; that of the Lord's Day, when writing to Christians. De Corona, c. 3. Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. De Jejuniis, c. 15. De Idololatria, c. 14. De Anima, c. 9. Inter Dominica Solennia. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 14. We are not, however, certain that Tertullian uniformly observes this distinction. Bingham thinks that he does. Book xx. c. 2. sect. 1. In further proof that, in Tertullian's time, the Lord's Day was deemed a day of rejoicing, see de Corona, c. 11. Jam stationes aut ulli magis faciet, quam Christo ? aut et Dominico die, quando nee Christo ? 3 De Jejuniis, c. 15. The Gentiles feasted on a Saturday. Apology, c. 16. 4 De Jejuniis, c. 14. 389 tion ; that was observed as a fast. 5 The custom of observing every Saturday as a fast, which became general throughout the western Church, does not appear to have existed in Tertullian's time. That men who, like our author, on all occasions contended that the ritual and ceremonial law of Moses had ceased, should observe the seventh day of the week as a festival, is perhaps to be ascribed to a desire of conciliating the Jewish converts. We find in Tertullian's works no notice of the celebration of our Lord's nativity ; although 6 the festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide are frequently mentioned ; with reference to which it should be observed, that the word Pascha was not used to signify merely the day of our Lord's Resurrection, but also the day of his Passion ; or rather the whole interval of time from his crucifixion to his resurrec- tion. In like manner the word "' Pentecoste signifies not merely Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which intervened between Easter and Whitsunday. In the work entitled Prsedestinatus (c. 26.) the author 5 See Bingham, Book xx. c. 3. 6 De Corona, c. 3. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. Quis denique solemnibus Paschse abnoctantem securus sustinebit ? Bingham supposes that our author here speaks of the Paschal Vigil or Easter Eve. (Book xiii. c. 9. sect. 4. or Book xxi. c. 1. sect. 32.) De Baptismo, c, 19. Ad Marcionem, L. iv. c. 40. 7 De Corona, c. 3. De Idololatria, c. 14. sub tine. De Bap- tismo, c. 19. De Jejuniis, c. 14. 390 quotes Tertullian as affirming, in his reply to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and to Apollonius, that the Mon- tanists kept Easter according to the Roman custom. Dr. Neander refers, in confirmation of this statement, to the Tract adversus Judseos, c. 8. sub fine, where Tertullian says, that Christ was sacrificed on the first day of unleavened bread, on the evening of which the Jews killed the Paschal Lamb. Tertullian must, therefore, have supposed that the last meal which Christ ate with his disciples was not the Paschal Feast, — a supposition at variance with the Asiatic mode of celebrating Easter. 8 Elsewhere he says in general terms that our Lord's Death and Resurrec- tion were always commemorated in the first month of the year. We have 9 already had occasion to allude to the custom of making offerings at the tombs of the martyrs, on the anniversary of their martyrdom. To the anniversary itself was given the name of Natalitium or Natalis Dies ; on the ground that it was the day of their birth into eternal life. Some of the commentators fancy that they discover, * in a passage in the Tract de Corona, an allusion to the practice of noting down the days on which the 8 De Jejuniis, c. 14. 9 Chap. V. n. 5, p. 330. Compare the Scorpiace, c. 15. Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrii renascitur generositate. 1 c. 13. Habes tuos census, tuos fastos. 391 martyrs suffered — in other words, of composing martyrologies ; but the passage is not of that de- cided character on which an inference can be safely built. After Tertullian became a Montanist, he wrote his Tract de Jejuniis ; the object of which was to defend the number, length, and severity of the fasts pre- scribed by the founder of the sect. In order to refute the notion that the season of our Saviour's Passion was the only season at which Christians were positively bound to fast, he undertakes to establish the general obligation of fasting. 2 With this view he goes back to Adam's transgression. Adam was forbidden to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge ; he ate, and fell. As, therefore, he fell by yielding to his appetite, it follows that the sure way for man to regain the favour of God is to mortify his appetite. Adam offended by eating ; we must remedy the evil consequences of the offence by fasting. Our author 3 refers also to various instances, both in the Old and New Testaments, in which punishment had been avert- ed, and spiritual and temporal blessings obtained, by fasting. 4 God, moreover, by testifying his favour- able acceptance of fasts observed in consequence of 2 c. 3. 3 cc. 7, 8. Compare de Patientia, c. 13, where Tertullian mentions the continuation of the fast from one day to another. Quum jejunia conjungit. See also de Jejuniis, c. 14. Quanquam vos etiam Sabbatum si qnando continuatis. Bingham, Book xxi. c. 1. sect. 25. * c. 11. 392 voluntary vows, thereby declared his will, and ren- dered such fasts obligatory in future. This favour- able acceptance supplied the place of a positive command. Tertullian, however, 5 is met in the very outset by a perplexing objection. " If fasting was designed to be the means of recovering God's favour, how came it to pass that, after the deluge, the liberty respecting food was not curtailed, but extended ? That man who was originally confined to a vegetable diet, was then allowed to eat flesh?" To this ques- tion Tertullian returns an answer, for which few of his readers could we think have been prepared. — At first 6 the liberty respecting food was enlarged, in order that man might have an opportunity of evinc- ing a greater desire to please God, by a voluntary abstinence from those kinds of food which he was permitted to take. 7 Afterwards, when the law was given, a distinction was made between clean and un- clean animals ; for the purpose of preparing mankind for the fasts which in due season they would be re- quired to observe under the Gospel. — One argument 8 urged by Tertullian in favour of fasting is, that it fitted the Christian to encounter the bodily hardships to which the profession of his faith exposed him. 9 Another is grounded on the natural tendency of 5 c. 4. Compare de Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 10. De Exhor- tatione Castitatis, c. 8. 7 c. 5. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 18. 8 c. 12. Compare de Patientia, c. 13. ° c. 6. 3.93 fasting to render the intellectual and moral faculties vigorous and active ; whereas a full stomach weighs clown the soul, rendering it unfit for contemplation, and devotional exercises, and intercourse with heaven. This remark our author confirms by the 1 examples of Moses and Elias ; who fasted forty days and forty nights, when they were admitted to the Divine Presence. From this treatise and from other parts of Tertul- lian's writings, we learn, that the fasts observed by the Church in his day were, I. 2 The Paschal Fast, which consisted in a total abstinence from food (Jejunium) during the interval between Christ's passion and resurrection. This was considered as obligatory upon all Christians. II. Stationary Days, 3 Dies 1 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 61. 2 Certe in Evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinates putant, in quibus ablatus est sponsus, (Matt. ix. 15.) et hos esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum, abolitis legalibus et pro- pheticis vetustatibus. De Jejuniis, c. 2. Compare c. 13. sub in. c. 14. De Oratione, c. 14. 3 Cur Stationibus quartam et sextain Sabbati dicamus? De Jejuniis, c. 14. Sic et Apostolos observasse, nullum aliud im- ponentes jugum certorum et in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum ; proinde nee stationum, quae et ipsae suos quidem dies habeant, quartae feriae et sextae : passive tamen currant, neque sub lege praecepti ; neque ultra supremam diei, quando et orationes fere hora nona concludat, de Petri exemplo, quod Actis refertur, c. 2. See also de Oratione, c. 14, where our author supposes the word statio to be borrowed from the Military art. Si statio de militari exemplo nomen accipit ; nam et militia 394 Stationarii, Wednesday and Friday in every week ; on which a half-fast (semi-jejunium) was kept, ter- minating at three in the afternoon. These were 1 voluntary fasts, and observed on the authority of Tradition ; Wednesday being selected, because on that day the Jews took counsel to destroy Christ ; and Friday, because that was the day of his cruci- fixion. 5 The reason assigned for terminating the Statio at the ninth hour was, that Peter is said in the 6 Acts of the Apostles to have gone with John into the temple, at that hour. " But whence," asks Tertullian, who contended that the Statio ought to be prolonged till the evening, " whence does it ap- pear that the Apostles had on that day been keeping a fast ? The example of St. Peter might be more plausibly alleged for terminating the fast at the sixth hour; for 7 in another Chapter we are told that he went up to pray at that hour, and became very hungry, and would have eaten." III. Xerophagiae, days on which it was usual to abstain from flesh and wine ; in imitation perhaps of the restraint which 8 Daniel is stated to have imposed upon himself. Dei sumus. Tertullian uses the expression trium hebdomadum statione in speaking of Daniel's fast (c. 10). De Anima, c. 48. 4 See de Jejuniis, c. 13. sub in. Bingham, Book xxi. c. 3. sect. 2. from Augustine, Ep. 86. or 36. ad Casulanum. 5 De Jejuniis, c. 10. 6 c. 3. v. 1. 7 c. 10. v. 9. s c 10. v. 3. De Patientia, c. 13. Seras et aridas escas. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. De Jejun. c. 1. 395 These 9 fasts were not enjoined by the Church, but were voluntary exercises of piety on the part of individuals ; and ' some of the orthodox appear to have objected to them altogether, on the ground that they were borrowed from the heathen super- stitions. The difference between the orthodox and Monta- nists, on the subject of fasting, appears to have con- sisted in the following particulars. With respect to the Jejunium, or total abstinence from food, the former thought that the interval between our Saviour's death and resurrection was the only period during which the Apostles observed a total fast; and consequently the only period during which fasting was of positive obligation upon all Christians. At other times it rested with themselves to determine whether they would fast or not. The 2 Montanists, on the contrary, contended that there were other seasons, during which fasting was obligatory ; and that the appointment of those seasons constituted a part of the revelations of the Paraclete. With respect to the Dies Stationarii, the Montanists not only pronounced the fast obligatory upon all Chris* 9 De Jejuniis, c. 13. 1 Xerophagias vero novum affectati officii nomen et proximum Ethnicae superstitioni, quales castimoniae Apim, Isidem, et Mag- nam Matrem certorum eduliorum exceptione purificant. De Jejuniis, c. 2. See also c. 16. 2 De Jejuniis, cc. 1, 13. 396 tians, but 3 prolonged it until the evening ; instead of terminating it, as was the orthodox custom, at the ninth hour. In the observance of the Xeropha- giae the 4 Montanists abstained — not only from flesh and wine like the orthodox — but also from the richer and more juicy kinds of fruit, and omitted all their customary ablutions. Montanus appears to have enjoined only 5 two weeks of Xerophagise in the year : but his followers were animated by a greater love of fasting than their Master ; for c Jerome says, that, in his day, the Montanists kept three Lents ; one of them after Whitsunday. We 7 have already observed that, in Tertullian's 3 De Jejuniis, c. 1. Quod Stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus. 4 De Jejuniis, c. 1. Quod etiam Xerophagias observemus sic- cantes cibum ab omni came, et omni jurulentia, et vividioribus qui- busque pomis, ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus. Lava- cri quoque abstinentiam, congruentem arido victui. See also cc. 9, 10, where Tertullian defends the practice of the Montanists, as strictly conformable to the practice of holy men under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. The Marcionites appear to have deemed fish a holy diet. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. 5 Duas in anno hebdomadas Xerophagiarum, nee totas, exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo. De Jejuniis, c. 15. 6 Illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sunt Salvatores. Ad Marcellam, Ep. 54. Et ex hujus occasione testimonii Montanus, Prisca, et Maximilla, etiam post Pentecos- ten faciunt quadragesimam, quod, ablato sponso, filii sponsi debeant jejunare. In Matt. ix. Bingham infers that each of these Lent Fasts continued for two weeks. Bookxxi. c. 1. sect. 15. 7 Chap. IV. p. 221. De Jejuniis, c. 13. 397 time, the bishops exercised the power of appointing days of fasting, whenever the circumstances of the Church seemed to require such outward marks of sorrow and humiliation ; and 8 that the councils or general assemblies, which were held in Greece for the purpose of regulating the affairs of the Church, were opened by a solemn fast. Ecclesiastical history abounds with proofs of the tendency of mankind to run into extremes ; and thus to convert institutions, which in their original design and application were beneficial and salutary, into sources of the most pernicious errors and abuses. Were we required to produce an instance in confir- mation of the truth of this remark, we should with- out hesitation refer the reader to the subject which we have been now considering. Fasting, as it was originally practised in the Church, was regarded as a means to a moral end : as a means, pecu- liarly fitted both to the circumstances and to the nature of man, of nourishing in him those feelings of contrition and self-abasement, and of enabling him to acquire that mastery over his sensual ap- petites, which are essential elements in the compo- sition of the Christian character. When, at the season appointed by the Church for the comme- moration of the Passion of Christ, its members, 8 Chap. IV. p. 229. De Jejuniis, c. 13. 398 amongst other external observances — designed to express their lively sense of their own unworthiness, and of the deadly nature of sin which could be ex- piated only by so great a sacrifice — abstained also from their customary meals and recreations ; surely the most enlightened reason must approve the motive of their abstinence ; and admit as well its suitable- ness to the fallen condition of man, as its tendency to encourage a devout and humble temper. To these considerations we may add that, from the mixed constitution of man's nature and the intimate union which subsists between his soul and body, the occa- sional restraints, which the primitive Christians voluntarily imposed upon themselves in respect of food and amusement, could scarcely fail to have a beneficial operation upon their character ; were it only by interrupting for a time their ordinary habits, and reminding them that the objects of sense pos- sessed neither the sole, nor the principal, claim to their attention. A life of habitual indulgence, even when that indulgence leads not to positive excess, is favourable neither to intellectual nor spiritual improvement. It enfeebles our mentalpo wers : it deadens our moral perceptions : it tends especially to render us selfish and regardless of the wants and feelings of others. But when experience also tells us that such a course of life terminates almost invariably in excess, no further argument can be wanting to prove the reasonableness and utility of 399 occasional abstinence — if used only as a means to an enc ] — to invigorate the moral principle within us, and to promote humility of temper and purity of heart. Unhappily, however, for the Church, from the propensity of the human mind to run into extremes — from an increasing fondness for the tenets of the Platonic philosophy — and an indiscriminate imitation of what is recorded in Scripture of holy men, who, being placed in extraordinary circum- stances, were never designed to be held up as examples, in all points of their conduct to ordinary Christians — from the combined operation of all these causes ; fasting, instead of being considered as a salutary discipline, or as a means to holiness, came to be regarded as holiness itself. The piety of men was estimated by the frequency and severity of their fasts. In proportion as they subjected themselves to greater privations and hardships, they acquired a higher reputation for sanctity. A species of rivalry was thus excited; new and strange methods were invented of macerating and torturing their bodies ; till at length extravagance in practice led to error in doctrine ; fasts and mortifications were regarded as meritorious in themselves — as procuring by their intrinsic efficacy remission of sin and restoration to the favour of God. To the same causes, which led men into the errors now described respecting the merit of fasting, may 400 be traced the erroneous opinions which were gradually introduced, respecting the superior sanctity of the monastic and eremitical modes of life. No man, who has reflected upon the constitution of his own nature, and believes that he is destined to exist in a purer and more spiritual state, can doubt the utility, or rather necessity, of occasional retirement and seclusion, for the purposes of self-examination, and of securing to religion that paramount influence over the thoughts and affections, which is liable to be weakened, or even destroyed, by a constant inter- course with the world. Here then was a reasonable motive to induce Christians, wisely anxious for their own salvation, to withdraw themselves, at stated in- tervals, from worldly pleasures, and cares, and occu- pations. The frequency with which those intervals recurred would depend in each case upon the temper of the individual. Men of an austere and unsocial, as well as those of an enthusiastic character, would naturally run into excess ; and contend that, if occasional seclusion was thus favourable to the growth of religion in the soul, the benefits to be derived from total seclusion must be proportionably greater ; — in a word, that the most effectual mode of securing their virtue against the temptations of the world was to quit it altogether. The deference paid in the Church to the authority of Plato contributed to give currency and weight to these opinions. One prin- ciple of his philosophy was, that the visible things 401 around us are only the fleeting and fallacious images of those eternal, immutable ideas, which alone possess a real existence. The business, therefore, of him, who wishes to arrive at the knowledge of the truth, and to elevate his nature to the perfection of which it is capable, must be to abstract his mind from his senses — entirely to exclude from his obser- vation those forms of perishable matter which serve only to bewilder and lead him astray — and to give himself up to the contemplation of the ideal world. These speculative notions, originally derived from the Platonic school, no sooner gained a footing in the Church, than they were reduced to practice. Men began to affect a life of solitude and contem- plation, and to deem all intercourse with the world a positive hindrance to the attainment of that spiri- tual elevation at which the Christian ou^ht to aim. Overlooking the clear intimations supplied by the constitution of their own nature, that man is designed for society — overlooking the express de- clarations of Scripture and the example of our Blessed Lord, whose ministry was one continued course of active benevolence — they took Elias and the Baptist for their models ; without reflecting for a moment either upon the peculiar circumstances in which those holy men were placed, or the peculiar objects they were appointed to accomplish. Thus while they passed their hours in a state of indolent abstraction — discharging no one social duty, and Dd 402 living as if they were alone in the world — they suc- ceeded in persuading themselves and others that they were treading the path which leads to Christian per- fection, and pursuing the course most pleasing in the sight of God — that they were the especial objects of his regard, were holding habitual intercourse with him, and enjoying a foretaste of that ineffable bliss which would be their portion, when removed from this world of sin and misery to his immediate presence. Hence the stories of dreams and visions, which occur so frequently in the lives of the saints, and have been too hastily stigmatized as the offspring of deliberate fraud: whereas they were in most instances the creations of a distempered mind, cut off from the active pursuits in which it was designed to be engaged, and supplying their place by imaginary scenes and objects. It forms no part of our plan to enter into a minute detail of the follies and extrava- gancies which were the natural fruits of the eremitical and monastic modes of life. Let it suffice to have pointed out the sources from which they took their rise; and to have exposed the mischievous conse- quences of setting up any one mode of life as pre- eminently pure and holy — as rendering those who adopt it the peculiar favourites of heaven. To return to our author. In refuting the calum- nious accusations of the Pagans, he speaks of the Agape, or feast of charity. "Its object," he says, 403 1 " is evident from its name, which signifies love. In these feasts, therefore, we testify our love towards our poorer brethren, by relieving their wants. We commence the entertainment by offering up a prayer to God ; and after eating and drinking in moderation, we wash our hands, and lights being introduced, each individual is invited to address God in a Psalm, either taken from the Scriptures or the produce of his own meditations. The feast concludes, as it began, with prayer." Tertullian does not expressly say, but it may be fairly inferred, that the materials of the feast were furnished out of the oblations made at the Eucharist ; a portion of which appears also to have been allotted to the support of the 2 martyrs in prison. When we read the above description of the Agape, we cannot but participate in the regret expressed by 3 Dr. Hey, that scandal should have occasioned the discontinuance of an entertainment so entirely consonant to the benevolent spirit of the Gospel. If, however, we may believe Tertullian, the grossest abuses were introduced into it even in his time : for we find him, 4 in the Tract de Jejuniis, charging the orthodox with the very same licentious 1 Apology, c. 39. 2 Imo et quae justa sunt caro non amittit per curam Ecclesiae, agapen fratrum. Ad Martyres, c. 2. 3 Book IV. Art. 28. Sect. 5. 4 c. 17. Sed major his est agape, quia per hanc adolescentes tui cum sororibus dormiunt: appendices scilicet gulae lascivia atque luxuria. Compare the Apology, cc. 7, 8. Dd2 404 practices in their feasts of charity, which the Pagans were in the habit of imputing — and, according to the statement in the Apology, falsely imputing — to the whole Christian body. On these contradic- tory assertions of our author, we may remark that the truth probably lies between them. Abuses did exist, but neither so numerous nor so flagrant as the enemies of the Gospel, and Tertullian himself, after he became a Montanist, alleged. Tertullian speaks 5 both of public and private vigils ; and says, that it was customary for the Chris- tian females to bring water to wash the feet of the brethren, and to visit the dwellings of the poor, for the purpose, it may be presumed, of giving them instruction and relieving their wants. The Romish commentators have endeavoured to defend the reli- gious processions of their Church by the authority of Tertullian ; who uses the word 6 procedendum in the passage from which the preceding remarks are taken. But if we compare it with another passage in the 7 second Tract de Cultu Foeminarum, we shall 5 Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per noctem adoran- dum sibi Deum esse. Apology, c. 39. Quis nocturnis convo- cationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere suo adimi libenter ferret ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. Quum etiam per noctem exsurgis oratum, c. 5. Aquam sanctorum pedibus ofFerre, c. 4. Quis autem sinat conjugem suam, visitandorum fratrum gratia, vicatim aliena et quidem pauperiora quaeque tuguria circumire ? Ibid. 6 Si procedendum erit, &c. 7 c. 11. Ac si necessitas amicitiarum officiorumque gentilium 405 find that the word procedere means " to go from home;" which, 8 Tertullian observes, a Christian female ought never to do, excepting for some religious or charitable purpose. We will now proceed to the rite of Baptism ; on which Tertullian wrote an express Treatise, in con- futation of a female, named Quintilla, who denied its necessity, affirming that faith alone was sufficient to salvation. In that Treatise, as well as in other parts of his works, he speaks in strong terms of the efficacy of Baptism. "By 9 it," he says, "we are cleansed from all our sins, and rendered capable of attaining eternal life. By ' it we regain that Spirit of God, which Adam received at his creation, and lost by his transgression." Tertullian 2 connects vos vocat, cur non vestris armis indutae proceditis ? See also c. 12. 8 Vobis autem nulla procedendi causa non tetrica ; aut imbe- cillus aliquis ex fratribus visitatur, aut sacrificium offertur, aut Dei verbum administratur, c. 11. 9 See de Pcenitentia, c. 6. De Baptismo, cc. 1. 7. ' De Baptismo, c. 5. sub fine. Recipit enim ilium Dei Spiritum, quern tunc de arflatu ejus acceperat, sed post amiserat per delictum. Tertullian usually speaks as if tbe soul, that is, the vital and intellectual principles, had been communicated when God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life. Here he appears to confound the soul and spirit. See Chap. III. p. 178. Chap. V. n. 2. p. 309. Aqua signat, Sancto Spiritu vestit. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. 2 De Anima, c. 14. See Chap. V. p. 309. De Res. Carnis, c. 47. De Pudicitia, cc. 6. 9. We find in the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 4, the expression Ccelestis Regene ratio, and in the 406 regeneration with it ; calling it our second birth, in which the soul is formed as it were anew by water and the power from above — and the veil of its former corruption being drawn aside, beholds the full reful- gence of its native light. In the 3 first book against Marcion, he declares the following spiritual blessings to be consequent upon Baptism : — remission of sins — deliverance from death — regeneration — and par- ticipation in the Holy Spirit. He calls it the 4 sacra- ment of washing — the 5 blessed sacrament of water — 6 the laver of regeneration — the 7 sacrament of faith, the 8 sign or seal of our faith 9 . There is an apparent inconsistency in his accounts of the mode in which the spiritual benefits of Baptism are conferred. At one time, he 1 speaks as if the Scorpiace, c. 6. " Secunda Regeneratio ;" but in both cases the allusion seems to be to the change in the body of man which will take place when it puts on incorruption and immortality. 3 c. 28. 4 Eadem lavacri Sacramenta. De Virginibus velandis, c. 2. See Chap. V. p. 337. 5 Felix Sacramentum aquae nostras. De Baptismo, sub initio. 6 Per lavacrum regenerationis. De Pudicitia, c. 1. In the Tract de Pcenitentia, c. 2, he uses the expression, intinctionem pcenitentiae. Intinctionis Dominicae, c. 12. 7 Sine Fidei Sacramento. DeAnima, c. 1. De Pudicitia, c. 18. 8 In signaculo Fidei. De Spectaculis, c. 24. Signaculi nostri, c. 4. Speaking of circumcision, Tertullian uses the expression Signaculum corporis. Apology, c. 21. Obsignatio fidei. De Pcenitentia, c. 6. 9 In the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 10, Tertullian calls the Bap- tism of John, the washing of repentance. 1 Igitur omnes aquae de pristina originis praerogativa Sacra- 407 sanctification of the water used in Baptism was effected by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, who descended upon it as soon as the prayer of in- vocation had been addressed to God. At another time, he 2 supposes the effect to be produced through the ministry of an Angel, whom he terms Angelus Baptismi Arbiter. To this angel, who, according to him, is the precursor of the Holy Spirit, as the Bap- tist was of Christ, belongs the especial office of pre- paring the soul of man for the reception of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. We call the inconsistency of these two statements only an apparent inconsistency ; because, occurring as they do not only in the same Tract but even in the same chapter, our author could scarcely have deemed them inconsistent. The latter statement is evidently founded 3 on the narra- tive in St. John's Gospel, respecting the angel who mentum sanctificationis consequuntur, invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de ccelis, et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vim sanctificandi combibunt. De Baptismo, c. 4, quoted in Chap. V. n. 6. p. 337. See also c. 2 Igitur medicatis quodammodo aquis per Angeli inter- ventum, et Spiritus in aquis corporaliter diluitur, et caro in iisdem spiritaliter mundatur, c. 4. Again in c. 6. Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequimur, sed in aqua emundati sub Angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur. Hie quoque figura praecessit. Sic enim Ioannes ante praecursor Domini fuit, prae- parans vias ejus ; ita et Angelus Baptismi arbiter superventuro Spiritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum. See Chap. III. p. 204. 3 c. 5. 408 imparted a healing efficacy to the waters of the pool of Bethescla. In the 4 Tract de Corona Militis, Tertullian gives a summary account of the forms used in administer- ing the rite of Baptism. The candidate, having been prepared for its due reception 5 by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils, professed, 6 in the presence of the congregation and under 7 the hand of the president, 8 that he renounced the devil, his pomp, and angels. He was then plunged into the water 9 three times, in allusion to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity ; 1 making certain responses, which, like the other forms here mentioned, were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested on custom and tradition. He then tasted a mixture of milk and 2 honey — was 3 anointed with oil, in allusion to the practice, under the Mosaic * c. 3. 5 De Baptismo, c. 20. 6 The expression is in Ecclesid, which Bingham translates in the Church. The translation may be correct ; for in the same Tract, c. 13, the word Ecclesia seems to mean the place of assembly. Et ipsum curiae nomen Ecclesia est Christi. 7 Sub Antistitis manu. 8 Compare de Spectaculis, c. 4. De Idololatria, c. 6. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 2. 9 Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tingimur. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. 1 In aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus. De Bap- tismo, c. 2. Quum in sacramenti verba respondemus. Ad Martyres, c. 3. 2 Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. i De Baptismo, c. 7. De Res. Carnis, cc. 8. 26. 409 dispensation, of anointing those who were appointed to the priesthood, since all Christians are in a certain sense supposed to be priests — and 4 was signed with the sign of the cross. Lastly 5 followed the imposi- tion of hands ; the origin of which ceremony is re- ferred by our author to the benediction pronounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph. With us the imposition of hands is deferred till the child is brought to be confirmed; but in Tertullian's time, when a large proportion of the persons baptized were adults, Confirmation immediately followed the ad- ministration of Baptism, and formed a part of the ceremony. It was usual °for the baptized person to abstain, during the week subsequent to his recep- tion of the rite, from his daily ablutions. Some 7 also contended that Baptism ought to be followed by fasting ; because our Lord immediately after his Baptism fasted forty days and forty nights. But our author replies that Baptism is in fact an occasion of joy, inasmuch as it opens to us the door of salvation. Christ's conduct in this instance was not designed to be an example for our imitation, as it had a par- ticular reference to certain events which took place 4 De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 5 De Baptismo, c. 8. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. De Corona, c. 3. 7 De Baptismo, c. 20. But compare de Jejuniis, c. 8. Ipse mox Dominus baptisma suura, et in suo omnium, jejuniis dedicavit. This variation of opinion affords an additional presumption that the Tract de Baptismo was written before Tertullian became a Montanist. 410 under the Mosaic dispensation. In commenting upon the parable of the prodigal son, 8 Tertullian calls the ring which the Father directed to be put upon his hand, the seal of Baptism ; by which the Chris- tian, when interrogated, seals the covenant of his faith. The natural inference from these words ap- pears to be, that a ring used to be given in Bap- tism ; but I have found no other trace of such a custom. Tertullian 9 alludes to the custom of having spon- sors ; who made, in the name of the children brought to the font, those promises which they were unable to make for themselves. From the passages already referred to, and ,0 from others scattered through Tertullian's works, it is evident that in his day Baptism was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and that 1 the candidate professed his belief in the Three Persons of the Trinity, who were at once the wit- nesses of his profession, and the sponsors for his salvation. We will take this opportunity of observ- 8 Annulum denuo signaculum avacri. De Pudieitia, c. 9. Annulum quoque accepit tunc primum, quo fidei pactionem inter- rogates obsignat. Ibid. 9 Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ? De Baptismo, c. 18. See also, c. 6. 1U De Baptismo, c. 13. 1 De Baptismo, c. 6. 411 ing that, whatever might be the case with the Mon- tanists in after times, the writings of Tertullian afford no ground for supposing that the founder of the sect introduced a new form of Baptism. After enforcing the necessity of Baptism by water, and describing and explaining the forms observed in the administration of the rite, Tertullian proceeds, in the remaining chapters of the Tract de Baptismo, to discuss some other points connected with the subject. He 2 first considers the question proposed by Christ to the Pharisees — " The Baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men ?" To this Tertullian replies, that it was of divine commandment, because John was sent by God to baptize. So far it was from heaven. But it conveyed no heavenly gift : it con- ferred neither the remission of sins nor the Holy Spirit. 3 John's was the Baptism of repentance ; designed to fit men for the reception of that Bap- tism, by which, through the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ, they obtain the remission of sins and the sanctifying influences of the Spirit. 4 Until the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the disciples of Christ baptized only with the Baptism of John ; that is, unto repentance. 2 c. 10. Matth. xxi. 25. 3 On the object of John's mission, see adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 33. L. v. c. 2. 4 c. 11. 412 •' Tertullian's interpretation of the words — "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire" — is, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost applies to those whose faith is sincere and stedfast : — the Bap- tism with fire to those whose faith is feigned and unstable ; and who are therefore baptized, not to salvation, but to judgment. Our 6 author supposes the Baptist's message to Christ to have originated in the failure of his faith, occasioned by the transfer of the Spirit from him to Christ : — a notion founded on John's declaration — " He must increase, and I must decrease." In 7 the passage just alluded to, Tertullian does not merely assert that the disciples of Christ bap- tized with the Baptism of John, but assigns his reasons for making the assertion. His words are — Itaque tingebant Discipuli ejus (Christi) ut ministri, ut Ioannes ante precursor, eodem baptismo Ioannis, ne qui alio putet, quia nee extat alius nisi postea Christi, qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat, utpote nondum adimpleta gloria Domini, nee in- structs, efficacia lavacri per passionem et resurrec- 5 c. 10. sub fine. Some in Tertullian's day appear to have contended that there was a contradiction between the Baptist's prediction that Christ would baptize, and St. John's declaration (iv. 2.) that he did not baptize, c. 11. c. 10. Matth. xi. Compare de Oratione, c. 1. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 18. John iii. 30. 7 c. 11. 413 tionem. From these words we may fairly infer, that Tertullian knew no Baptisms connected with the divine dispensations, besides those of John and Christ. Yet Wall, in the Introduction to his History of Infant Baptism, has quoted a passage from this very Tract, to prove that our author was acquainted with the Jewish Baptism of proselytes. The passage is in the fifth chapter — Sed enim nationes, extraneae ab omni intellectu Spiritalium, potestatem eadem efficacia suis idolis subministrant, sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus, aut Mithrse — certe ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tingun- tur. Idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem perjuriorum suorum agere prsesumunt — quo agnito, hie quoque studium Diaboli cognoscimus res Dei remulantis, quum et ipse Baptismum in suis exercet. On this passage, Wall makes the following remark. " Now the divine baptism, which he says the devil imitated, must be the Jewish baptism. For the rites of Apollo and Ceres, in which he there instances as those in which the said baptism was used, were long before the times of the Christian baptism." This, however, is by no means a necessary inference. 8 In describing the notions entertained by Tertullian respecting the nature of daemons, we mentioned that their chief employment and pleasure was to prevent mankind from embracing the worship of the true * Chap. III. p. 203. 414 God ; and that they were assisted in the attainment of this object by the partial knowledge which they had acquired, during their abode in heaven, of the nature of the divine dispensations. Availing them- selves of this knowledge, they endeavoured to pre- occupy the minds of men by inventing rites, bearing some resemblance to those which were to be observed under the Gospel. Thus, by their suggestion, Bap- tism was introduced into the Eleusinian mysteries, as a mode of initiation ; being, if I may use the ex- pression, an imitation by anticipation of Christian Baptism. That this is a correct exposition of our author's meaning, will be evident from a comparison of the different passages in which he alludes to the subject. The reader will find some of them quoted at length 9 Chapter III. ; and reference made to a passage in the Tract ' de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, which is as follows — Tingit et ipse (Diabolus) quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos : expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit : et si adhuc memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos ; celebrat et panis oblationem, et imaginem resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coronam. Here we find that not merely Baptism, but also the custom of mark- 9 Note 3. p. 203. 1 c. 40. See also the instances mentioned in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 23, one of which is referred to in Chap. V. p. 362. 415 ing the forehead with the sign of the cross, and the consecration of the bread in the Eucharist, were imitated in the mysteries of Mithra. Are we, therefore, to conclude that the latter were also Jewish customs? I am aware that there are writers who answer this question in the affirmative ; and among them Bishop Hooper in his Discourse on Lent, Part II. c. 3. sect. I.e. 6. sect. 4. But I must confess that the learned Prelate's arguments appear to me only to prove that, when an author has once taken up an hypothesis, he will never be at a loss for reasons wherewith to defend it. Wall's conclusion is founded entirely on the assumption that the imitation of divine rites, which Tertullian ascribed to the devil, was necessarily an imitation of rites actually instituted; whereas he held that its very purpose was to anticipate their institution. This is not the proper place for enquiring whether Bap- tism was practised by the Jews before our Saviour's advent as an initiatory rite, or only as a mode of purification. Be this as it may, Tertullian's express declaration, that besides the Baptisms of Christ and John there was no other Baptism, renders him but an indifferent voucher for its use among the Jews, as an initiatory rite. To proceed with the Tract de Baptismo. The 2 next question discussed by our author is, whether 2 c. 12. See Chap. I. n. 3 p. 80. 416 the Apostles were baptized : and if not, whether they could be saved ; since our Saviour declared to Nico- demus that, " unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" — a passage which the ancients uniformly interpreted of Baptism. Tertullian admits that St. Paul is the only Apostle of whom it is expressly recorded, that he was baptized in the Lord — that is, with Christian Baptism. He shows it, however, to be highly pro- bable that the Apostles had received John's Bap- tism ; which, as the Baptism of Christ was not then instituted, would be sufficient : our Lord himself having said to Peter, 3 "He that is once washed, needs not to be washed again." — " But if," Tertullian continues, " we should admit that the Apostles were never baptized, theirs was an extraordinary case, and formed an exception to the general rule respecting the necessity of Baptism." It is amusing to observe how greatly the ancients were perplexed with this difficulty ; and to what expedients they had recourse in order to get rid of it. They argued, for instance, that Peter was baptized, when he attempted to walk upon the sea ; and the other Apostles, when the waves broke over the vessel in the storm on the lake of Gennesareth. They 4 who denied the necessity of Baptism, 3 John xiii. 10. The verse is quoted inaccurately. * c. 13. 417 alleged the example of Abraham, who pleased God by faith alone without Baptism. " True," replies Tertullian ; " but, as since the promulgation of the Gospel additional objects of faith, the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, have been proposed to mankind, so also a new condition of salvation has been introduced, and faith will not now avail without Baptism." He confirms his argument by a reference to our Saviour's injunction to the Apostles, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ;" and to his favourite passage, the declaration to Nicodemus. Another 5 argument against the necessity of Bap- tism was founded on the statement of St. Paul in 6 the first Epistle to the Corinthians, that " he was sent to preach, not to baptize." Our author justly remarks, that these words must be understood with reference to the disputes then prevailing at Corinth ; not as meant positively to declare that it was no part of an Apostle's office to baptize. St. Paul had himself baptized Gaius, and Crispus, and the house- hold of Stephanas. With respect to the propriety of rebaptizing, Ter- tullian 7 says explicitly that Baptism ought not to be 5 c. 54. 6 c. 1. v. 17. 7 c. 15. Haeretici autem nullum habent consortium nostrse discipline, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio commu- E e 418 repeated ; but he considered Heretical Baptism as utterly null. " As Heretics," he argues, " have neither the same God nor the same Christ with us, so neither have they the same Baptism. Since, therefore, they never were baptized, they must be cleansed by Baptism, before they are admitted into the Church." We should, 8 as has been already observed, bear in mind that the Heretics, with whom Tertullian had principally to contend, were those who affirmed that the Creator of the world was not the Supreme God. We 9 have already seen that Tertullian calls martyrdom a second baptism. He says that martyr- dom will both ' supply the want of Baptism by water, and restore it to those who have lost it by transgression. In our remarks upon the twenty-third Article of nicationis. Non debeo in illis agnoscere quod mihi est praecep- tum, quia nee idem Deus est nobis et illis, nee unus Christus, id est idem. See also de Pudicitia, c. 19. Unde et apud nos, ut Ethnico par, immo et super Ethnicum, Hereticus etiam per baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur. But when the Tract de Pudicitia was written, Tertullian had seceded openly from the Church. 8 See Chap. V. notes 1, 2. p. 339. 9 c. 16. See Chap. II. n. 5. p. 132. 1 Hie est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum reprse- sentat, et perditum reddit. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 13. Quae exinde jam perierat baptismate amisso. 419 the Church, we alluded to a 2 passage in the Tract de Baptism o, in which Tertullian ascribes to the laity an inherent right to administer Baptism. We should now deem it sufficient to refer the reader to what we have there said, had we not observed that the passage has been mistranslated by Dr. Waterland, 3 in his second Letter to Mr. Kelsall on Lay Baptism. The passage is as follows — Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc pres- byteri et diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi aucto- ritate, propter Ecclesise honorem, quo salvo salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est; quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest ; nisi Episcopi jam, aut presbyteri, aut diaconi 4 vocantur discentes. Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo ; proinde baptismus, aeque Dei census, ab omnibus exerceri potest. Of this passage Dr. Waterland gives the following translation. "The Chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has power to give (baptism); and next to him the Priests and Deacons (but not without the authority of the Bishop) because of their honourable post in the Church, in preservation of which peace is preserved ; otherwise even laymen have a right to give it ; for what is received in common may be given in common. Except then that either bishops, 2 c. 17. Chap.V. p. 333. 3 Waterland's Works, Vol. X. p. 108. 4 We believe the true reading to be vocarentur discentes. Some editions have vocantur dicentes, which reading Waterland follows. e e 2 420 or presbyters, or deacons intervene, the ordinary Christians are called to it." Dr. Waterland subjoins the following observation — " I have thrown in two or three words in the translation, to clear the sense of this passage ; I have chiefly followed Mr. Bennet, 5 both as to the sense and to the pointing of them, and refer you to him for their vindication." To us, however, it appears certain that both Dr. Waterland and Mr. Bennet have mistaken the meaning of the passage ; which is — " the Chief Priest, that is the Bishop, possesses the right of conferring Baptism. After him the Priests and Deacons, but not without his authority, out of regard to the honour (or dignity) of the Church, on the preservation of which depends the preservation of peace. Otherwise the Laity possess the right : for that which all equally receive, all may equally confer ; unless Bishops, or Priests, or Deacons, were alone designated by the word Discen- tes, i. e. 6 Disciples. The word of God ought not to be concealed by any ; Baptism, therefore, which equally (with the word) proceeds from God, may be 5 Rights of the Clergy, p. 118. Mr. Bennet does not quote the latter part of the passage. 6 The allusion is to John iv. 2. Though Jesus himself baptized not, hut his disciples. Tertullian frequently uses the word dis- centes in this sense. Thus in c. 11. Qui tunc utique a discen- tibus dari non poterat. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 22. Tres de discentibus arbitros futurae visionis, et vocis assumit. See de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 3. 20. 22. 30. 44. De Carne Christi, c. G. De Spectaculis, c. 30. 421 administered by all." — Our author then goes on to say that, although the Laity possess the right, yet as modesty and humility are peculiarly becoming in them, they ought only to exercise it in cases of necessity, when the eternal salvation of a fellow- creature is at stake. He does not, however, extend the right to women ; on 7 the contrary he stigmatises the attempt on their part to baptize, as a most flagrant act of presumption. In the passage just cited, Tertullian rests the right of the laity to ad- minister Baptism, on the assumption that a man has the power of conferring upon another whatever he has himself received, and on the comprehensive meaning of the word Disciples in John iv. 2. On 8 other occasions, as we have seen, he rests it on the ground that all Christians are in fact priests. It is not easy to determine which of the three arguments is the least conclusive. The 9 next question discussed by Tertullian, relates to the persons who may receive the rite of Baptism. He says that it must not be hastily con- ferred ; and recommends delay in the case, not only of infants, but also of unmarried persons and widows, whom he considers peculiarly exposed to temptation. What he says with respect to the Baptism of infants 7 Compare de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41. B Chap. IV. n. 6. p. 211. 9 c. 18. 422 lias been already noticed in ' our remarks on the ninth Article of the Church : we then observed that the recommendation of delay in their case was in- consistent with the conviction, which he manifests on other occasions, of the absolute necessity of Baptism to relieve mankind from the injurious con- sequences of Adam's fall. In the 2 Treatise de Anima, alluding to what St. Paul says respecting the holiness of children either of whose parents is a Chris- tian, he supposes the Apostle to affirm that the chil- dren of believing parents are, by the very circumstances of their birth, marked out to holiness, and, therefore, to salvation. " But," he continues, " the Apostle had a particular object in view when he made the assertion : he wished to prevent the dissolution of marriage in cases in which one of the parties was a heathen. Otherwise he would have borne in mind our Lord's declaration that, unless a man is born of ivater and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ; that is, cannot be holy. So that every soul is numbered in Adam, until it is numbered anew in Christ ; being, until it is thus numbered anew, unclean, and consequently sinful." It is scarcely possible to conceive words more strongly declaratory of the universality of original sin, or of the necessity of bringing the children of believing parents to the 1 Chap. V. p. 311. 2 c. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Compare Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V. c. 60. 423 baptismal font, in order that they may become par- takers of the holiness for which they are designed at their birth. 3 Some have supposed that Tertullian was led to contend for the expediency of delaying Baptism, in consequence of the opinion which he entertained concerning the irremissible character of heinous sins committed after Baptism: and the passage in the Tract de Baptismo, on which we have been remarking, favours the supposition. But not to detain the reader longer with the consideration of an inconsistency for which we do not undertake to account, we will only add that the anti-paxlobaptists lay great stress upon this passage ; although, as Wall, who has gone into a detailed examination of it, justly observes, the fair inference from it is that, whatever might be Tertullian's individual opinion, the general practice of the Church was to baptize infants. With 4 respect to the season when Baptism might be administered, Tertullian remarks that every day and every hour are alike suited to the performance of so holy a rite. He specifies, however, the interval between Good Friday and Whit-Sunday as peculiarly appropriate ; because in that interval the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as the descent of the Holy Ghost, took place, and were commemorated. 3 Hey's Lectures, Book IV. Article 27. Sect. 14. 4 c. 19. 424 We now proceed to the other Sacrament of our Church, which is called by Tertullian 5 Eucharistia, 6 Eucharisti8e Sacramentum, 7 Convivium Dominicum, 8 Convivium Dei, 9 Panis et Calicis Sacramentum. The term 'Sacrificium is also applied to the Eucha- rist ; but the same term is applied to other parts of divine worship, and to other modes of conciliating the Divine favour ; as to 2 prayer, or fasting, or bodily mortifications. Tertullian 3 says that the Eucharist, which was instituted by our blessed Lord during a meal — the institution being accompanied by a com- mand which applied generally to all present — was in his own day celebrated in the assemblies which were held before day-break ; and received only at the hands of the Presidents. He notices also the 5 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. Eucharistia pascit. 6 De Corona, c. 3. referred to in Chap. V. n. 5. p. 337. 7 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. s Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9. In convivio Dei ; but Semler reads in connubio Dei. 9 Proinde panis et calicis sacramento, jam in Evangelio proba- vimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem adversus phan- tasma Marcionis. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. This title ought to have been added to those mentioned in our remarks on the twenty-fifth Article of the Church. Chap. V. p. 337. 1 See the Tract de Oratione, c. 14. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 11. 2 Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. Apology, c. 30. 3 De Corona, c. 3. Eucharistiae sacramentum, et in tempore victus et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis eoetibus, nee de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium sumimus. — Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decutiin terrain anxie patimur. 425 extreme solicitude of the Christians to prevent any part of the bread and wine from falling to the ground ; and speaks of the communicants as standing 4 at the altar of God, when they received the sacra- ment. It may however be doubted whether the expression is to be understood literally ; or whether we are warranted in inferring from it that altars had at that early period been generally introduced into the places of religious assembly. The kiss of peace appears to have been constantly given at the cele- bration of the Eucharist. Our author calls it 5 sig- naculum orationis ; — an expression from which 6 Bingham infers that in that age of the Church it was given after the prayers of consecration ; but there appears to be no sufficient reason for under- standing the word orationis in that restricted sense. We are rather disposed to infer 7 that at the conclu- sion of all their meetings for the purposes of devo- tion, the early Christians were accustomed to give the kiss of peace, in token of the brotherly love sub- sisting amongst them. 4 Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si et ad aram Dei steteris 1 De Oratione, c. 14. Bingham (Book viii. c. 6. sect. 12.) refers to a passage in the first Tract ad Uxorem, c. 7. Aram enim Dei mundam proponi oportet : but it is evidently nothing to the purpose. He refers also to the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10. Quomodo audebit orationem ducere ad altare ? but the reading ad altare is only a conjecture of Rigault. 5 De Oratione, c. 14. 6 Book xv. c. 3. sect. 3. 7 See ad Uxorem, L ii. c. 4, quoted in n. 2. p. 384. 426 The Roman Catholic commentators on Tertullian are naturally desirous to allege his authority in support of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. When, however, the different passages, in which he speaks of the body and blood of Christ, are compared together, it will be evident that he never thought of any cor- poreal presence of Christ, in the Eucharist. He speaks, 8 indeed, " of feeding on the fatness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist;" and "of our flesh 9 feeding on the body and blood of Christ, in order that our soul may be fattened of God." These, it must be allowed, are strong expressions; but when compared with other passages in his writings they will manifestly appear to have been used in a figurative sense. Thus, 1 in commenting upon the clause in the Lord's Prayer, ' Give us this day our daily 8 Atque ita exinde opimitate Dominici corporis vescitur, Eu- charistia scilicet. De Pudicitia, c. 9, where the words Eucha- ristid scilicet, bear the appearance of a gloss. See also adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7. Adv. Judaeos, c. 14. Dominica? gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur. 9 Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 1 Quanquam panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie spiri- taliter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est, quia vita Christus, et vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis vitce. Et paulo supra : Panis est sermo Dei vivi qui descendit de coslis. (The words are not accurately quoted.) Turn quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est corpus rneum. De Oratione, c. 6. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 37. Quia et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitae appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. 427 bread? he says that we should understand it spiritu- ally. " Christ is our bread : for Christ is life, and bread is life. Christ said, I am the bread of life; and a little before, The ivord of the living God which de- scended from heaven, that is bread. Moreover his body is reckoned (or supposed) to be in the bread, in the words, This is my body? It is evident, from the whole tenor of the passage, that Tertullian affixed a figurative interpretation to the words, This is my body. In other places he expressly calls the bread the 2 representation of the body of Christ ; and the wine, of his blood. 2 Nee panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprcesentat. It has been doubted whether Tertullian used the word reprcesentat in the sense ascribed to it in the text. Among the Tracts against Popery, published about the time of the Revolution, is one entitled, " A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist," by Mr. John Patrick, brother of Bishop Patrick, containing the following remarks upon the use of the word reprcesentat, in the above passage of Tertullian and in a similar passage of Jerome. "It is a very trifling objection that our adversaries make both to this and the former testimony in Tertullian, that the word reprcesentare (to represent) signifies very often to exhibit a thing, and make it present ; for tho' it should be granted, it would not help this cause, since they both say that it is bread that repre- sents his body, which therefore must remain : since that which is not cannot act any thing : but then I add, that tho' in some cases to represent is to exhibit, yet never in the case of Sacraments and Signs : for their essence consists in signification : therefore their representation as Signs must be to denote and show rather something absent which they represent than to make it present." In the following passage from the Tract de Spectaculis (c. ult.), in which Tertullian is speaking of the spectacle which will be presented at the day of Judgment, the word reprcesentata ex- 428 There is one passage, from which Pamelius has so strangely contrived to extract an argument in favour of transubstantiation, that we cannot forbear refer- ring the reader to it. It is 3 in the Treatise against Praxeas, where Tertullian is enquiring — " How the Word was made flesh ? was he transfigured into flesh, or did he put on flesh ?" — " Surely he put it on," is Tertullian's answer ; " for as God is eternal we must also believe that he is immutable, and incapable of being formed (into another substance). But trans- figuration is a destruction of that which before existed : whatever is transfigured into another thing, ceases to be what it was, and begins to be what it was not." This passage, says Pamelius, makes for presses exactly that kind of presence which we recognize in the Eucharist. Et tamen hsec jam quodammodo habemus per fidem, spiritu imaginante repraesentata. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. Panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelligas cor- poris sui jiguram pani dedisse. L. iii. c. 19. Adv. Judaeos, c. 10. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est ficjura corporis mei — ut autem et sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Esaias. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 40. See also ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. De Anima, c. 17. Alium postea vini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. 3 Igitur sermo in carne, dum et de hoc quserendum, quomodo sermo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne, an indutus carnem ? imo indutus. Cseterum Deum immutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est seternum. Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini. Omne enim quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus autem neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest esse, &c. c. 27. The remark of Pamelius is, Facit hie locus pro transubstantia- tione quam Catholici in Sacramento Eucharistias adserunt. 429 transubstantiation. By what process of reasoning he arrived at this conclusion we are utterly at a loss to conceive. Tertullian evidently means to say, that if the Word had been transfigured into flesh, either the divine nature would have been entirely destroyed, and the human alone would have remained — or a third 4 nature have arisen from the mixture of the former two, as the substance called electrum from the mixture of gold and silver. In either case the sub- stance, which is transfigured, disappears ; and that, into which it is transfigured, is alone cognizable by the senses. Whereas, according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread, the substance which is changed, remains in appearance, while that into which it is changed, the body of Christ, is not seen. — Pamelius takes another opportunity of enforcing the doctrine of transubstantiation, in commenting on a passage in 5 the first Book against Marcion, from 4 Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantia caro factus est ; una jam erat substantia Iesus ex duabus, ex carne et Spiritu, mixturaquaedam, ut electrum ex auro et argento ; et incipit nee aurum esse, id est, Spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro ; dum alterum altero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur, c. 27. 5 Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua alii Deo tingitur, ad alienum coelum alii Deo expanditur, in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium Deum nomine eleemosynse et dilectionis operatur, c. 23. sub fine. Tertullian is here contending that, if the doctrine of the Marcionites was true — that the supreme God who sent Christ was not the God who created the world — then it would follow that he had most un- justly appropriated to his own uses the works and productions of another. 430 which an inference directly opposed to it may be fairly drawn. — From what has been already said, it is evident that the Roman Catholic custom, of with- holding the cup from the Laity, was unknown to Tertullian ; and that both the bread and the wine were, in his day, alike offered to the commu- nicants 6 . One other rite of the Church still remains to be considered — that of Marriage. 7 Bingham infers, apparently with justice, from a passage in 8 the Tract de Monogamia, that the parties were bound in the first instance to make known their intentions to the Church, and obtain the permission of the Ecclesiasti- 6 A reference should here have been made to the practice of reserving a portion of the consecrated bread, and eating it at home before every other nourishment. Accepto corpore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est. De Oratione, c. 14. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustas : et si sciverit panem, non ilium credit esse qui dicitur. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. See Bingham, L. xv. c. 4. sect. 13. This practice, having given occasion to abuses, was forbidden. See the sixth Rubric after the Communion Service. Dr. Neander thinks that this custom gave rise to the practice of administering the Commu- nion only in one kind. He observes also that the practice of daily Communion appears in Tertullian's time to have prevailed at least in the African Church. See de Idololatria, c. 7. 7 Book xxii. c. 2. sect. 2. 8 c. 11. Qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod iis a qui- bus postulas non licet habere — ab Episcopo monogamo, a pres- byteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis quarum sectam in te recusasti ? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et uxores, quomodo buccellas (Hoc enim est apud illos Omni petenti te dabis) et con- jungent vos in Ecclesia Virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa. 431 cal Orders. They were also bound to 9 obtain the consent of their parents. ' Parties marrying clan- destinely ran the hazard of being regarded in the lioht of adulterers or fornicators. That marriage was esteemed by the Christians a strictly religious contract, is evident from a passage 2 in the second Tract ad Uxorem ; in which Tertullian expresses his inability to describe the happiness of that marriage, which is cemented by the Church, is confirmed by prayers and oblations, is sealed by a blessing, is announced by angels, and ratified by the Father in heaven. He mentions 3 also the custom of putting a ring on the finger of the female, as a part of the rites, not of marriage, but of espousal, intended as an 9 Nam nee in terris filii sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubunt. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9. 1 Ideo penes nos occultse quoque conjunctiones, id est non prius apud ecclesiam professae, juxta mcechiam, et fornicationem judicari periclitantur. De Pudicitia, c. 4. He applies a similar title to marriages contracted by Christians with Heathens. Haec quum ita sint, fideles gentilium matrimonia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. quoted in Chap. V. n. 6. p. 369. 2 See Chapter V. p. 377. Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat oblatio, et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, Pater rato habet ? c. 9. The words ecclesia conciliat may either mean, " when both the parties are Christians," or " when the sanction of the Church has been regularly obtained," or may embrace both meanings. 3 Quum aurum nulla norat prseter unico digito, quern sponsus oppignerasset pronubo annulo. Apology, c. 0. See also de Idololatria, c. 16. 432 earnest of the future marriage. He speaks of it as observed by the heathens, but in terms which imply that he deemed it perfectly innocent. In the 4 Tract de Virginibus velandis, the kiss and the joining of hands are noticed as part of the ceremony. Tertullian, as we have seen, 5 states that a Chris- tian, named Proculus, cured the emperor Severus of a disorder, by anointing him with oil. Tt may be doubted whether we ought to infer from this state- ment that a practice then subsisted in the Church, of anointing sick persons with oil, founded on the injunction in the Epistle of St. James. This, how- ever, is certain, that the practice, if it subsisted, was directly opposed to the Romish Sacrament of extreme Unction ; which is administered, not with a view to the recovery of the patient, but when his case is hopeless. We have had frequent occasion to allude to a passage in 6 the Tract de Corona, in which Tertullian mentions a variety of customs, resting solely on the authority of tradition. Among them is the practice * Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, quia et corpore et spiritu masculo mixtae sunt, per osculum et dexteras, &c. 11. 5 Ad Scapulam, c. 4. referred to in Chap. I. p. .51. 6 c. 3. See the Scorpiace, c. 1. quoted in, n. 8. p. 89; where the practice is described as a protection or remedy against the bite of poisonous animals. 433 of making the sign of the cross upon the fore- head, which was most scrupulously observed by the primitive Christians ; they ventured not to perform the most trivial act, not even to put on their shoes until they had thus testified their entire reliance upon the cross of Christ. The 7 Pagans appear to have regarded this practice with suspicion, as a species of magical superstition. In 8 our remarks upon the testimony afforded by our author's writings to the existence of miraculous powers in the Church, we said that the only power, of the exercise of which specific instances are alleged, was that of exorcising evil spirits. 9 This power, ac- cording to him, was not confined to the Clergy or to any particular order of men, but was possessed by all Christians in common. Tertullian mentions also the practice ' of exsufrlation, or of blowing away any smoke or savour which might arise from the victims on the altar, &c. in order to escape the pollution of idolatry. 7 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. 8 Chap. II. p. 95. 9 Apology, cc. 23. 37. 43. De Anima, c. 57. De Specta- culis, c. 26. De Idololatria, c. 11. De Corona, c. 11. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10. 1 De Idololatria, c. 11. Quo ore Christianus thurarius, si per templa transibit, spumantes aras despuet, et exsufflabit, quibus ipse prospexit? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. Quum aliquid immun- dum flantis explodis. F f 434 We will conclude our observations on this branch of the Internal History of the Church, by referring the reader to a passage, in which there is an allusion to 2 the custom of publicly announcing the third, sixth, and ninth hours. We have 3 already observed that the Christians, in obedience to the Apostolic Decree, abstained from things strangled and from blood. 2 De Jejuniis, c. 10. :! Chap. ii. p. 19G. CHAPTER VII. CONCERNING THE HERESIES AND DIVISIONS WHICH TROUBLED THE CHURCH. We now come to the last, and unhappily not the least extensive, of the five branches into which Mosheim divides the Internal History of the Church — the Heresies by which its repose was troubled during the second century. But before I proceed to consider his enumeration of Christian sects, I must briefly call the reader's attention to Tertullian's Tract against the Jews. Mosheim, in ' his chapter on the Doctrine of the Church, has observed " that Justin Martyr and Tertullian embarked in a con- troversy with the Jews, which it was not possible for them to manage with the highest success and dexterity, as they were very little acquainted with the language, the history, and the learning of the 1 Century II. Part ii. c. 3. sect. 7. Ff '2 436 Hebrew?, and wrote with more levity and inaccuracy than such a subject would justify/' That Tertullian was unacquainted with the language of the Hebrews 2 may be allowed ; but thoroughly conversant as he was with the Septuagint Version of the Old Testa- ment, his knowledge of their history could be little inferior to that of the Hebrews themselves. Whe- ther, however, he was well or ill qualified to manage the controversy with them, it must be at once in- teresting and instructive to enquire in what manner the controversy was actually conducted by the early Christians. Our 3 author begins his Tract adversus Judasos with disputing the claim set up by the Jews to be considered exclusively as the people of God. In support of this claim, they alleged in the first place that they were the descendants of the younger brother Jacob, of whom it was predicted that he should rule over the elder Esau — in the second, that the Law was given to them by Moses. Tertullian contends on the contrary that the Christians, inas- much as they were posterior in time to the Jews, were in fact the descendants of the younger brother : and with respect to the Law he observes that mankind never were without a law. God gave 2 We have observed that Tertullian sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. Chap. I. n. 1. p. 61. 3 cc. 1, 2. See Genesis xxv. 23. 437 Adam a law, 4 in which were contained all the precepts of the decalogue. Moreover, the written law of Moses was nothing more than a repetition of the natural unwritten law ; by obeying which the patriarchs gained the favour of God, although they neither kept the Jewish sabbath nor practised the Jewish rite of circumcision. Hence, 5 proceeds Tertullian, it is evident that circumcision does not confer, as the Jews pretend, an exclusive title to the favour of God. Abraham himself pleased God, before he was circumcised. Carnal circumcision was designed as a mark, by which the Jews might be distinguished from other nations in all ages — but particularly in these latter days, when the heavy judgments 6 predicted by the prophets have fallen upon them. We may also collect with certainty, from the prophetic writings, that carnal circumcision was not intended to be of perpetual observance. 7 Jeremiah speaks of a spiritual circumcision, as well as of a new covenant which God was to give to his people. 4 Tertullian points out the manner in which our first parents violated each of the commandments of the decalogue by eating the forbidden fruit, c. 2. See Chapter V. p. 311. 5 c. 3. 6 Tertullian supposes the prediction in Isaiah i. 7, to have referred to the edict of Adrian, by which the Jews were prevented from setting foot in Jerusalem. 7 c. iv. ver. 3. 438 In like manner 8 the observance of the sabbath was not designed to be perpetual. The Jews indeed say that God sanctified the seventh day from the creation of the world, because on that day he rested from his work. But the sanctification spoken of applies to an eternal, not a temporal sabbath. For what evidence can be produced that either Adam, or Abel, or Enoch, or Noah, or Abraham, kept the sabbath ? It 9 is evident, therefore, that the circum- cision, the sabbath, and the sacrifices appointed under the Mosaic dispensation were intended to subsist only until a new lawgiver should arise, who was to introduce a spiritual circumcision, a spiritual sabbath, and spiritual sacrifices. Having thus shewn that the Mosaic dispensation was not designed to be perpetual, but preparatory to another system, ' Tertullian says that the great point to be ascertained is, whether the exalted personage, pointed out by the prophets as the giver of a new law — as enjoining a spiritual sabbath and spiritual sacrifices — as the eternal ruler of an eternal kingdom — had yet appeared on earth. " Now it is certain that Jesus, whom we affirm to be the promised law- giver, has promulgated a new law: and that the predictions respecting the Messiah have been ac- complished in him, Compare, for instance, 2 the 8 c. 4. 9 cc. 5, 6. ' c. 7. 2 The prophecy particularly selected by Tertullian, is from 439 prophecies of the Old Testament, which describe the wide extent of the Messiah's kingdom, with the actual diffusion of Christianity at the present moment. Nations, which the Roman arms have never yet subdued, have submitted themselves to the dominion of Jesus and received the Gospel." " But," 3 proceeds our author, "there is in the pro- phet Daniel an express prediction of the time when the Messiah was to appear." The numerical errors which have crept into Tertullian's text, joined to his gross ignorance of chronology, render it impossible to unravel the difficulties in which his calculation of the Seventy Weeks is involved. But the principles of the calculation are, that the commencement of the Seventy Weeks is to be dated from the first year of Darius, in which Daniel states that he saw the vision — that sixty-two weeks and half a week were completed in the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus when Christ was born — and that the remaining seven weeks and half a week were com- pleted in the first year of Vespasian, when the Jews were reduced beneath the Roman yoke. I need scarcely observe that none of the above principles are admitted by the learned men of modern times, Isaiah adv. 1. But between his version of the passage and that given in our English Bibles, there are important differences : in our translation it seems to apply exclusively to Cyrus. 3 c. 8. 440 who have endeavoured to elucidate the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. Tertullian 4 goes on to shew that the prophecies of the Old Testament, which foretold the birth of the Messiah, were accomplished in Jesus. Thus it was predicted by 5 Isaiah that he should be born of a Virgin — that his name should be called Emmanuel — and that, before he was able to pronounce the names of his father and mother, he should take of the riches of Damascus, and of the spoils of Samaria, from the king of Assyria. The Jews on the contrary affirmed that no part of this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. He was neither called Emmanuel, nor did he take of the spoils of Damascus and Samaria. They affirmed also that the Hebrew word, which we translate " Virgin," ought to be translated " a young female." To these objections our author replies, that as the divine and human natures were united in Christ, he was not merely called, but actually was Emmanuel, that is, God with us : — and that with respect to the spoils of Damascus and Samaria, the Jews were misled by their preconceived notions that the Messiah was to be a warlike prince and con- queror ; whereas the words of the prophet were * c. 9. 5 Tertullian here connects, as Justin Martyr had done before him, Isaiah viii. 14. with vii. 4. and gives a similar explanation of the pasaage. See the dialogue with Trypho, Part II. p. 303. A. p. 310. C. 441 accomplished, when the Magi brought to the infant Jesus their offerings of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh — the peculiar produce of Arabia and the East. Tertullian admits that, in the Psalms and in other parts of the Old Testament, the Messiah is spoken of as a triumphant warrior ; but the expres- sions, he observes, are to be understood of spiritual triumphs, achieved over the corrupt hearts and perverse dispositions of man. With respect to the word Virgin, Tertullian observes that the prophet begins with telling Ahaz that the Lord would give him a sign ; meaning evidently that some event would take place out of the ordinary course of nature : whereas the pregnancy of a young female is an event of daily occurrence. In order, therefore, to give any consistent meaning to the prophet's words, we must suppose him to have alluded to the preg- nancy of a virgin. One of the objections urged by the Jews was, that in no part of the Old Testament was it predicted that the future deliverer should bear the name of Jesus. To this Tertullian replies, that Joshua was the type of Christ : and that when Moses changed his name from Oshea to Joshua or Jesus, because he was destined to conduct the Israelites into the earthly Canaan, it was manifestly implied that the Messiah, who was to introduce mankind into the heavenly Canaan, would also be called Jesus. Our author then 442 shews from Isaiah xi. 2. that the Messiah was to spring from the seed of David — from Isaiah liii. that he was to undergo severe humiliations and sufferings with the greatest patience — from Isaiah lviii. that he was to be a preacher of righteousness — and from Isaiah xxxv. that he was to work miracles. All these marks, by which the Messiah was to be distin- guished, were actually found in Jesus. But 6 the death of Jesus on the cross constituted, in the opinion of the Jews, the strongest argument against the belief that he was the promised Messiah. 7 It had been expressly declared, in the Mosaic law, that " he who was hanged on a tree was accursed of God." Was it then credible that God would expose the Messiah to a death so ignominious ? nor could any passage of Scripture be produced in which it was predicted that the Messiah was to die on the cross. To the former part of this objection Tertul- lian replies, that the persons, of whom Moses de- clared that they were accursed, were malefactors — men who had committed sins worthy of death. How then could the declaration be applicable to Jesus, in whose mouth was no guile, and whose life was one uninterrupted course of justice and benevolence ? With respect to the latter part of the objection, Tertullian admits that the particular mode of the 6 c. 10. 7 Deuteronomy xxi. 22. 443 Messiah's death is no where expressly predicted in the Old Tertament ; but contends that it is in many places obscurely prefigured — for instance, in the twenty-second Psalm. He then goes on to produce various passages of Scripture, in which he finds allusions to the form of the cross — allusions, which were certainly never contemplated by the sacred penman, and are so grossly extravagant that it is difficult to conceive how they could ever enter into the head of any rational being. I know not whether it will be deemed any apology for Tertullian to observe that he was not the inventor of these fancies; for it argues perhaps a more lamentable weakness of judgment to have copied, than to have invented them : most, however, if not all, are to be found in Justin Martyr. In speaking of the circumstances connected with our Saviour's Passion, Tertullian asserts that the preternatural darkness at the cruci- fixion was predicted by the 8 prophet Amos. " But not only," Continues our author, "did the prophets predict the death of the Messiah : they foretold also the dispersion of the Jewish people, and the des- truction of Jerusalem." The passages which he alleges in proof of this statement are Ezekiel viii. 12. and Deuteronomy xxviii. 64. "Here then," he says, addressing the Jews, "we find an additional proof that Jesus was the Christ : — your rejection of * c. viii. 9. 3 c. 11. 444 him has been followed by a series of the most griev- ous calamities that ever befel a nation — your holy temple has been consumed with fire, and you are forbidden to set foot upon the territory of your ancestors. l Was it not also foretold of the Messiah that the Gentiles should be his inheritance and the ends of the earth his possession / was he not described as the light of the Gentiles f and are not these predictions accomplished in the diffusion of the Gospel of Jesus through every part of the known world?" " We, 2 therefore, do not err when we affirm that the Messiah has already come. The error is yours, who still look for his coming. The 3 Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, according to the prophet. But at the present moment no one of the stock of Israel remains at Bethlehem : either, there- fore, the prophecy is already fulfilled, or its fulfilment is impossible." 4 Tertullian concludes with pointing out the source of the error of the Jews, who did not perceive that two advents of Christ were announced in Scripture — the first in humiliation, the second in glory. Fixing their thoughts exclusively on the latter, they refused to acknowledge a meek and suf- fering Saviour. Such were the arguments by which Tertullian 1 c. 12. Psalm ii. 7. Isaiah xlii. 6. 2 c. 13. 3 Micah v. 1. 4 c. 14. 445 endeavoured to shew, in opposition to the objections of the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth was the pro- mised Messiah. It appears from them that the controversy then stood precisely on the same footing on which it stands in the present day : and that the Jews of his time resorted to the same subterfuges and cavils as the modern Jews, in order to evade the force of the prophecies which, as the Christians maintained, had been fulfilled in Jesus. If we turn to Bp. Pearson, we shall find that the course, which he pursues in establishing the truth of the second 5 Article of the Creed, differs not very materially from that of our author. We notice this resem- blance for the purpose of removing, at least in part, the unfavourable impression which Mosheim's stric- tures are calculated to create against this portion of Tertullian's labours. In judging also of the Treatise adversus Judseos, we should bear in mind that it has come clown to us in a corrupt state, some 6 passages bearing evident marks of interpolation. We will conclude our remarks upon it with observing that Tertullian, when he charges the Jews with confound- ing the two advents of Christ, makes no allusion to the notion of two Messiahs — one suffering, the other triumphant; whence we are warranted in 5 See p. 76, where he shews that Joshua was a type of Christ. See also Article III. "born of the Virgin Mary," and Article IV. "was crucified." G See c. 5. and c. 14. sub fine. 446 concluding, either that he was ignorant of this device, or that it had not been resorted to in his day. To return to Mosheim. In his 7 enumeration of the heresies which divided the Church in the second century, he first mentions that which originated in a superstitious attachment to the Mosaic law. This heresy is scarcely noticed by Tertullian. There can indeed be little doubt that, after the promulgation of Adrian's edict, those Christians who had united the observance of the Mosaic ritual with the profession of the Gospel, fearful lest they should be confounded with the Jews, gradually abandoned the Jewish cere- monies — so that, in the time of Tertullian, the num- ber of 8 Judaizing Christians had become extremely small. We are now speaking of those whom Mosheim calls 9 Nazarenes — who, though they retained the Mosaic rites, believed all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. The Ebionites on the contrary, 1 who also maintained the necessity of observing the ceremonial law, rejected many essential doctrines of 7 Century II. Part ii. chap. 5. 8 See Wilson's Illustration of the method of explaining the New Testament, &c. c. 11, where he enumerates the different causes which contributed to the gradual extinction of the Judaizing Christians, or as he terms them, Christian Jews. 9 The Jews, in Tertullian's time, appear to have called Chris- tians in general by the name of Nazarenes. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 8. sub initio. Apud Hebraeos Christianos, L. iii. c. 12. ' De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c, 33 447 Christianity. They are more than once mentioned by Tertullian, who always speaks of them as having received their appellation from their founder Ebion. He did not write any express treatise against them ; but we learn from incidental notices in his works that they 2 denied the miraculous conception, and affirmed that 3 Jesus was not the Son of God, but a mere man born according to the ordinary course of nature. The next Heresies, of which Mosheim speaks, are those which he imagines to have arisen from the attempt to explain the doctrines of Christianity in a manner conformable to the dictates of the oriental phi- losophy, concerning the origin of evil. In every age, both before and since the promulgation of the Gospel, this question has been found to baffle the powers of the human understanding, and to involve in an endless maze of error all who have engaged in the unavailing research. Of this Tertullian was fully aware ; and he traces the rise of many of the heretical opinions which he 4 combats, to the curiosity of vain and presumptuous men, venturing to explore the 2 Quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Ebion resistat. De Virginibus velantlis, c. 6. 3 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. De Came Christi, cc. 14. 18. 24. 1 Unde malum, et quare ? et unde homo, et quomodo 1 et quod proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde Deus ? De Praescrip- tione Haereticorum, c. 7. 448 hidden things of God. But though he so far connects philosophy with heresy, as to style the 5 philosophers the ancestors of the Heretics ; yet neither he, nor any other of the early Fathers, appears to have thought that the Heretics derived their notions from 6 the oriental philosophy. On the contrary, 7 Tertul- lian repeatedly charges them with borrowing from Pythagoras and Plato and other Greek Philosophers. In like manner 8 Irenseus affirms that Valentinus was indebted for his succession of iEons to the Theogonies of the Greek poets. It will be said, perhaps, that the authority of the early Fathers can be of little weight in the determination of this ques- tion, on account of their ignorance of the Eastern lan- guages; and that it matters little whether the Heretics derived their opinions directly from the East ; or in- directly through the medium of Pythagoras and Plato, who are known to have imbibed the principles of their Philosophy during their residence in Egypt. 5 Haereticorum Patriarchs philosophi. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 8. De Anima, cc. 3. 23. Ipsi illi sapientiae professores, de quorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 13. See also L. v. c. 19. 6 Mosheim refers to Clemens Alexandrinus, L. vii. c. 17. p. 898. and to Cyprian, Ep. 75. But those passages only confirm his statement, that Basilides, Cerdo, and the other Heretics began to publish their opinions about the time of Adrian : respecting the Oriental origin of the opinions they are silent. 7 Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus Nauclerus, Stoicae studiosus ? ubi Valentinus, Platonicae Sectator ? De Praescriptione Haereti- corum, c. 30. 8 L. ii. c. 19. 449 The present is not a fit opportunity for enquiring into the reality of this alleged connexion between the oriental and Platonic philosophies. Our object in the above observations is merely to shew, that if any weight is to be attached to the opinions of the early Fathers, the heresies, which Mosheim calls oriental, ought rather to be denominated Grecian. Mosheim speaks of two branches, into which the oriental Heretics were divided — the Asiatic and the Egyptian branch. Elxai, whom he mentions as the head of the former, appears to have been entirely unknown to Tertullian ; nor does Mosheim himself seem to have arrived at any certain conclusion respecting this Heretic : for he doubts whether the followers of Elxai were to be numbered among the Christian or Jewish sects. Of Saturninus, whom he also mentions as a leader of the Asiatic branch, the name occurs but 9 once in our author's writings. He is there described as a disciple of Menander, who was himself a disciple of Simon Magus : and he is said to have maintained the following extraordinary doctrine respecting the origin of the human race — that man was formed by the angels, an imperfect image of the Supreme Being — that he crept upon the ground like a worm in a state of utter helpless- ness and inability to stand upright, until the Supreme 9 De Anima, c. 23. Gg 450 Being mercifully animated him with the spark of life, and raised him from the earth — and that at his death this spark will bring him back to the original source of his existence. ' Of Cerdo, — whom Mos- heim also numbers among the leaders of the Asiatic sect, Tertullian only states that Marcion borrowed many notions from him. But against Marcion him- self our author expressly composed five books, in which he has entered into an elaborate examination and confutation of that Heretic's errors. From various notices scattered over Tertullian's writings we may collect 2 that Marcion was a native of Pontus — that 3 he flourished during the reign of Antoninus Pius and the pontificate of Eleutherius ; being originally in communion with the Church at Rome — that he was a man of a restless temper, fond of novelties, by the publication of which he 1 Adv. Marcionem, L. i. cc. 2, 22. sub fine. L. iii. c. 21. L. iv. c. 17. 2 De Preescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 30. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. cc. 1. 7. 19. Tertullian frequently calls Marcion Ponticus Nauclerus, because his countrymen, the natives of Pontus, were chiefly occupied in nautical pursuits, L. i. c. 18. sub fine. L. iii. c. 6. 3 Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 19. L. iv. c. 4, where it is said that Marcion in the first fervour of his faith made a donation of a sum of money to the Church, which was returned to him when he Was expelled from its communion. Some learned men doubt the story respecting Marcion's repeated ejections from the Church, and suppose that Tertullian confounded Marcion with Cerdo. Lardner's History of Heretics, c. 9. Sect. 3. 451 unsettled the faith of the weaker brethren, and was in consequence more than once ejected from the conoresration — that he afterwards became sensible of his errors, and expressed a wish to be reconciled to the Church — and that his wish was granted on condition that he should bring back with him those whom he had perverted by his doctrines. He died, however, before he was formally restored to its com- munion. Tertullian refers in confirmation of some parts of this statement to a certain 4 letter of Mar- cion, the genuineness of which appears to have been questioned by his followers. 5 Marcion, like many other Heretics, was betrayed into his errors and ex- travagances, by the desire of framing a system, which would reconcile the existence of evil in the universe with the perfect power and wisdom and goodness of the Supreme Being. But the precise nature of his opinions will be best understood from a brief analysis of the five books written by our author against them, and still extant amongst his works. Tertullian had previously written two works in 4 Sicut et ipse confiterisin quadam epistola: et tui nonnegant, et nostri probant. De Came Christi, c. 2. But in the fourth book against Marcion, c. 4, we find the following sentence. Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius ? quid si nee epistolam agno- verint ? 5 Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime haeretici) circa mali quaestionem, Unde malum ? Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 2. Gg2 452 refutation of Marcion's doctrines. e The first was a hurried composition, the defects of which he intended to supply by a second and more perfect treatise. Of the latter a copy was obtained by a person, who, having afterwards embraced the opinions of Marcion, published it in a very inaccurate form. Our author was in consequence obliged in self-defence to com- pose the five books, of which we shall now proceed to give an account. After 7 an Exordium — in which he abuses not only Marcion but also the Pontus Euxinus, because that heretic happened to be born upon its shores — Tertullian 8 proceeds to say that Marcion held the doctrine of two Gods, the one the author of evil, who created the world ; the other a deity of pure benevolence, who was 9 unknown to mankind until revealed by Christ. In ' confutation of this doctrine, G Primum opusculum, quasi properatum, pleniore postea com- positione rescideram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis suft'ec- tam fraude tunc fratris, dehinc apostatse, amisi, qui forte descrip- serat quaedam mendosissime, et exhibuit frequentiae. Emenda- tionis necessitas facta est, &c. L. i. c. 1. 7 c. 1. 8 c. 3. See also cc. 6. 15. Tertullian supposes Marcion to have adopted this notion of a God of pure benevolence from the Stoics. Inde Marcionis Deus melior, de tranquillitate, a Stoicis venerat. De Prsescriptionibus Haereticorum, c. 7. 9 He was unknown also to the Demiurge, c. 11. See L. 2. c. 26. L. 3. c. 22. 1 c. 3. Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, id definio quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet, Deum summum 453 Tertullian first observes, that in the definition of God are comprised the ideas of Supreme power, Eternal duration, and Self-existence. The unity of the Deity is a necessary consequence from this defi- nition, since the supposition of two Supreme Beings involves a contradiction in terms. Nor 2 can this conclusion be evaded by a reference to worldly monarchs, who are as numerous as the kingdoms into which the earth is divided, each being supreme in his own dominions. We cannot thus argue from man to God. Two Deities, in every respect equal, are in fact only one Deity : — 3 nor, if you introduce two, can any satisfactory reason be assigned why you may not with Valentinus introduce thirty. 4 Should Marcion reply that he does not assert the perfect equality of his two Deities, he would by that very reply give up the point in dispute. He would admit that the inferior of the two is not strictly entitled to the name of God, since he does not possess the attributes of the Godhead; and that the name is applied to him only in the subordinate sense, in which we find it occasionally used in Scrip- ture. esse magnum, in seternitate constitutum, innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine. See also c. 7- 2 c. 4. Tertullian ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one Supreme Power ; but the universe is God's kingdom ; there is, therefore, only one Supreme Power in the universe. ? c. 5. 4 cc. G, 7. 454 " How absurd," proceeds Tertullian, addressing the Marcionites, " is the notion that, during the whole interval between the creation and the coming of Christ, the Supreme Being should have remained utterly unknown ; while the inferior Deity, the Demiurge, received the undivided homage of man- kind ! 5 It would surely be more reasonable to assign the superiority to that Being who had mani- fested his power in the works of Creation, than to him who had not even afforded any evidence of his existence. But 6 in order to evade the force of this argument, you affect to despise the world in which you live ; and notwithstanding the innumerable in- stances of skill and contrivance which it exhibits on every side, you represent it as altogether unworthy to be regarded as the work of the Supreme Being. Yet Christ, whom you suppose to have been sent to deliver man from the dominion of the Demiurge, has been content to allow the use of the elements and productions of this vile world, even in the Sacra- ments which he has instituted — of water, and oil, and milk, and honey in Baptism, and of bread in the Eucharist. Nay you yourselves also, with unac- countable inconsistency, have recourse to them for sustenance and enjoyment. How 7 moreover do you account for the fact that, notwithstanding two hundred years have elapsed since the birth of Christ, 5 cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. 6 cc. 13, 14. 7 c. 15. 455 the old world — the work of the Demiurge — still continues to subsist ; and has not been superseded by a new creation proceeding from the Supreme Being, whom you suppose to have been revealed in Christ?" Tertullian here states incidentally that, 8 according to Marcion, the world was created by the Demiurge out of pre- existent matter. In answer to our author's last question, 9 the Marcionites appear to have affirmed that, as the Supreme Being was invisible, so also were his works ; and that the deliverance of man from the dominion of the Demiurge was an incontestable manifestation of his power. ' " Why then," rejoins Tertullian, " was the deliverance so long delayed ? Why was man left, during the whole interval between the creation and Christ's advent, under the power of a malignant deity ? 2 And in what manner was the Supreme Deity at last revealed? We admit two modes of arriving at the knowledge of God — by his works, and by express revelation. But the Supreme Deity could not be known by his works ; inasmuch as the visible world in which we live was not made by him, but by the Demiurge. You 3 will, therefore, answer, that he was made known by 8 Sed ex materia et ille fecisse debebit, eadem ratione occurrente illi quoque Deo, quae opponeretur Creatori, ut aeque Deo. Com- pare L. v. c. 19. 9 c. 16. ' c. 17. 2 c. 18. s c. 19. Compare c. 15. 456 express revelation : ' in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Christ Jesus, a Spirit of health (Spiritus salutaris), condescended to come down from heaven.' How then happened it that the purpose of his coming was still kept secret from mankind ? that the full disclosure of the truth was reserved 4 till the reign of Antoninus Pius, when Marcion first began to teach that the God revealed by Christ was a different God from the Creator; and that the Law and the Gospel were at variance with each other?" Marcion 5 appears to have appealed, in confirma- tion of his opinions, to the dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter, respecting the observance of the Ceremonial Law ; and to have argued that the part then taken by the former, in denying the necessity of any such observance, implied a conviction in his mind that there was an opposition between the Law and the Gospel. To this argument Tertullian an- swers, that the inference is incorrect ; since in the Old Testament, which according- to Marcion was a revelation from the Demiurge, the cessation of the Ceremonial Law, and the introduction of a more spiritual system, are clearly predicted. " But," 6 he * Tertullian places an interval of 115 years and 6| months between Tiberius and Antoninus Pius. s c. '20. G c. 21. See Chap. V. p. 277. 457 adds, " if St. Paul had known that Christ came for the purpose of revealing a God distinct from the Creator, that fact alone would have been decisive as to the abolition of the Ceremonial Law; and he would have spared himself the unnecessary trouble of proving that it was no longer obligatory. The real difficulty with which the Apostle had to contend arose from the fact, that the Law and the Gospel proceeded from the same God; since it thence be- came necessary to explain why observances, which God had himself enjoined under the former, were no longer to be deemed obligatory under the latter." — Our author 7 then urges the agreement of all the Churches, which traced their descent from the Apostles, in the belief that Christ was sent by the Creator of this world, as a proof of the truth of that belief. Tertullian 8 lastly contends, that Marcion's system does not even accomplish the main object which its author had in view — it does not establish the pure benevolence of his supposed Supreme Being. " For how," he asks, " can the goodness of that Being be reconciled with the supposition that a malignant Deity was so long permitted to hold the universe in subjection ? Goodness moreover loses its character, if it is not guided by reason and justice : but it was 7 See Chap.V. p. 276. 5 c. 22. ad fineni. 458 neither reasonable nor just in Marcion's Supreme God to invade as it were the territory of the Crea- tor, and to deprive him of the allegiance of man — his creature and subject. At best, the goodness of Marcion's God is imperfect : — it neither saves the whole human race, nor even a single individual, fully and completely ; since, according to Marcion, the soul only is saved, while the body is destroyed. Yet Marcion would persuade us that his Supreme Deity is a Deity of pure benevolence and goodness ; who neither judges, nor condemns, nor punishes — but is in every respect similar to the listless and indolent gods of Epicurus. Does not then the very term goodness imply an abhorrence of evil ? and what are we to think of a goodness which either does not forbid the commission of evil, or overlooks it when committed ? Such doctrines proclaim impunity to every species of profligacy and crime ; yet with strange inconsistency 9 the Marcionites profess to believe that evil-doers will finally be punished." While, however, Tertullian asserts that the doctrines 9 Their notion seems to have been that bad men would not be punished by the Supreme God — for perfect goodness cannot punish — but would be rejected by him ; and being thus rejected, would become the prey of the fire of the Creator. Multo adhuc vanius, quum interrogati, " quid fiat peccatori cuique die illo," respondent, "abjici ilium quasi ab oculis." Nonne et hoc judicio agitur? judicaturenim abjiciendus, et utique judicio damnationis: nisi in salutem abjiciatur peccator, ut et hoc Deo optimo com- petat, c. 27. Again, in c. 28. Exitus autem illi abjecto quis ? ab igne, inquiunt, Creatoris deprehendetur. 459 of Marcion lead by necessary consequence to the en- couragement of vice, he does not appear to charge the Marcionites with actual immorality. The foregoing sketch of the first book against Marcion, will give the reader an insight into the nature of the controversy, and the mode in which Tertullian conducted it. With respect to the re- maining four Books, we shall content ourselves with merely stating the subjects discussed in each. We have seen that the object of the first Book was to expose the absurdity of maintaining that there is a Supreme Deity distinct from the Creator of the world. That of the second is to expose the futility of the reasonings by which Marcion endeavoured to prove, that the Creator of the world was not the Supreme Deity. It has been already observed, that Marcion's errors originated in a desire to reconcile the existence of evil, both in the natural and moral world, with the goodness of God. Whatever exists, exists, if not by the appointment, at least by the permission of God ; and a God of infinite power and goodness would not permit the existence of evil. Marcion could devise no better mode of solving this difficulty than by supposing the existence of two Deities — one the Creator of the world — the other the Supreme God — a God of pure and absolute benevolence. Tertullian, on the contrary, endeavours to shew, in the second Book, that the appearances of 460 evil in the world are not inconsistent with the perfect goodness of its Author. He 1 expatiates upon the folly and presumption of which a blind, imperfect being, like man, is guilty, in venturing to canvass the Divine dispensations. He 2 appeals to the proofs of the Divine goodness exhibited in the material world, in the creation of man, and in the law which was given to Adam ; the superiority of man to all other animals being evinced by the very circumstance that a law was given him, which he possessed the power either of obeying or disobeying. To the common argument, that the fall of Adam im- plied a defect either in the goodness, power, or pre- science of God, 3 Tertullian replies, that, possessing, as we do, clear and decisive evidences of the exer- cise of those attributes, we must not allow our faith to be shaken by any speculative reasoning. God made man in his own image ; man was consequently to be endowed with freedom of will : he abused that excellent gift, and fell. His fall, therefore, detracts not from the goodness of God. 4 " But why," re- joined Marcion, " endow him with a gift which God must have foreseen that he would abuse ?" " Be- cause," Tertullian answered, " his likeness to his Maker consisted partly in the freedom of his will." 1 c. 2. 2 cc. 3, 4. 3 c. 5. See the observations on the tenth Article of our Church, in Chap. V. p. 313. Compare also L. iv. c. 41. 4 cc. 6, 7, 8. 461 Without entering into any further detail of the arguments either of 5 Marcion or Tertullian, we may remark that our author is, as might be expected, far more successful in exposing the errors and inconsis- tencies of his opponent, than in solving the difficul- ties in which the question itself is involved. Not that his failure in the latter respect is to be attributed to any want of acuteness or ingenuity on his part ; but to the nature of the enquiry, which must ever baffle the powers of human reason. Having once established that the fall of Adam was the consequence of the abuse of that free-will with which he was endowed at his creation, Tertullian finds no difficulty in proving that the evil, which was introduced into the world by the fall, and still conti- nues to exist, is in no way derogatory from the goodness of God. Marcion appears to have con- tended that the denunciation and infliction of punishment were inconsistent with perfect goodness. 6 Tertullian, on the contrary, argues that justice is 5 One of Marcion's arguments is that, since it is the soul which sins in man, and the soul derives its origin from the breath of God, that is, of the Creator, sin must in some degree be ascribed to the nature of the Creator, c. 9. quoted in Chap. III. n. 1. p. 178. Something like a fallacy appears to pervade the whole of Tertullian's reasoning on this point, arising out of the double meaning of the word Bonitas, which he here employs as if it meant goodness — that is, the combination of all those excellencies which constitute a perfect moral character; whereas Marcion 462 inseparable from goodness, and that the punishment of vice is nothing' but an exercise of justice. 7 To reckon justice among the attributes of the Deity, and at the same time to affirm that the judgments which he brings upon men on account of their wickedness are at variance with his goodness, is as absurd as to admit on the one hand that the skill of the surgeon is beneficial to society, and on the other, to accuse him of cruelty because he occasionally causes his patients to suffer pain. Nor must we, when we read in Scripture of the anger, or indigna- tion, or jealousy of God, suppose that those passions exist in Him as they do in man ; unless we are also prepared to assert that He has human hands, and eyes, and feet, because those members are ascribed to Him in the Sacred Writings. 8 " Even the pre- cepts and institutions," Tertullian continues, " which Marcion produces from Scripture as proofs of the harshness and severity of the God who gave the Law, will, on examination, be found to tend directly to the benefit of man. Thus 9 the Lex Talionis was a law adapted to the character of the Jewish people, and instituted for the purpose of repressing violence and injustice. The prohibition of certain kinds of food was designed to inculcate self-restraint, and rather used the word to express kindness or benevolence, as opposed to severity, malice, &c. See c. 12. 7 c. 19. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 2. * cc. 17, 18, 19. fl Compare, L. iv. c. 16. 4G3 thereby to preserve men from the evil consequences of excess. The sacrifices and other burthensome observances of the Ceremonial Law, independently of their typical and prophetic meaning, answered the immediate purpose of preventing the Jews from being seduced into idolatry, by the splendid rites of their Heathen neighbours." One ' of the passages of Scripture urged by the Marcionites was that in which God commands the Israelites, previously to their departure from Egypt, to borrow gold and silver of the Egyptians. This Marcion termed a fraudulent command; and de- nounced it as inconsistent with every idea of good- ness. The mode in which Tertullian accounts for it is, that the Egyptians were greatly indebted to the Israelites ; and that the gold and silver which the latter obtained, constituted a very inadequate compensation for the toil and labour of the many years during which they had been detained in ser- vitude. The 2 Marcionites also objected to certain contradictions which they pretended to discover in Scripture ; for example, between the general com- mand not to perform any manner of work on the 1 c. 20. Compare L. iv. c. 24. Philo Judaeus de Mose. Tom. ii. p. 103. Ed. Mangey. 2 c 21. Tertullian's words are, jubentis arcam circumferri per dies octo. Compare L. iv. c. 12., where Rigault, however, reads septern diebus ; and we find the same reading in the Tract adv. Judaeos, c. 4. 464 sabbath, and the particular command to bear the ark round the walls of Jericho for seven successive days, one of which must necessarily have been a sabbath — between 3 the general command not to make any graven image, and the particular command to make the brazen serpent, &c. In 4 like manner, they objected to those passages, in which God is said to repent — for instance, of having made Saul king — on the ground that repentance necessarily implies previous error, either of judgment or conduct. Tertullian does not appear to have been aware of the true answer to this objection — that when we speak of the anger, repentance, jealousy of God, we merely mean to say that such effects have been produced in the course of the Divine dispensations, as would, if they were the results of human conduct, be ascribed to the operation of those passions ; and that we use the terms, because the narrowness of human concep- tions, and the imperfection of human language, furnish us with no better modes of expressing our- selves. Our 5 author notices various other inconsis- tencies which the Marcionites professed to find in the Scriptures; and concludes this part of his subject with observing, that all the reasons assigned by those Heretics, for denying that the God who created the world was the Supreme God, applied with equal force to their own imaginary Deity. ! cc. 22, 23. ! c. 24. ■ c. 25. ad finem. 465 Having thus proved, as he thinks satisfactorily, that the notion of two distinct Deities, one the Creator of the world, the other Supreme, was a mere fiction, and that the former was indeed the one Supreme God, Tertullian proceeds to refute the notion that Jesus was not sent by the Creator. The mode which he adopts is, to compare the predictions in the Old Testament with the actions of Jesus as recorded in the New ; and to shew that the former were exactly accomplished in the latter. The necessary conclusion is, that Jesus must have been sent by the same Deity who spoke by the prophets under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, that is, by the Creator of the world. It can scarcely be necessary to remark that, in this part of the controversy with Marcion, our author is obliged to take precisely the same ground which I have already described him to have taken in his Treatise against the Jews. But before he enters upon the investiga- tion of particular prophecies, he makes some general observations which are not unworthy of notice. He 6 contends, for instance, that, unless the coming of Christ had been predicted, the evidence of his Divine mission would have been incomplete. The 6 L. iii. cc. 2, 3. Lardner (Tom. iv. Ed. 4to, p. 604.), in speaking of this part of Tertullian's work, accuses him of rash- ness in weakening a very strong, if not the strongest, argument for the truth of the Christian religion ; but Lardner's represen- tation scarcely does justice to our author's reasoning on the subject. See Chap. II. n. 7. p. 125. Hll 466 miracles which he performed were not, as Marcion asserted, alone sufficient to establish the point ; it was further necessary that previous intimations of his appearance and character should have been given, in order to furnish a test whereby to ascertain whether he was really the person he professed to be. The conclusion which Tertullian builds upon these premises is, that Jesus must have been sent by the Creator of the world, who foretold his coming; and not by Marcion's supposed Supreme Being, who had given no intimation whatever on the subject. 7 Our author then mentions two circumstances which ought, he says, always to be borne in mind by the reader of the Prophetic Writings — that in them future events are frequently spoken of as if they had already happened ; and that, as the language of prophecy is frequently figurative, men may be led into great errors by affixing to it too literal a meaning. His 8 next remark is, that the Marcionites, although in one respect they made common cause with the Jews — namely, by denying that the pro- phecies of the Old Testament were accomplished in Jesus of Nazareth — were on all other points directly opposed to them. For the Jews alleged the supposed disagreement between the prophecies respecting the 7 c. 5. s c. (J. 467 Messiah and the history of Jesus, as a reason for re- jecting the pretensions of the latter; whereas the Marcionites alleged it as a reason for asserting that Jesus was sent by the Supreme God — not by the God of the Old Testament. J Tertullian then pro- ceeds, almost in the same words which he has used in his Treatise against the Jews, to shew that they, as well as the Marcionites, had been betrayed into their error by not distinguishing between the two advents of Christ — the one in humiliation, the other in glory. He 2 dwells at some length on the absurd conse- quences which necessarily flow from the notion of the Marcionites, that the body of Christ was a mere phan- tasm ; and says, that the title of Anti-Christ might with greater propriety be applied to them, than to the Heretics mentioned by St. John, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. To the latter it appeared incredible that God should be made flesh ; the former further denied that God was the Creator of man or of the flesh. 3 We learn incidentally that the Marcionites denied the reality of Christ's flesh, because they felt that, if they admitted it, they should also be compelled to admit the reality of his birth, and consequently its connexion with the Demiurge, the author of the human body or flesh. The re- mainder of third Book consists principally of refer- 1 c. 7. 2 cc. 8, 9, 10. 3 c. 11. Compare L. iv. c. 19. De Carne Christi, cc. 1, 2. 3. . r ). Hh2 468 ences to the same passages in the Old Testament, which were produced in the Treatise against the Jews, in order to prove that Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the prophets. — We have 4 already noticed the inference deduced by Semler from this resemblance between the two Treatises, and assigned what seemed to us satisfactory reasons for thinking the inference unsound. Marcion 5 appears to have composed a work to which he gave the title of Antitheses, because in it he had set, as it were in opposition to each other, passages from the Old and New Testament ; intend- ing his readers to infer from the apparent disagree- ment between them, that the Law and the Gospel did not proceed from the same author. The object of Tertullian's fourth Book is to expose the weakness of this attempt. He admits that as all previous dispensations were only preparatory to the Christian, and were designed to apply to mankind when placed under very different circumstances, the Law and the Gospel could not but differ in some respects from each other. But he contends that this differ- ence had been clearly pointed out by the prophets ; 4 Chap. I. p. 81. 5 L. iv. c. 1. This work seems to have been placed by Mar- cion in the hands of his followers, for the purpose of instructing them in the principles of his system. Compare L. i. c. 19. L. ii. cc. 28, 29. L. iv. cc. 4. 6. 469 and was, therefore, an argument that the Creator, who inspired the prophets and gave the Law, gave the Gospel also. As the genuine Gospels did not suit Marcion's 6 purpose, he compiled a Gospel for himself out of that of St. Luke ; which he appears to have selected, because that Evangelist was sup- posed to have written from the preaching and under the direction of St. Paul, who had reproved St. Peter for departing from the truth of the Gospel. The conclusion which Marcion meant to draw from this circumstance was, that, in order to discover the genuine doctrines of Christianity, recourse must be had to St. Paul, in preference to other Apostles. This conclusion our author overthrows by observing, that St. Paul appears, from the Epistle to the Gala- tians, to have gone up to Jerusalem for the very purpose of ascertaining whether the doctrines which he preached coincided with those preached by Peter, and James, and John. " All 7 the Apostles," conti- 6 cc. 2, 5. Marcion does not appear to have called it St. Luke's Gospel. He cut out from it such passages as he conceived to militate against his own opinions ; such as the History of the Temptation, L. v. c. 6. See de Came Christi, c. 7. In speaking of Marcion's Gospel, Tertullian calls it Evangelium vestrum, L. iii. cap. ult. Evangelium ejus, L. iv. c. 1. See also L. iv. c. 3. L. v. c. 16. sub fine. On the subject of Marcion's Gospel, the reader will find some valuable remarks in the Introduction to Dr. Schleiermacher's work to which we have already referred. See also a learned note in the third Volume of the work of Mr. Andrews Norton, to which reference has before been made, Vol. iii. Appendix, n. C. 7 c. 3. 470 iiues Tertullian, " were equally commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel ; all, therefore, preached the genuine doctrine. Instead of setting the author- ity of St. Paul above that of the rest, Marcion ought rather to contend that the Gospels, which the orthodox use, have been adulterated, and that his alone contains the truth." With 8 respect to the Gospel of St. Luke, Marcion contended that it had been adulterated by those Judaising Christians who were anxious to establish a connexion between the Law and the Gospel ; and that he had restored it to its original integrity. Tertullian here enters into that discussion respecting the mode of ascertaining the 9 genuineness of the Sacred Scriptures, to which we referred in our observations on the sixth Article of our Church. He ' next proceeds to state the point actually in controversy, between the orthodox and the Mar- cionites, respecting Christ. According to the latter, the Christ predicted in the Old Testament had not yet appeared ; but was to come at some future s cc. 4, 5. 9 See Chap. V. p. 283. 1 Compare L. iii. c. 21. Nam etsi putes Creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero ccelestes, L. iv. c. 14. c. 35. sub fine. L. iii. c. 24. sub initio, quoted in Chap. V. n. 4. p. 247 ; whence it appears that, according to Marcion, the Jews were after death to pass to a state of enjoyment in the bosom of Abraham, L. iv. c. 34, quoted in Chap. V. n. 2. p. 249. 471 period to restore the Jews to their native land and to their ancient temporal prosperity ; whereas the Christ, whose actions are recorded in the New Tes- tament, was sent by the Supreme God to accomplish the salvation of the whole human race. " It would follow/' proceeds Tertullian, "from this statement, that there ought to be no resemblance, either in cha- racter or in the transactions of their lives, between the Christ of the Old and the Christ of the New Tes- tament. How then happens it that the latter has carried on the dispensations of the God of the Old Testament — has fulfilled His prophecies — has realised His promises — has confirmed His law — has enforced and perfected the rule of life set forth by him ?" It would be a tedious and not very edifying task to follow our author through all the quotations from Scripture, by which he endeavours to establish the exact correspondence of the actions and sayings of Christ, with those ascribed to the promised Messiah by the ancient prophets. It will be sufficient to produce a few examples of the contradictions which Marcion pretended to discover between the Old and New Testaments, and of the mode in which Tertullian accounted for them. Marcion 2 contended, for instance, that the Lex Talionis, established by Moses, was directly at variance with our Saviour's precept, that we should 2 c. 16. See p. 462. 472 offer our left cheek to him who smites us on the right. Tertullian replies that, although the Lex Talionis was suited to the temper and moral con- dition of the Israelites, and at first instituted for the purpose of repressing violence, yet in the prophetic writings we find frequent exhortations to patience under injuries. Those exhortations were inserted, in order to prepare the minds of men for that pro- hibition of all acts of retaliation and even of angry and revengeful feelings, which the Messiah, one part of whose office would be to perfect the Law, would introduce under the Gospel. Another 3 alleged instance of inconsistency was, that Moses voluntarily interfered to put an end to the quarrel between the two Israelites ; whereas Christ refused to interfere between the two brethren, one of whom appealed to him respecting the division of an inheritance. In this case Tertullian has recourse to a most unsatisfactory solution. He says that Christ's refusal was meant to convey a severe reproof of the applicant ; by insinuating that, if he were to interfere, he should probably meet with the same ungrateful treatment which Moses experienced from his countryman. A 4 third instance of contradiction urged by 3 c 28. 4 c. 34. 473 Marcion was, that, whereas Moses permitted divorce, Christ prohibited it in every case excepting that of adultery. Tertullian answers, that Christ had him- self furnished a solution of this apparent contradic- tion, when he said that from the beginning it was not so, and that Moses had granted the permission to the Jews on account of the hardness of their hearts. He, therefore, who came to take away their stony heart and to give them a heart of flesh, natu- rally curtailed the former licence, and restricted divorce to the single case of adultery. — Tertullian concludes the fourth Book with asserting that he has fully redeemed the pledge which he gave at the commencement ; having shewn that the doctrines and precepts of Christ coincided so exactly with those delivered by the Prophets — and that his miracles, sufferings, and resurrection were so clearly foretold by them — as to establish beyond controversy the fact — that their inspiration and his mission ori- ginated with the same God — the Creator of the world. We have 5 observed that Marcion compiled his Gospel principally from that of St. Luke, because that Evangelist had been the companion of St. Paul. The reason of the preference thus given to the Apo- stle of the Gentiles was his constant and strenuous J p. 46 ( J. 474 opposition to the Judaising Christians, who wished to re-impose the yoke of the Jewish ceremonies on the necks of their brethren. This opposition the Marcionites wished to construe into a direct denial of the authority of the Mosaic Law. They contend- ed also from St. Paul's assertion — that he received his appointment to the Apostolic office, not from man, but from Christ — that he alone delivered the genuine doctrines of the Gospel. The object, there- fore, of Tertullian, in the fifth Book, is to prove, with respect to St. Paul's Epistles, what he had proved in the fourth with respect to St. Luke's Gospel — that, far from being at variance, they were in perfect unison with the writings of the Old Tes- tament. He begins with 6 the Epistle to the Gala- tians ; which was written for the express purpose of confuting the error of those who thought the obser- vance of the Mosaic ritual necessary to salvation. Here he urges an argument to which we have 7 more than once alluded— that the labour bestowed by the Apostle was wholly superfluous, in case, as the Mar- cionites supposed, he had been commissioned to teach, that Christ was not sent by the God who gave the Mosaic Law. For what need was there on that supposition, to enter into a long discussion, for the purpose of proving that the Gospel had superseded the use of the Ceremonial Law, when the very fact, • c. 2. 7 Chap. V. p. 278. p. 456. 475 that they proceeded from different, or, to speak more accurately, from hostile Deities, accounted at once for the abolition of the latter? Tertullian examines in like manner the 8 two Epistles to the Corinthians, that 9 to the Romans, which he states to have been grievously mutilated by the Marcion- ites, ' the two to the Thessalonians, and those to the 2 Ephesians, 3 Colossians, and 4 Philippians. The same reasons, which prevented us from entering into any minute investigation of the quotations from the Gospels, induce us to be equally concise in our notice of the quotations from St. Paul's Epistles. The detail would be extremely tedious, and the information derived from it in no respect pro- portioned to the time which it would necessarily occupy. When we examine the opinions of Marcion, whe- ther upon points of faith or practice, we find that they all flowed by natural consequence from the leading article of his Creed — that the world was created by a Deity distinct from the Supreme Deity, out of pre-existent matter. As the flesh or body of man was the work of the Demiurge, it was held by the Marcionites in abhorrence. Hence their 5 asser- tion that Christ was neither born of the Virgin Mary s c. 5—13. 9 cc. 13, 14. ' cc. 15, 16. 2 c. 17. 3 c. 19. 4 c. 20. 5 L. iv. c. 10, sub fine. 476 nor passed through the customary stages of infancy and boyhood, but 6 descended at once from heaven, a full-grown man, in 7 appearance only, not in reality — hence 8 the opprobrious terms in which they spoke of the body, and 9 their denial of its resurrection — hence ' their aversion to marriage, which they carried to such a length, that they refused to ad- minister the rite of Baptism to a married man, or 2 to admit him to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, until he had repudiated his wife. We find in Ter- tullian no mention of that notion respecting an intermediate kind of Deity, of a mixed nature, neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil, which 8 Mosheim ascribes to Marcion. 4 Lardner thinks that the distinction which Marcion made between his two Deities, was, that the one was good, the other just ; but in the second Chapter of the first Book Tertullian expressly says, that Marcion con- ceived the Creator of the world to be the author of evil, and that he was led into that error by misinter- 6 L. iv. c. 7. sub in. c. 21. De Came Christi, cc. 1, 7. 7 L. i. cc. 11, 22. sub in. 24. L. ii. c. 28. L. iii. cc. 8, 9, 10. L. iv. cc. 8. 42. De Res. Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christi, cc. 4, 6. De Anima, c. 17. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 8 L. iii. c. 11. De Carne Christi, c. 4. 9 L. i. c. 24. L. iv. c. 37. L. v. c. 10. 1 L. i. cc. 1, 24, 29. L. iv. c. 11. L. v. c. 7. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 3. 2 L. iv. c. 34. 3 Cent. II. Part II. Chap. V. sect. 7. 4 History of Heretics, Chap. X. sect. 12. 477 preting certain passages of Scripture. The other charges brought against him by our author are, that 5 he denied the freedom of the will ; and that he c rejected some, and mutilated or corrupted other portions of Scripture. His followers 7 were charged with being addicted to astrology. Like other Heretical leaders, he 8 appears to have been attended by females, who pretended to great sanctity — a practice probably adopted in imitation of the Apostles. Mosheim speaks of Lucan, Severus, Blastus, and Apelles, as followers of Marcion, who deviated in some respects from the tenets of their master. 9 Lucan is once mentioned by Tertullian as holding the opinion, that neither the soul nor the body 5 De Anima, c. 21. De Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 38. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 1. Marcion necessarily rejected the whole of the Old Testament, as proceeding from the Demiurge. De Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 30. Tertullian mentions also his rejection of St. Matthew's Gospel, L. iv. c. 34 ; — of St. John's Gospel, de Carne Christi, c. 3; — of the Acts of the Apostles, L. v. c. 2. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 22 ; — of the Apocalypse, L. v. c. 5 ; — of the two epistles to Timothy and of that to Titus, L. v. cap. lilt, but he appears to have recognised the Epistle to Phile- mon. The reader will find in Lardner a detailed account of the alterations which Marcion made in St. Luke's Gospel, and in the ten Epistles of St. Paul which he received. History of Heretics, Chap. X. sect. 35, &c. 7 L. i. c. 18. " L. v. c. 8. sub fine. 9 De Res. Carnis, c. 2. sub fine. 478 would rise again, but a sort of third substance — an opinion which our author supposes him to have borrowed from Aristotle. The ' name of Apelles occurs frequently in Tertullian's writings. He is described as a disciple of Marcion who endeavoured to improve upon his master's doctrines ; and the 2 account given of him is, that, being unable to com- ply with Marcion's strict notions on the subject of continence, he left that Heretic and went to Alex- andria, where he met with a female named Philu- mena, who performed various magical illusions by the assistance of an evil spirit. To this woman he attached himself, and under her instruction com- posed a work called tyavzpioaziq, or Revelations. Like his master, 3 he denied the resurrection of the body, and at first 4 prohibited marriage. He 5 affirmed that the souls of men were tempted to come down from the super-celestial regions — the regions above the heavens which invest this earth — by the allure- ments offered to them by the fiery angel, the God 1 Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendator. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 17. De Came Christi, c- 6. sub in. 2 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. See also cc. 6. 10. 37. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Lardner questions the story of the incontinence of Apelles. History of Heretics, Chap. XII. sect. 3. 3 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 4 Ibid. 5 De Anima, c. 23. De Carne Christi, c. 8. De Res. Carnis, C. 5. 479 6 both of the Israelites and of the Gentiles ; who no sooner got them into his power than he surrounded them with sinful flesh. The 'distinction of sexes existed in these souls, previously to their descent upon earth ; and was from them communicated to the bodies in which they were clothed. 8 Apelles differed also from his master in admitting the reality of Christ's flesh, though he denied that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His 9 notion appears to have been, that the flesh of Christ was not given by the fiery angel or god of evil, who clothed the souls which he seduced into these lower regions with sinful flesh; but was a substance brought down originally from the stars 6 Tertullian's expression is, ab igneo Angelo, Deo Israelis et nostro. By the word nostro, I suppose Tertullian to mean that the fiery angel was not merely the God of the Jews, as some of the Heretics supposed with respect to their inferior Deity, but also of the Gentiles. But in the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 34, Tertullian speaks as if the fiery angel was the God of Israel only, Apelles Creatorem, Angelum nescio quern gloriosum superioris Dei, faceret Deum Legis et Israelis, ilium igneum affirmans. In c. 7, he traces this notion of a fiery angel to the philosophical tenets of Heraclitus. I conceive it rather to have been derived from the circumstances attending the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush. 7 De Anima, c. 36. 8 Aut admissa carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles discipulus et postea desertor ipsius. De Carne Christi, c. 1. 9 Nam et Philumena ilia magis persuasit Apelli caeterisque desertoribus Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de dementis earn mu- tuatum. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 11. See de Res. Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christi, c. 8. 480 by a certain eminent angel, who formed the world, though he afterwards ' mixed up repentance with his work. Christ's flesh, therefore, was real, but dif- ferent from human flesh. In the 2 third Book against Marcion, our author alludes to certain Here- tics, who maintained that the flesh, which the Angels assumed who are stated in Scripture to have appeared in human shapes, was not human flesh. Pamelius supposes that the Heretics here alluded to were the disciples of Apelles. Of Severus and Blastus there is no mention in Tertullian's writings. The next Heretics in Mosheim's catalogue are Bardesanes and Tatian. The former is not even named by Tertullian : of the 3 latter we have already spoken. From the Oriental, Mosheim proceeds to what he terms the Egyptian branch of the Gnostics. In this branch he assigns the first place to Basilides ; who is mentioned once, and only once, by our author, in 1 Tertullian's words are, Angelum quendam inclytum nominant, qui mundum hunc instituerit, et instituto eo pcenitentiam admis- cuerit. De Carne Christi, c. 8. Semler for admiscuerit reads admiserit. If admiscuerit is the true reading, I should conjecture the meaning to be, that this Angel either did not or could not create a perfect world ; but introduced into it many things, which he afterwards wished to alter. 2 c. 9. Pamelius refers to the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 6. :i Chap IV. p. 244. 481 the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis. He is there stated to have agreed with Marcion in denying the reality of Christ's flesh. Mosheim, however, contends that this opinion is unjustly ascribed to him 4 , though probably held by some of his followers. We come next to Carpoerates, who is twice men- tioned by Tertullian, in the Treatise de Anima. In one 5 place he is said to have maintained that his own soul and the souls of his followers were derived from a heavenly power, who looked down, as it were from an eminence, upon all the powers of this lower world. He conceived, therefore, both himself and them to be entirely on a level with Christ and the Apostles. In the 6 other place, he is accused of holding the doctrine of the metempsychosis ; on the ground that the soul must perform all the acts to which it was originally destined, before it can attain to a state of rest. In support of this notion he quoted the words of our Saviour, Verily thou shall not depart thence, until thou hast paid the utter- most farthing. Tertullian remarks incidentally, that 1 c. 2. Lardner also thinks that there is reason for doubting whether Basilides denied the reality of Christ's flesh. History of Heretics, Chapter II. sect 6. 5 c. 23. " c. 35. See Lardner, History of Heretics, Chap. III. sect. 11, where he assigns reasons for doubting the truth of many of the charges against the Carpocratians. i i 482 Carpocrates believed nothing to be evil in itself; good and evil depending entirely on opinion. Tertullian wrote a Treatise expressly against the Valentinians. He 7 speaks of them as a very numerous sect, and ascribes their popularity to the fables with which their theology abounded, and to the air of mystery which they threw around their doctrines. He 8 says that their founder, Va- lentinus, was a man of ability and eloquence, and flourished in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Being offended because the claim of another to a vacant see was preferred to his own, he quitted the Church in disgust ; and formed a system, not indeed entirely new, but founded in some measure upon opinions previously current. Of 9 this system, Tertullian's Treatise is a concise account ; taken as he admits, from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and Proculus, whom he calls contemporaries of the Heresiarchs. It is in fact little more than a trans- lation of the first book of the work of Irenoeus, against the Gnostics. The whole system is so replete with absurdity, that we should be disposed to pass it over without notice, were not the examination of it necessary to the completion of our plan ; which is, 7 Adv. Valentinianos, c. 1. 8 c. 4. Compare de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 29, 30. 9 cc. 5, 6. 483 to place before the reader all the information, sup- plied by our author's writings, respecting the history of the Church in his day. Valentinus, ' then, supposed a God, self-existent, infinite, invisible, eternal, who dwelt in the very highest regions, living in a state of imperturbable tranquillity, like the gods of Epicurus. To this God he gave the names of aluv i-eAaoc;, Trpoapy^rj, apyr), and, with somewhat of inconsistency, fivQoq. This Deity, however, was not alone, but had with or rather within him another Being to whom the names of ewoia, x"P tc ' ffl 7^ were assigned. From the latter, who appears to have been considered as a female, and to have been impregnated by the Sovereign Deity, sprang 2 vovg, who was in every respect like and equal to his Father, and alone capable of com- prehending his Father's greatness. He was regarded as the beginning or origin of all things, and even distinguished by the appellation of Father. He was also called 3 ju° vo 7 £v1 k> or only-begotten; not- withstanding that at the same time with him was born a female iEon, called aX^Beia, or truth. The above four, fivdog, oiyrj, vovc, and aXrjBua, constituted 1 c. 7. See adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 5. 2 In the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. Tertul- lian translates the word vovg by the Latin sensus. 3 Tertullian says that he should rather have been called Trpwro- yeviiQ, or first-begotten. Compare de Anima, c. 12. ii 2 484 the first Tetras or Quaternion, from which the re- maining iEons were derived. For from vovg sprang \6yog and lav, the word and life ; and from them again avQpuTrog and ekkAtj<7ui, man and the Church. The last four, added to the first-mentioned four, constituted the 4 oydoag. 5 Again, from Xo-yoc and l(or\ were derived ten : — fivdoq (a second of the name, unless we ought rather to read fivQiog) and jui'£ig, ayiwctTOQ and evkioig, avrotyvric; and nSovrj, aKivr]TOQ and avyKpaaig, juovo-yevrjc (a second of the name) and /ita/capia. From avOpwwog and tK/cAWa were derived twelve : — Trapa/cXrjToc and ttiotiq, warpiKoc; and bXttiq, /.irirpiKoq and ayairr), 6 alvoq and avvtaiq, £KK\rjaiaaTiKOQ and fMKapioTVQ, 7 0£ArjToc and (to^iV In forming these pairs of iEons, it was evidently the intention of Va- lentinus to couple together a male and a female iEon ; a masculine being regularly joined to a feminine noun. 8 Tertullian, therefore, retains the Greek nouns ; lest, in translating them into Latin, the distinction should disappear. We have now reached the number of thirty iEons, which consti- tuted what Valentinus called the irXnpuy/Aa, the fulness of the celestial body. 4 Ideo ogdoas nos non creat. De Anima, c. 37- 5 c. 8. Compare Irenseus, L. i. c. 1. In the Scorpiace, c. 10, we find the name afidoKavToq among the jEons of Valentinus. Irenseus has aeivovg. 7 In several instances we find ^iX/jroc instead of deXrjrug, pro- bably by the mistake of the transcriber. 8 c. G. 485 To vovq 9 alone, among the derived iEons, was imparted the full knowledge of the Supreme God. He would have communicated it to the rest; but his mother, myn, interposed to prevent the commu- nication. They, in consequence, pined with the secret desire of being admitted to the knowledge of the Father. This desire at length became so violent in aoty'ia, the youngest of the family of the iEons, that she would have been destroyed by its very intensity, and thus one of the members of the Pleroma would have been lost, had she not been preserved by opoq, who was sent forth from the Father for this very purpose at the request of vovg. The various emotions, however, by which ia — and which Valentinus called sometimes evOv/xrimQ, sometimes 5 Achamoth — was driven from the Pleroma into the outer regions of darkness, where she remained like an abortion, shapeless and imperfect. In this state Christ, at the suggestion of opoc, regarded her with an eye of pity, and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit gave her a form. She retained in her new condition some savour of her former incorruption ; and sensible of her fall sought to be re-admitted to the regions of light, but was prevented by opog. In consequence of her disappointment, she was assailed by those evils which before afflicted her parent, aofy'ia — fear, grief, and ignorance. To these was now added the desire of conversion to Christ who gave her life. From her various emotions and affections, arose 6 all the substances in this material world. From her desire of conversion, arose every living soul, even that of the Demiurge, the God of mankind. From her grief and tears the element of water — from her fear the corporeal elements — from 5 Tertullianus, c. 14, hoc nomen ininterpretabile vocat, et raox addit, Achamoth unde, adhuc quceritur. Feuardentius vero recte deducit a HE^n Sapientia. Irenseus. Ed. Grabe, p. 19. t ; x note 3. 6 c. 15. The reader will observe that whatever took place without the Pleroma was, as it were, a copy of what took place within it. Thus the formation of matter, here described, corre- sponds to the formation of matter, within the Pleroma, mentioned in cc. 9, 10. See c. 23. 488 her smile, which was caused by the recollection of having seen Christ, light. 7 In the extremity of her distress she at length had recourse to prayer to Christ ; who sent to her the Saviour Jesus, with his train of attendant angels. 8 The ecstasy, into which she was thrown by their appearance, caused her to produce three different kinds of existences — mate- rial, animal, and spiritual. Out 9 of the animal she formed the Demiurge, called also by the Valentinians ^i7rpo7raTu>|0, and king. The name of Father, which is included in jurjTjoo7rarwp, was applied to him in the case of animal substances, which they placed on the right ; that of Demiurge in the case of material substances, which they placed on the left ; and that of King indifferently, in both cases. The 'Demiurge created this visible world. To - the devil, Valentinus gave the name of KoafxoKpaTup or Munditenens, and appeared in some respects to place him above the Demiurge ; because the latter was only animal, the former spiritual. The 3 Demiurge created man, not out of the dust of the earth, but out of some peculiar matter which 7 c. 16. 8 c. 17. De Anima, c. 21. 9 c. 18. See de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, cc. 7, 34. The name ^rpowarwp was applied to him, because he was merely the agent of his mother in creating the visible world. 1 c. 20. ■ c. 22. 3 c. 24. 489 he animated with his breath ; so that man was both material and animal. 4 The Demiurge afterwards drew over him a covering of flesh. Moreover, at the time when the breath of life was breathed into him, a portion of the spiritual seed, which Acha- moth retained, was also communicated. To this spiritual seed was given the appellation of ek/cAWo, in allusion to the iEon so named, within the Pleroma. Corresponding 5 to the three kinds of substances now described, there are three kinds of men — the carnal or material who are represented by Cain, the animal who are represented by Abel, and the spiritual who are represented by Seth. The first are destined to certain perdition, the last to salvation : the final state of the second is uncertain; being determined by their greater inclination, either on the one hand to the carnal, or on the other to the spiritual. G They in whom is the spiritual seed, being assured of salvation, are exempt from all discipline, and at liberty to live and act as they please ; but the animal man is obliged to work out his salvation with care and diligence. — One 7 of the 4 c. 25. Compare de Anima, cc. 11, 23. 3 c. 26. 6 cc. 29, 30. 7 De Anima, c. 18. Tertullian remarks that the Valentinians borrowed their notion from Plato. They supposed the five foolish virgins in the parable to mean the five senses. 490 consequences which the Valentinians derived from this triple division was, that no credit can be due to the testimony of the senses; as they are to be referred to the animal part of man's nature. With 8 respect to Christ, the Valentinian doctrine was, that the Demiurge sent forth, protulit, from himself an animal Christ, who was foretold by the prophets, and passed through the body of the Virgin as through a canal — that at his Baptism the Saviour, who was before described as formed out of the most excellent qualities of all the Mons in the Pleroma, descended upon him in the shape of a clove, but quitted him when he was examined before Pilate — and thus that only the carnal and animal Christ was crucified. It does not exactly appear whence the Christ of the Demiurge obtained his flesh which 9 Valentinus supposed to be different from human flesh. We may here observe, that in agreement with this supposition the Valentinians denied the resurrection of the body. At ' the final consummation of all things, Acha- moth — who occupied the middle space in the uni- verse, immediately below the Pleroma and above this world — will be received into the Pleroma, and 8 c. 27. 9 De Carne Christi, cc. 1, 15. De Res. Carnis, c. 2. 1 cc. 31, 32. 491 become the bride of the Saviour. The Demiurge will be transferred into the vacant habitation of his mother. Those men in whom was only the material seed, will be annihilated. Those in whom was the animal seed, and who lived virtuous lives, will be carried up to the Demiurge, in the middle regions. Those, in whom was the spiritual seed, laying aside the souls which they had received from the Demiurge, will be taken up into the Pleroma, and become the brides of the angels who attend upon the Saviour. Such were the extravagant notions of Valentinus, as they are represented by Tertullian. We have aimed at expressing his meaning accurately, but are not certain that we have always succeeded in the attempt. We doubt indeed whether he himself thoroughly comprehended the system which he undertook to describe. Mosheim 2 says that some of the moderns have endeavoured to reconcile the Valentinian doctrines with reason — a more arduous or unpromising undertaking cannot well be con- ceived. The design of the Heresiarch doubtless was to account for the origin of evil ; but in executing this design he appears to have surrendered himself entirely to the guidance of his fancy. His followers, using the same liberty, changed and added to their master's notions at their own discretion ; so that, 2 Century II. Part II. Chap. V. sect. 16. note. 492 in Tertullian's day, 3 Axionicus of Antioch alone adhered strictly to the doctrines of Valentinus. 4 Ptolemy, one of his most distinguished disciples, differed from him with respect to the names, the number, and the nature of the iEons. Tertullian mentions among his followers, 5 Colarbasus, if the reading is correct ; 6 Heracleon ; 7 Secundus ; 8 Mar- cus, to whom our author gives the appellation of Magus ; 9 Theotimus, who appears to have employed himself in proposing allegorical or figurative expo- sitions of the law ; and ] Alexander, who urged as a reason for denying the reality of Christ's flesh, that if he actually assumed human flesh he must have assumed sinful flesh ; whereas St. Paul says that Christ abolished sin in the flesh. Tertullian 2 mentions certain psalms or hymns of Valentinus. He 3 says also that Valentinus did not, like Marcion, mutilate the Scriptures, but was content to pervert their 3 Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. In c. 11, Tertullian says that the divisions among the followers of Valentinus arose chiefly out of their different notions respecting Christ. See de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 42. i cc. 4. 33. 5 c. 4. 6 c. 4. 7 c. 4, and c. 31, where the system of Secundus is stated. 8 c. 4. In the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 5. Marcus is said to have maintained that the human body was the work- manship of angels. 9 c. 4. Multum circa imagines Legis Theotimus operatus est. 1 De Came Christi, c. 16. See Chap. V. n. 8. p. 253. 2 De Carne Christi, cc. 1 7. 20. 3 De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 38. 49.3 meaning. In our account of the ' Scorpiace, we stated the grounds on which the Valentinians denied that Christians were under any obligation to en- counter martyrdom. One of them, named 5 Prodicus, appears to have taken the lead in asserting this doctrine. Of the more obscure Gnostic sects enumerated by Mosheim — the Adamites, Cainites, Abelites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites — Tertullian 6 mentions only the Cainites, who according to him were Nicolaitans under another name. It 7 has been already remarked that the female, against whom the Tract de Baptismo was composed, was said to belong to this sect. From the Oriental Heresies, Mosheim proceeds to those which he allows to be of Grecian origin ; and which, according to him, principally owed their rise to the attempt to explain the Chris- tian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, upon the principles of the Grecian philosophy. To this class of Heresies he refers the tenets of Praxeas, Artemon, and Theodotus. Of Artemon and Theo- 4 Chap. I. p. 54. Chap. II. p. 141. 5 Scorpiace, cap. ult. Prodicus is mentioned again in the Tract against Praxeas, c. 3. sub fine. f> De Praescriptione Hscreticorum, c. 33. 7 Chap. I. n. 1. p. 18. 494 dolus, we find no notice in Tertullian's writings. Against Praxeas he wrote a Treatise, from which we collect, not only the opinions of that Heretic, but also his own, upon the two fundamental articles of Christian faith just mentioned. The reader will remember that the consideration of them was de- ferred till we arrived at this division of our work ; and their paramount importance must be our excuse for entering into a more detailed account of the Treatise against Praxeas, than has been given of the other Tracts against the Heretics. Praxeas, according to our 8 author, was a man of a restless temper, who had very recently come from Asia, and by false representations prevailed upon the Bishop of Rome to recal a letter, in which he had recognised the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and had recommended the Asiatic Churches to continue in communion with them. This circumstance doubtless contributed, as much as the heretical tenets of Praxeas, to excite our author's indignation against him. When, however, those tenets found their way to Carthage, they were successfully combated and to all appearance extir- pated by Tertullian himself ; the person who origi- nally taught them having delivered to the Church a written recantation. But after a time the Heresy s c. 1. Ipsa novellitas Praxese hestemi, c. 2. 495 again displayed itself; and called forth, from the pen of Tertullian, the Treatise which we are now to consider. The 9 error of Praxeas appears to have originated in anxiety to maintain the unity of God ; which, 1 he thought, could only be done by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one and the same. He contended, therefore, according to Ter- tullian, that 2 the Father himself descended into the Virgin, was born of her, suffered, and was in a word Jesus Christ. Praxeas, however, does not appear to have admitted the correctness of this account of his doctrine; but to have declared his opinion to be — 3 that the Father did not suffer in the 9 Unicum Dominum vindicat, omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, ut de unico Haeresim faciat. c. 1. 1 Dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum eundemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum dicat, c. 2. Quum eundem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum con- tendunt, adversus o'iKovofxiav Monarchise adulantes, c. 9. 2 Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum ; denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum, c. 1. 3 Ergo nee compassus est Pater Filio ; sic enim, directam blasphemiam in Patrem veriti, diminui earn hoc modo sperant, concedentes jam Patrem et Filium duos esse, si filius quidem patitur ; Pater vero compatitur, c. 29. From this passage Lardner contends that Praxeas was not a Patripassian ; and that Tertullian was mistaken in his view of that Heretic's doctrines. According to Lardner, who follows Beausobre, Praxeas distin- guished between the Word and the Son of God ; deeming the former only an attribute or faculty of the Divine nature, the communication of which to the man Jesus Christ, through 496 Son, but sympathised (compassus est) with the Son. Tertullian enters upon the refutation of the doctrines of Praxeas by setting- forth his own creed. 4 " We believe," he says, " in one God, but under the following dispensation or ceconomy — that there is also a Son of God, his Word, who 5 proceeded from him ; by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made ; who was sent by him into the Virgin, and was born of her ; being both man and God, the Son of man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ ; who suffered, died, and was buried, according to the Scriptures ; and was 6 raised again by the Father ; and was taken up into heaven, there to sit at the right hand of the Father, and his conception by the Holy Spirit, rendered him the Son of God. Credibility of Gospel History, c. 41. History of Heretics, c. 20. sect. 7. But Wilson, in his " Illustration, &c." pp. 312, 415, has satisfactorily shown that the earliest error on the subject of Christ's nature was that of those who denied, not his Divinity, but his humanity ; and that the error of Praxeas consisted in denying his distinct personality. Wilson compares Praxeas and his followers with the Swedenborgians. 4 c. 2. This passage is quoted in Chap. V. n. 4. p. 303. 5 Qui ex ipso processerit. In c. 6, Tertullian, speaking of the generation of the Son, uses the word protulit. See also c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit. And c. 19. In quo principio prolatus a Patre est. Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus et prolatione generatum. Apol. c. 21. 6 Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians i. 1. the raising of Christ is attributed to the Father. See Pearson, Article V. p. 256. 497 thence to come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent from heaven, 7 from his Father, according to his promise, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of the Faith of all, who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Such, according to Tertullian, was the faith handed down in the Church, from the first preaching of the Gospel ; a faith, which, far from destroying the unity, as Praxeas supposed, is perfectly consistent with it. "For though the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three, they are three, not in 8 condition, but in degree ; not in substance, but in form ; not in power, but in species ; being of one substance, one condition, and one power, because there is one God, from whom those degrees, forms, and species, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are derived." " The 9 simple, indeed," Tertullian proceeds, " not 7 In c. 4. the Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father through the Son. 8 Tres autem, non statu, sed gradu ; nee substantia, sed forma ; nee potestate, sed specie ; unius autem substantia?, et unius status, et unius potestatis ; quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formse et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, deputantur. c. 2. Compare c. 19. Rationem reddidi- mus qua Dii non duo dicantur, nee Domini, sed qua Pater et Films, duo : et hoc non ex separatione substantias, sed ex dispo- sition, quum individuum et inseparatum Filium a Patre pronun- tiamus ; nee statu, sed gradu alium ; qui etsi Deus dicatur quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos Deos faciat, sed unum ; hoc ipso quod et Deus ex imitate Patris vocari habeat. See also cc. 9, 21. ' J Tertullian's words are : Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim Kk 498 to call them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the doctrine of the Trinity ; thinking that it divides imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est, &c. In his controversy with Dr. Priestley, Bishop Horsley translated the word idiotce by the English word idiots, for which translation he was severely reprehended by Dr. Priestley. The Bishop afterwards explained that by the word idiot he did not mean a person labouring under a constitutional defect of the faculty of reason ; but a dull, stupid, ignorant person — a dunce or booby. Probably between the publication of his Letters and of his Supplemental Disquisitions, Bentley's animadversions upon Collins for translating ab idiotis Evangelistis, by idiot Evangelists, had occurred to his recollection. Remarks on Free-thinking, c. 33. — Wilson, p. 444. thus translates the passage : " For all the men of simplicity (alluding probably to their affectation of sim- plicity of doctrine, as well as to their ignorance), not to call them unwise and unlearned, who always form the majority of Chris- tians." We doubt whether the word Simplices was meant to convey the allusion which Wilson supposes. In the Tract against the Valentinians, c. 2. Tertullian says that they called the orthodox Simplices, and themselves Sapientes. See also c. 3. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. vel convertere simplices quosque ges- titis. Scorpiace, c, 1. Nam quod sciunt multos simplices ac rudes, where the word manifestly means, simple-minded, unin- structed. But that Wilson has rightly translated the word idiotce will appear from a comparison of the following passages. Male accepit idiotes quisque, c. 9. Nee tantus ego sum ut vos allo- quar ; veruntamen et gladiatores perfectissimos non tantum magistri et praepositi sui, sed etiam idiotae et supervacue quique abhortantur de longinquo, ut saepe de ipso populo dictata suggesta profuerint. Ad Martyres, c. 1. Sed est hoc solenne perversis et idiotis (et Rigaalt) haereticis, jam et Psychicis universis. De Pudicitia, c. 16. sub fine. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello. De Testimonio Animae, c. 1. The word imperitus is used in nearly the same sense ; Secundum majorem vim imperitorum — apud gloriosissimam scilicet multitudinem Psychicorum. De Jejuniis, c. 11. 499 the Unity. We, they say, maintain the monarchy, or sole government of God. But what is the mean- ing of the word monarchy ? Sole empire : — and is it not perfectly consistent with singleness of rule that the ruler should have a ' Son, or that he should administer the government through the agency of whom he will ? When a Father associates his Son with himself in the empire, is the unity of the imperial power thereby destroyed ? The Valentini- ans, it is true, destroy the monarchy of God, because they introduce other deities, who are wholly at variance with him. The 2 Son is of the substance of the Father; he does nothing but by the will of the Father; he derives all his power from the Father, and will finally, 3 as we learn from St. Paul, restore it to the Father. How then can the doctrine of the Trinity, when thus explained, be deemed inconsistent with the sole government of God? The same reasoning is applicable in the case of the Holy Spirit." — The very circumstance, that the Scriptures speak of one who delivers power, and of another to whom it is delivered, affords in Tertullian's estimation convincing evidence of a distinction of persons in the unity of the divine nature ; yet 1 Facilius de Filio quam de Patre haesitabatur. De Praescrip- tione Hsereticorum, c. 34. Semler insinuates that this part of Tertullian's reasoning verges towards Arianism. 2 c. 4. 3 1 Cor. xv. 28. Kk2 500 1 expressions sometimes fall from him which seem at first sight to imply, that the distinction only sub- sists for the purpose of carrying on the Divine ad- ministration under the Gospel. Having removed this popular objection to the Doctrine of the Trinity, Tertullian 5 turns to the immediate question between himself and Praxeas; and says, that his object will be to enquire, whether there is a Son — who He is — and how He exists. In following Tertullian through his investigation of the first of these points, we must bear in mind the double sense of the word \6yog — which comprehends ratio and sermo, reason and speech. — " Before all things, God was alone, being his own world, and place, and universe ; alone, because nothing existed without or beyond him. 6 Yet even then he was 4 Videmus, igitur, non obesse monarchic Filium, etsi hodie apud Filium est ; quia et in suo statu est apud Filium, et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio ; ita earn nemo hoc nomine destruet, si Filium admittat, cui et traditam earn a Patre, et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat, c. 4. Compare cc. 13. 16. 5 c. 5. 6 Tertullian's words are, Caeterum ne time quidem solus ; habebat enim secum, quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius ; et ita ab ipso omnia ; quae Ratio sensus ipsius est. Compare the conclu- sion of c. 15. Sensus in this passage, according to Bull, Defen- sio Fidei Nicaenae, sect. 3. c. 10. p. 238. corresponds to the Greek word twoia. In the Tract de Praescriptione Haeretico- rum, c. 33. as was observed in n. 2. p. 483. Tertullian uses it 501 not alone ; for he had with him, within himself, his Reason, called by the Greeks Xoyog, by the Latins Sermo, though the word Ratio would be the more accurate translation, and it would be more proper to say, In the beginning Reason (Ratio) was with God, than In the beginning the Word (Sermo) was with God; since Reason is manifestly prior to the Word which it dictates. Not that this distinction is of great moment: for as God reasoned with himself, and arranged the plan of creation, he may be accu- rately said, by so doing, to have made his Reasou his Word. Thought, as we know from our own experience, is a species of internal conversation. 7 This power and disposition of the Divine intelli- gence (Divini sensus) is called also in Scripture ao(j>ia, or wisdom ; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason and Word of as synonymous with vovq. The difficulty is to reconcile this mode of explaining the generation of Word with the notion of distinct personality. The reader, however, may consult Horsley's fourth Supplemental Disquisition. There is towards the conclu- sion of c. 5. an expression on which Bull animadverts severely : — Possum itaque non temere praestruxisse, et tunc Deum, ante universitatis constitutionem, solum non fuisse, habentem in semet- ipso proinde Rationem, et in ratione Sermonem, quern secundum a se faceret agitando intra se. p. 236. 7 c. 6. Tertullian refers to Proverbs viii. 22. introducing the quotation by the words, Itaque Sophiam quoque exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam ; words which would at first sight seem to imply that the second Person in the Trinity was created: but he adds, in sensu suo scilicet condens et generans (Deus). Part of c. 7. is employed in proving the identity of the Word and Wisdom of God. Compare adv. Hermogenem, c. 20. 502 God? When, therefore, God had determined to exhibit in their different substances and forms, those things which he had planned within himself in conjunction with the Reason and Word of his wisdom, he 8 sent forth his Word — who had also in himself reason and wisdom inseparably united to him — to the end that all things might be made by him by whom they had been originally devised and planned — nay had been actually made as far as the Divine intelligence was concerned (quantum in Dei sensu) — nothing more being wanting to them, than that they should be known, and as it were fixed in their respective substances and forms. 9 Such is the perfect nativity of the Word, as he proceeds from God : formed by Him first, to devise, under the name of Wisdom ; then begotten, for the purpose of carrying into effect what had been devised." — The reader will in this passage recognise a distinction, with which the early Fathers were familiar, between the Aoyoc EvSiuforoe and the \6yog TrpotyopiKog. Ter- tullian's language would at first sight appear to imply, that the generation of the Word took place when he was sent forth to create the world ; and that his distinct personality commenced from that s Semler infers that, previously to this prolation, the Word had no distinct personality. 9 c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit: conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophiae ■ — dehinc generatus ad effect um. 503 period. It is, however, certain that our author intended to assert the distinct personality of the Xoyoe evdiaOtTOQ. One of the objections urged by Praxeas was, that the Word of God meant nothing more than the Word of his Mouth — not a distinct agent, but the emission of his voice, to which, in metaphorical language, agency was ascribed. ' " What," he asked, " do you make the Word a substance, when it is in truth a voice, a sound proceeding from the mouth ; and, as the grammarians say, an impulse given to the air, and intelligible through the hearing?" To this objection Tertullian answers, that the expressions in Scripture respecting the Word are of such a nature that they imply a Person, whom we call the Son, distinct from the Father; and that they cannot be accounted for on the supposition that they are metaphorical. Can the Word, of whom it is said that without him nothing was made that was made, be supposed to be a mere empty sound ? Can that, which is without substance, create substances ? 2 " Whatever then," concludes 1 c. 7. Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Sermo- nem, Spiritu et Sophiae traditione constructam ? Plane. And again, Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut Grammatici tradunt, aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu ? caeterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale ? 2 Quaecunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico per- sonam, et illi nomen Filii vindico ; et dum Filium agnosco, 504 Tertullian, " may be the substance of the Word, I call that substance a person, and give it the name of Son ; and while I acknowledge a Son, I maintain that he is second to the Father." Thus our author determines the first question which he proposed to discuss — whether there is a Son ? We have seen that Tertullian, in speaking of the generation of the Son, uses the words 3 protulit and procedit. He 4 thinks it, therefore, necessary to refute by anticipation the charge of introducing the Valentinian TroojSoX?), Prolation of iEons. "Their Prolation," he says, " implies an entire separation of the substance emitted — mine does not prevent its most intimate union with that from which it pro- ceeds." In order to explain his meaning, he bor- rows illustrations from natural objects. 5 The three secundum a Patre defendo. The expression, secundum a Patre, according to Semler, implies a complete separation of the Son from the Father — a separation of substance ; but whoever reads the following Chapter (8.) will be convinced that such was not Tertullian's notion. 3 Note 5. p. 496. of this Chapter. 4 c. 8. 5 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Para- cletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol radium : quoted in n. 3. p. 19. of Chap. I. Again, Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice, fructus ex frutice ; et tertius a fonte, rivus ex flumine ; et tertius a Sole, apex ex radio. I know not whether I have rightly translated the words rivus and apex. Let me take this opportunity of observing that I undertake only to state, not always to explain or compre- hend, Tertullian's notions. 505 Persons in the Trinity stand to each other in the relation of the root, the shrub, and the fruit ; of the fountain, the river, and the cut from the river: of the sun, the ray, and the terminating point of the ray. For these illustrations he professes himself in- debted to the Revelations of the Paraclete. In later times, divines have occasionally resorted to similar illustrations, for the purpose of familiarising the doctrine of the Trinity to the mind ; nor can any danger arise from the proceeding, so long as we recollect that they are illustrations, not arguments — that we must not draw conclusions from them, or think that whatever may be truly predicated of the illustration, may be predicated with equal truth of that which it was designed to illustrate. " Notwithstanding, 6 however, the intimate union which subsists between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, we must be careful," Tertullian continues, " to distinguish between their Persons." In his representations of this distinction, he sometimes uses expressions which in after-times, when controversy had introduced greater precision of language, were studiously avoided by the Orthodox. 7 Thus he 6 c 9. 7 Pater enim tota substantia est, Filius vero derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, quia Pater major me est. Semler supposes derivatio to be a translation of cnroppoia, a word which he states to have been rightly rejected by Irenaeus and others. 506 calls the Father the whole substance — the Son a derivation from or portion of the whole. In proving the distinction of persons he lays particular stress on 8 John xiv. 16. He 9 contends also that Father and Son are correlative terms, one of which implies the existence of the other: there cannot be a Father without a Son, or a Son without a Father. Conse- quently the doctrine of Praxeas, which confounds the Father and the Son, must be erroneous. To this argument Praxeas replied, that nothing is im- possible with God — that He, who could make a barren woman and even ' a Virgin bear, could make himself at once both Father and Son. In support of this assertion he quoted the first verse of Genesis, in which 2 he appears to have read, In principio Deus fecit sibi filium. Tertullian rejoins, that our business is to enquire what God has done, not to conjecture what he can do ; or to infer that, because he can produce a certain event, he has produced it. He could have given men wings ; but he has not given them. In God, will and power are the same ; what, See c. 14. pro modulo derivationis, and c. 26. Bull, Sect. 2. c. 7. p. 95. 8 " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Com- forter — even the Spirit of Truth." 9 c. 10. 1 It appears from this passage that Praxeas admitted the miraculous Conception. 2 A hint quidem et Genesin in Hebraico ita incipere, In prin- cipio Deus fecit sibi filium : Semler doubts the truth of Tertul- lian's assertion. His note is, Mirum est sic quosdam finxisse. 507 therefore, he wills not to do, that in one sense he cannot do. Tertullian 3 proceeds to say that Praxeas, in order to establish his point, ought to produce passages of Scripture, in which the absolute identity of the Father and Son is as clearly expressed, as is the distinction of Persons in the passages produced by the Orthodox. Our author then alleges various passages, 4 many of them from the Old Testament ; and 5 dwells particularly on Genesis i. 26. — where God, when about to create man, speaks in the plural number, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." " But 6 how," asked Praxeas, " do you clear your- self of the charge of polytheism — of teaching a plurality of gods?" 7 Having first shown by copious 3 c. 1 1 . Tertullian here uses an expression which Semler con- ceives to savour of Arianism. Probare autem tam aperte debebis ex Scripturis,quamnosprobamus ilium sibiFiliumfecisse Sermonem suum. But Tertullian had before said, in speaking of the Reason and Word of God, Cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque dispo- nens Sermonem earn efficiebat, quam Sermone tractabat, c. 5. See also Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 27. Sermonem ejus, quern ex semetipso proferendo filium fecit. 4 Isaiah xlii. 1. lxi. 1. Psalm ex. 1. 5 c. 12. Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus faciebat similem ? Cum Filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem ; Spiritu vero, qui erat sanctificaturus hominem ; quasi cum ministris et arbitris, ex unitate Trinitatis, loquebatur. The Jews supposed the Almighty in this verse to speak to the Angels. 6 c. 13. 7 For instance, Tertullian refers to Psalm xlv. 7, 8. ex. 1. Isaiah xlv. 14. liii. 1. Genesis xix. 14. John i. 1. 508 quotations from Scripture that the names Deus and Dominus are applied to Christ, and consequently that the Sacred Writers may with equal justice be accused of inculcating polytheism — Tertullian an- swers, 8 that " the Orthodox never speak of two Gods or two Lords, though they affirm that each Person in the Trinity is God and Lord. The design of those passages in the Old Testament, in which two Gods or two Lords are mentioned, was to prepare the minds of men to acknowledge Christ, when he should appear, as God and Lord. But now that Christ has appeared, the necessity for using this language has ceased ; and we speak only of one God and one Lord. When, therefore, we have occasion to mention both the Father and Son, we imitate 9 St. Paul, and call the Father, God ; the Son, Lord. When to mention the Son alone, we again imitate 'St. Paul, and call him God." " If," adds Tertullian, " you require additional proof of our abhorrence of j)olytheism, you may find it in our refusal to acknow- ledge two Gods and two Lords, although by making the acknowledgment we might escape the pains of martyrdom." Tertullian 2 proceeds to argue that a distinction of Persons in the Godhead affords the only means of reconciling some apparent inconsistencies in the s Compare c. 19. 9 Romans i. 4. 1 Romans ix. 5. 3 c. 14, 509 Sacred Writings. At 3 one time God says to Moses that no man can see his face and live ; at another we read that God appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and the Prophets. These apparent contradictions can only be reconciled by supposing that it was 4 the Son who appeared. " But what," asked Praxeas, " do you gain by this supposition ? Is not the Son, who is the Word and Spirit, equally invisible with the Father? And if it was the Son who conversed with Moses, it was the face of the Son which no man could see and live : you in fact establish the identity of the Father and Son. Father and Son are only names applied to the same God ; the former, when he is invisible; the latter, when visible." " We grant," answers Tertullian, " that the Son, inasmuch as he is God and Word and Spirit, is invisible ; but he was seen by the Prophets in visions, and conversed with Moses face to face at the time of the transfiguration ; for in that event was accom- plished the 5 promise made by God to speak with Moses face to face. 6 The New Testament confirms 3 Exodus xxxiii. 13. 18. 20. 4 Compare Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. cc. 6. 9. L. iv. cc. 10. 13. L. v. c. 19. De Carne Christi, c. 6. 5 Numbers xii. 2. 6 c. 15. We have seen, Chap. I. n. 9. p. 23. that Tertullian applies to the Holy Spirit the names Christi Vicarius, Domini Vicarius. De Virginibus velandis, c. 1. In like manner he calls Christ, Vicarius Patris. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 6. Adv. Praxeam, c. 24. 510 this distinction between the Father, who was never seen; and the Son, who appeared in the early times in visions, but afterwards in the flesh. The 7 Son not only made all things, but has from the beginning con- ducted the government of this world. To Him all power was given. He it was who executed judg- ment upon mankind, by causing the deluge, and by destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. He it was who descended to converse with man, appearing to Abra- ham, the Patriarchs, and the Prophets in visions; and thus as it were 8 preparing himself for his future resi- dence on earth, when he was to assume the form and substance of man, and to become subject to human infirmities. Praxeas, on the contrary, ignorantly im- putes all these acts to the Father ; and supposes the Omnipotent, Invisible God, who dwells in light inaccessible, to have been seen by man and to have suffered thirst and hunger. 9 He makes this sup- position, because the attributes and titles of God are ascribed in Scripture to Him who appeared to man ; forgetting that those attributes and titles equally belong to the Son, though not precisely in the same manner as to the Father." Our author ] next enters upon the consideration of those passages of Scripture which were urged by 7 c. 16. 6 Compare c. 12. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 27. 9 c. 17. ' cc. 18, 19. 511 Praxeas in proof of the identity of the Father and Son. When 2 it is said, for instance, that there is one God the Father, and besides him there is no other, Ter- tullian affirms that the existence of the Son is not denied, who is indeed one God with the Father. " These," he observes, " and similar expressions were directed against the idolatry and polytheism of the Heathen ; or designed to confute by anticipation the notions of those Heretics, who feigned another God by whom Christ was sent, distinct from the Creator. The error of Praxeas arises from confining his atten- tion to those passages which favour his own opinion, and overlooking those which clearly bespeak a dis- tinction of persons, without, however, violating the unity of the Godhead." Praxeas appears to have insisted particularly on the following texts in St. John's Gospel : 3 / and my Father are one. He who has seen me has seen the Father also. I in my Father and my Father in me. "To these few texts," observes Tertullian, " he wishes to make the whole of the Old and New Testaments bend ; whereas, had he been really desirous of discovering the truth, he would have sought for such an interpretation of them as would reconcile them to the rest of Scrip- ture." Our 4 author then proceeds to show, by a minute analysis of St. John's Gospel, that the Father 2 c. 20. Isaiah xlv. 5. 3 c. 10. ver. 30. 38. and c. 14. ver. 10. 4 cc. 21. 23. 24. 512 and Son are constantly spoken of as distinct persons. With 5 respect to the first of the texts alleged by Praxeas — I and my Father are one, or, as it stood in his Latin version, Ego et Pater unum siimus — he animadverts severely upon the folly of that Heretic in urging it, who ought to have seen in the first place that two persons are mentioned Ego et Pater; in the next that the word sumus implies a plurality of per- sons. " If," he continues, " the masculine noun unus had been used in stead of theneuter unum, the passage might have afforded some countenance to the doctrine of Praxeas : — since unus might mean one with refer- ence to number; whereas unum can only imply unity of substance." — With respect to the third text, / in my Father and my Father in me, Tertul- lian's remark is, that Christ had just before referred to the miracles which he had wrought. He meant, therefore, to affirm that he possessed the same power as the Father ; that they were one as to the power of working miracles. — Our author urges incidentally, as an argument against the doctrine of Praxeas, that the Jews in his day did not look for the coming of the Father, but of a distinct person — the anointed of the Father. Tertullian comes at 6 last to those passages relating 5 c. 22. Tertullian's interpretation of the second text will be found in c. 24. c. 25. See n. 8. p. 506. 513 to the mission of the Paraclete, which, as has been already remarked, he conceived to afford decisive proof- of the distinction of persons in the Trinity. In his comment upon them, he has been supposed to allude to the celebrated verse in the first Epistle of St. John, which contains the three Heavenly witnesses. It is not my intention to engage in the general controversy respecting the genuineness of the verse; but it may be expected that I should state my opinion upon that part of the question in which Tertullian is immediately concerned. We have seen that, according to him, Praxeas confounded the Persons in the Trinity ; though, if we may judge from his mode of conducting the controversy, it turned principally upon the Persons of the Father and the Son. Praxeas 7 quoted in support of his opinion Ego et Pater unum sumus. Tertullian replied, " that verse is directly against you ; for though it declares an unity of substance in the Father and Son, it also declares a duality, if we may coin a word, of Persons." Having established his point with respect to the first and second Persons in the Trinity, Tertullian proceeds to the third. " We have seen," he says, " that the Son promised that, when he had ascended to the Father, he would ask the Father to send another Comforter ; and we 8 have seen in what sense he was called another Com- c. 22. ' c. 9. l1 514 forter. 9 Of this Comforter the Son says, He shall take of mine, as the Son himself had taken of the Father's. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes three coherent Persons one in the other; which three are one in substance, unum ; not one in number, unus ; in the same manner in which it was said, / and my Father are one" Now in case Tertullian had been acquainted with 1 John v. 7. a verse which as clearly proved, according to his own mode of reasoning, the unity of substance and distinction of Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Ego et Pater unum sumus did in the Father and Son — I would ask whether it is not contrary to all reason to suppose that he would have neglected to quote it, and chosen rather to refer his readers to the latter text (John x. 30.) and to John xvi. 14.? An attempt has, I am aware, been made to evade the force of this argument by saying that "Tertullian could not expressly quote 1 John v. 7. because it contains as just a description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that Heretic could have given. The second Person in the Trinity is there designated as the Word : and Praxeas argued that ' the Word 9 Cseterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohae- rentes, alterum ex altero ; qui tres unum sunt, non unus ; quo- modo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae uni- tatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. 1 c. 7. 515 could not mean a distinct Person, but merely a voice — a sound proceeding from the mouth." — But if this reason was sufficient to prevent Tertullian from quoting the verse, it would also have prevented him from alluding to it. It is, however, quite incredible, that any such reason should have occurred to him. 2 A considerable portion of his Tract is occupied in arguing that the Word (Sermo, not Filius) is a distinct Person from the Father ; and in proof of this position he 3 quotes from Psalm xliv. (or xlv.) Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum. Would a writer, who alleged such a passage in support of the distinct personality of the Word, be deterred, from quoting 1 John v. 7. because the name of Verbum is there given to the second Per- son in the Trinity ? In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7. furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse. It is not unworthy of remark, 2 See cc. 5, 7. 3 c. 11. Aut exhibe probationer^ quam expostulo, meae similem ; id est, sic Scripturas eundem Filium et Patrem osten- dere, quemadmodum apud nos distincte Pater et Filius demon- strantur ; distincte, inquam, non divise. Sicut ego profero dictum a Deo, Eructavit cor meum Sermonem optimum ; sic tu contra opponas alicubi dixisse Deum, Eructavit me cor meum Ser- monem optimum ; ut ipse sit et qui eructavit et quod eructavit ; et ipse qui protulerit et qui prolatus sit, si ipse est et Sermo et Deus. This argument in favour of the distinct personality of the Word, is lost in our Version, My heart is inditing of a good matter. See Porson to Travis, p. 260. l12 51G that throughout this Tract, when speaking of the Word, he uses 4 Sermo and not Verbum. To return to Tertullian's argument against Praxeas: — after 5 briefly referring to different passages in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, which prove the existence of the Son as a distinct Person from the Father, he proceeds to the two remaining questions which he proposes to discuss — Who the Son is, and how He exists? In 6 order to get rid of our author's conclusion respecting the distinction of Persons, Praxeas contended that, in the passages on which it was founded, the Son 7 meant the flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; the Father meant the Spirit, that is God, that is Christ. " Thus," observes Tertullian, "he contradicts himself: for if Jesus and Christ are different Persons, the Son and Father are different : since the Son is Jesus, and the Father Christ. Nor is this all : for he also divides the person of Christ." Here 8 our author undertakes to explain in what manner the Word was made flesh. A A great outcry was raised against Erasmus for translating \6yoQ, Sermo, in his Version of the New Testament. See his Apology de In principio erat Sermo. Opera, Tom. IX. p. 111. Ed. Lugd. Bat, 1706, and his Note on John i. 1. 5 c. 26. 6 <"• 27. 7 From this statement Lardner argues that Praxeas was not a Patvipassian ; since he believed that the Son alone suffered- History of Heretics, c. 20. sect. 7, 8. 8 See the passage, quoted in Chap. VI. n. 3. p. 428. 517 He was not transfigured into flesh, but put on flesh. Transfiguration implies the destruction of that which before existed. Neither must we suppose that the Word was so confounded with the flesh as to produce a third substance, in the same manner in which gold mixed with silver produces what is called electrum. 9 Christ was both God and man : — the Word and the flesh, that is, the divine and human natures, were united in his person, but were not confounded. Each displayed itself in its pecu- liar operations : in ' the former he worked miracles ; in the latter he hungered, thirsted, wept, was sorrow- ful even unto death, and died. 2 "If," adds Tertul- lian, " we attend only to the meaning of the word Christus, we shall perceive the absurdity of supposing that the Father and Christ are one Person. Christus means one who is anointed — anointed consequently by another ; but by whom could the Father be anointed?" "' Tertullian concludes the Treatise with observing that the doctrine of the Trinity constituted 9 Sed hsec vox carnis et animae, id est hominis, non Sermonis nee Spiritus, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est ut impassibi- lem Deum ostenderet, qui sic filium dereliquit, dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem, c. 30. The meaning seems to be, that, as man, Christ had a body and soul : as God, he had also the Spirit, which left him on the cross ; and by the loss of which he became subject to death. Compare de Came Christi, cc. 5. 17. 1 Compare c. 16. Apology, c. 21. Ostendens se esse \oy«.< Dei, &c. ' c. 28. 'c 31. 518 the great difference between the faith of a Jew and a Christian. Praxeas, therefore, by confounding the Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, carried the believer back to Judaism. After the detailed account which has been given of the Tract against Praxeas, we need scarcely observe that Tertullian maintained a real Trinity ; or, in the words of our first Article, that "in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one sub- stance, power, and eternity." 4 Semler in one of his notes affirms, that Tertullian was the earliest writer who used the words Trinitas and Persona, in speak- ing of the persons in the Godhead. He also asserts that Tertullian borrowed them from the Valentini- ans ; but this assertion is unsupported by proof. There is undoubtedly a passage in the 5 Treatise de Anima. in which he uses the word Trinitas to express the Valentinian distinction of men into three diffe- rent species, spiritual, animal, and material : but it does not, therefore, follow that he borrowed the word from the Valentinians ; for he has in 6 the very same Tract applied it to the Platonic division 4 c. 8. The word Trinitas occurs also in cc. 2. 11. 5 c. 21. Ut adhuc Trinitas Valentiniana csedatur. See also de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 7- Trinitas hominis apud Valentinum. 6 c. 16. Ecce enim tota haec Trinitas et in Domino : ratio- nale indignativum — et concupiscentivum. See Chap. III. p. 186. 519 of the soul into XoytKov, Ov/mkov, and ^ttiBv^itikov. We find also 7 in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, the expression " Trina Virtus Dei;" but it is em- ployed to denote the triple exercise of God's power, in rendering the devil subject to man — in raising the body of man from the grave — and in calling him to judgment hereafter. Our analysis of the Treatise against Praxeas further proves that the opinions of Tertullian, re- specting the Son and the Holy Ghost, essentially coincided with the doctrines of our Church. Ac- cording to him "the Son, which is the 8 Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, 9 the very and eternal God, of one substance 7 c. 28. There is a singular representation of the Trinity in the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 21. sub fine. Nam et Ecclesia pro- prie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est Trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Illaiu Ecclesiam congregat quam Dominus in tribus posuit. We have already on more than one occasion referred to the notion, adopted by Ter- tullian after he became a Montanist, that three persons constitute a Church. 8 Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. 9 Apology, c. 21. Necesse est igitur pauca de Christo, ut Deo. — Hunc (rov \6yov) ex Deo prolatum dicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum ex imitate substantias: nam et Deus Spiritus. Et quum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed sol exit in radio, quia solis est radius : nee separatur substantia, sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, ut lumen de lumine accensum— Iste igitur Dei radius, ut retro semper praedicabatur, delapsus in Vir- ginem quandam, et in utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo 5-20 with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that ' two whole and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person 2 never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ, very God and very man ; who truly suffered, was dead and buried." 3 According to him, " Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day." Lastly, according to him, " The Deo mistus. Caro Spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, affatur, docet, operatur, et Christus est. Tertullian then proceeds to describe Christ's crucifixion, his resurrection on the third day, and ascension. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. 2. c. 27. L. iii. c. 12. De Spectaculis, c. 25- We learn incidentally from the passage in the Apology that the Jews expected a mere man in the Messiah. 1 Aliter non diceretur homo Christus sine carne ; nee hominis filius sine aliquo parente homine ; sicut nee Deus sine Spiritu Dei, nee Dei filius sine Deo patre. Ita utriusque substantias census hominem et Deum exhibuit : hinc natum, inde non natum ; hinc carneum, inde spiritalem ; hinc infirmum, inde praefortem ; hinc morientem, inde viventem. De Carne Christi, c. 5. 2 I have observed nothing, in Tertullian's writings, which corresponds to the expression never to be divided. 3 Adv. Praxeam, c. 30. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Sed bene quod idem veniet de ccelis, qui est passus : idem omnibus appa- rebit, qui est resuscitatus ; et videbunt, et agnoscent, qui eum confixerunt ; utique ipsam carnem in quam saevierunt ; sine qua nee ipse esse poterit, nee agnosci. See particularly de Res. Carnis, c. 51. 521 Holy Ghost, proceeding 4 from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father, very and eternal God." But though we think that Tertullian's opinions on these points coincided in the main with the doctrines of our Church, we are far from meaning to assert that expressions may not occasionally be found which are capable of a different interpretation ; and which were carefully avoided by the Orthodox writers of later times, when the controversies re- specting the Trinity had introduced greater precision of language. Pamelius thought it necessary to put the reader on his guard against certain of these ex- pressions ; and Semler has noticed with a sort 5 of ill-natured industry every passage in the Tract 4 Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a ra- dice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio ; nihil tamen a matrice alienatur, a qua pro- prietates suas ducit. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. We have seen that in another place Tertullian speaks as if the Holy Ghost was from the Father through the Son. Quia Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium, c. 4. 5 We call it an ill-natured industry, because the true mode of ascertaining a writer's opinions is, not to fix upon particular ex- pressions, but to take the general tenor of his language. If any thing is expressly affirmed in the Tract against Praxeas, it is, that the Son is of the substance of the Father : yet Semler, finding in c. 27, this passage, Quis Deus in ea natus ? Sermo, et Spiritus qui cum Sermone de Patris voluntate natus est, makes the following remark : Sic, i. e. de Patris voluntate, Ariani, non it ovaiaQ. 522 against Praxeas, in which there is any appearance of contradiction, or which will bear a construction favourable to the Arian tenets. Bull, also, who con- ceives the language of Tertullian to be explicit and correct on the subject of the pre-existence and the consubstantiality, admits that he occasionally uses expressions at variance with the co-eternity of Christ. For instance in the 6 Tract against Hermogenes, we find the following passage : Quia et Pater Deus est, et judex Deus est ; non tamen ideo Pater et judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam nee Pater potuit esse ante Filium, nee judex ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus quum et delictum et Filius non fuit, quod Judicem et qui Patrem Deum faceret. Here it is expressly asserted that there was a time when the Son was not. Perhaps, however, a reference to the peculiar tenets of Hermogenes will enable us to account for this assertion. That Heretic affirmed, as we shall shortly have occasion to shew more in detail, that matter Mas eternal, and argued thus, " God was always God and always Lord : but the word Lord implies the existence of something over 6 c. 3. Compare c. 18. Agnoscat, ergo, Hermogenes idcirco etiam Sophiam Dei natam et conditam prsedicari, ne quid innatum et inconditum praeter solum Deum crederemus. Si enim intra Dominum, quod ex ipso et in ipso fuit, sine initio non fuit — Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata et condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponenda coepit agitari ; multo magis non capit sine initio quicquam fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit. 523 which he was Lord ; unless, therefore, we suppose the eternity of something distinct from God, it is not true that he was always Lord." Tertullian boldly answered that God was not always Lord ; and that in Scripture we do not find him called Lord, until the work of creation was completed. In like manner he contended that the titles of Judge and Father imply the existence of sin and of a Son. As therefore, there was a time when neither sin nor the Son existed, the titles of Judge and Father were not at that time applicable to God. Tertullian could scarcely mean to affirm, in direct opposition to his own statements in the 7 Tract against Praxeas, that there was ever a time when the \6yog, or Ratio, or Sermo internus, did not exist. But with respect to Wisdom and the Son, Sophia and Filius, the case is different. Tertullian assignes to both a beginning of existence : 8 Sophia was created or formed, in order to devise the plan of the universe ; and the Son was begotten, in order to carry that plan into effect. 9 Bull appears to have given an accurate 7 With respect to the Sermo externus, Tertullian speaks of a time antecedent to his emission. Nam etsi Deus nondum Ser- monem suum miserat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. 8 c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit : conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophia? — dehinc generatus ad effectum. 9 Defensio Fidei Nicsense, Sect. iii. c. 10. p. 242. Bull refers to the following passages in support of his interpretation. Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, sicut dicit, 524 representation of the matter, when he says that, according to our author, the reason and Spirit of God, being the substance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal with God : but that the titles of Word and Son were not strictly applicable until the former had been emitted to arrange, the latter begotten to execute, the work of creation. With- out, therefore, attempting to explain, much less to defend all Tertullian's expressions and reasonings, we are disposed to acquiesce in the statement given by Bull of his opinions. ' Ex quibus omnibus liquet, quam temere, ut solet, pronuntiaverit Peta- vius, Quod ad ceternitatem attinet Verbi, palam esse, Tertidlianum minime illam agnovisse. Mihi sane, Ego in Patre ; et apud Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et Sermo erat apud Deum. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. Nos etiam Ser- moni atque rationi, itemque virtuti, per quae omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam Spiritum inscribimus. Apology, c. 21. Quaecunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico Personam, et illi nomen Filii vindico. Adv. Praxeam, c. 7. To these may be added, Quia ipse quoque Sermo, ratione consistens, priorem earn ut substantiam suam ostendat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Virtute et ratione comitatum, et Spiritu fultum. Apology, c. 21. Hie Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo; sicut enim, Joanne dicente, Sermo caro factus est, Spiritum quoque intelligi- mus in nomine Sermonis ; ita et hie Sermonem quoque agnosci- mus in nomine Spiritus. Nam et Spiritus substantia est Ser- monis, et Sermo opera tio Spiritus : et duo unum sunt. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. See however adv. Hermogenem, c. 45. Non apparentis solummodo, nee adpropinquantis, sed adhibentis tantos animi sui nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiri- tum, virtutem. 1 Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 24G. 525 atque, ut arbitror, post tot apertissima testimonia a me adducta, lectori etiam meo prorsus contrarium constat ; nisi vero, quod non credo, luserit Petavius in vocabulo verbi. Nam Filium Dei, docet quidem Tertullianus Verbum sive Sermonem factum ac flenominatum fuisse ab aliquo initio : nempe 2 turn, quando ex Deo Patre exivit cum voce, Fiat Lux, ad exornandum universa. Atqui ipsam illam hypostasin, quae sermo sive verbum et Filius Dei dicitur, alternant credidisse Tertullianum, puto me abunde demonstrate. In speaking also of the Holy Ghost, Tertullian occasionally uses terms of a very ambiguous and equi- vocal character. He 3 says, for instance, that in Gen. i. 20. God addressed the Son, his Word, the second Person in the Trinity, and the third Person, the Spirit in the Word. Here the distinct personality of the Spirit is expressly asserted ; though it is difficult to reconcile the words, Spiritus in sermone, with the assertion. It is, however, certain, both from the general tenor of the Tract against Praxeas, and * from many passages in his other writings, that 2 Adv. Praxeam, c. 7. sub in. 3 Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. Imo, quia jam adhaerebat 1 11 i Filius, secunda Persona, Sermo ipsius ; et tertia, Spiritus in Sermone. 4 See for instance ad Martyres, c. 3. Bonum agnomen subituri estis, in quo agonothetes Dens vivus est ; xystarches Spiritus Sanctus ; corona aeternitas ; brabium Angelica? substan- 526 the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost formed an article of Tertullian's creed. The occasional am- biguity of his language respecting the Holy Ghost is perhaps in part to be traced to the variety of senses in which the word Spiritus is used. It is applied generally 5 to God, for God is a Spirit ; and for the same reason to the Son, who is frequently called the 6 Spirit of God, the 7 Spirit of the Creator. 8 Bull also, following Grotius, has shewn that the word Spiritus is employed by the Fathers to express the divine nature in Christ. In our 9 remarks upon the eighth Article of our Church we stated that, in treating of the Tract against Praxeas, an opportunity would present itself of ascertaining how far the opinions of Tertullian coincided with the language employed in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. That the general doctrine tiae politia in coelis, gloria in secula seculorum. Itaque epistates vester Christus Iesus. 5 Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 9. sub in. 6 De Oratione, c. 1. sub in. Dicimus enim et Filium suo nomine eatenus invisibilem, qua Sermo et Spiritus Dei. Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. See also c. 26. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. Ut Dei virtus, et Dei Spiritus, et Sermo, et Sapientia, et Ratio, et Dei Filius. Apol. c. 23. 7 Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 6. Nam quoniam in Esaia. jam tunc Christus, Sermo scilicet et Spiritus Creatoris, Joannem prae- dicarat, L. iv. c. 33. sub fine. 8 Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Sect. 1. c. 2. p. 18. 9 Chap. V. p. 306. 527 of those Creeds is contained in Tertullian's writings cannot, we think, be doubted by any one who has carefully perused them. With respect to particular expressions, ' we find that he calls the Son — God of God and Light of Light. In referring to that verse in the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which it is said that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Tertullian 2 observes that the Apostle inserted the words according to the Scriptures, for the purpose of recon- ciling men, by the authority of Scripture, to the startling declaration that the Son of God had been made subject to death. — With respect to the ex- pressions in the Athanasian Creed, we find s Tertul- lian, while he asserts the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity, careful to maintain the unity of the substance ; or, in the language of the Creed, neither to confound the persons, nor divide the substance. We find also in the 4 Tract against Hermogenes, an 1 See the passage from the Apology, quoted in n. 9. p. 519. of this Chapter, and adv. Praxeam, c. 15. Nam etsi Deus Ser- mo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo Deus. 2 Nam et Apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians Christum mortuum, adjicit secundum Scripturas, ut duritiam pronuntiationis Scripturarum auctoritate molliret, et scandalum auditori everteret. Adv. Praxeam, c. 29. 3 Ahum autem quomodo accipere debeas, jam professus sum ; personae, non substantia nomine ; ad distinctionem, non ad divisionem. Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. 4 Tertullian is arguing upon the consequences which he con- ceived to flow from the doctrines of Hermogenes respecting the eternity of matter. " That doctrine," he says, " places matter on 528 expression which, although there used without any reference to the Trinity, bears a strong resemblance to that clause in the Athanasian Creed, which declares that " in the Trinity none is afore or after other ; none is greater or less than another." The Creed speaks of the Christian verity as compelling us to acknowledge that every Person in the Trinity by himself is God and Lord, and of the Catholic religion as enforcing the unity of God. 5 Tertullian speaks of the Christian verity as proclaiming the unity. On the subject of the Incarnation, the reader who compares the 6 passages in the note with the corresponding clauses in the Creed, will be almost disposed to conclude that the framer of the Creed had Tertullian's expressions immediately in his view. a perfect equality with God." Neutrum dicimus altero esse minorem, sive majorem ; neutrum altero humiliorem, sive supe- riorem, c. 7. 5 Sed Veritas Christiana districte pronuntiavit, Deus si non unus est, non est. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 3. 6 Sed enim invenimus ilium directo et Deum et hominem expositum — certe usquequaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis, quum Deum et hominem, sine dubio secundum utramque sub- stantiam, in sua proprietate distantem ; quia neque Sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo — Videmus duplicem statum ; non confusum, sed conjunctum in una Persona, Deum et hominem Iesum. Adv. Praxeam, c. 27. See also the passage from c. 30. quoted ianote 9. p. 517, where it is said that Christ, as man, had a soul and flesh. For the inferiority of the Son in his human nature, see c. 16, referred to in n. 1. p. 517. De Carne Christi, c. 19. 529 There is, however, 7 a passage in the Tract de Carne Christi, which appears at first sight to be at variance with the following clause of the Creed, One not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh. The Here- tics, against whom Tertullian was contending, argued that " God could not possibly be converted into man so as to be born and to be embodied in the flesh ; because that which is eternal must necessarily be inconvertible. Conversion into a different state is the termination of the former state. If the God- head was converted into manhood, it was entirely lost." To this argument Tertullian replied, that " although it might be correct with respect to all other natures, it was not so with reference to the divine nature. We read in Scripture, that at differ- ent times angels were converted into the human shape, and yet did not cease to be angels. Much more then might God assume the nature of man, and yet continue to be God." Here Tertullian appears to 7 c. 3. "Sed ideo," inquis, " nego Deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut nasceretur et carne corporaretur (Rigault has operaretur) ; quia qui sine fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est. Converti enim in aliud finis est pristini. Non com- petit ergo conversio cui non competit finis." Plane natura con- vertibilium ea lege est, ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in iis ; et (ut) ita non permanendo pereant ; dum perdunt conver- tendo quod fuerunt. Sed nihil Deo par est; natura ejus ah omnium rerum conditione distat. Si ergo quae a Deo distant, aut a quibus Deus distat, quum convertuntur, amittunt quod fuerunt; ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a caeteris rebus, nisi ut contrarium obtineat ; id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit, et qualis est perseverare ? M 111 530 admit that in the mystery of the Incarnation there was a conversion of the Godhead into flesh, though he disallows the inference drawn by the Heretics from it. If, however, we compare this passage with another in the Tract against Praxeas, we shall find our author's 8 opinion, when accurately stated, to have been, that God took upon himself man- hood. The present appears to be the proper opportunity for observing that, among other appellations given by Tertullian to Christ, we find those of Persona Dei, and Spiritus Personam Dei ; the 9 former derived from Psalm iv. 6. which stands thus in the Septua- gint Version, £(7i)|UEJW0rj zv tut? T7xrr> y Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, London. COLUMP™ UNIVERSITY LII^A DATE DUE rrQ \ 8ZQ0£ Y to* 1 \j LUw» GAYLORD PRINTED IN USA COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 0038639718 93I.4 \ilOt KI8 : : US '